DOWN WITH GEORGE BUSH!!!

Thread Last Poster Posts Pages Last Post SOI in Hawaii, Sidda's group yourmaster 1  1  12-27-07  12:33 am   Start New Thread

Author Message   kingdavid Intermediate Member Username: kingdavid Post Number: 172 Registered: 9-2005 Posted From: 68.18.33.95 Posted on Monday, November 26, 2007 - 6:54 pm:        http://www.thesignsofthetimes.net/bkt.html Republicans in HELL!   the_apostolic_truth_ministries Advanced Member Username: the_apostolic_truth_ministries Post Number: 850 Registered: 10-2005 Posted From: 12.217.145.168 Posted on Tuesday, November 27, 2007 - 8:08 pm:        Just hang in there Mr. Kingdavid. Me thinks you will get your wish on Jan. 21, 2009. The U.S. as it stands today will end. The Socialist Republic will begin.   llm Advanced Member Username: llm Post Number: 562 Registered: 10-2005 Posted From: 75.43.210.9 Posted on Tuesday, November 27, 2007 - 9:56 pm:        o please!!! they are all a bunch of puppets for their handler...if they want affect foreign policy they put in an elephant, and if they want to affect domestic policy the put in a donkey. it's the devils party until the end! it has been since the garden.   hardbones Member Username: hardbones Post Number: 67 Registered: 12-2006 Posted From: 65.93.213.33 Posted on Wednesday, November 28, 2007 - 3:01 pm:        That last one is one of the more interesting comments I have read here. I agree with you completely!   llm Advanced Member Username: llm Post Number: 565 Registered: 10-2005 Posted From: 75.47.174.182 Posted on Wednesday, November 28, 2007 - 11:27 pm:        When we "elected" Bush, we got war and if we "elect" Hillary we'll get Homosexual marriages, and they'll be throwing moral preachers into jail for speaking against it from the pulpit. I thought this was a very telling episode of the Simpsons... #7: Citizen Kang Episode: "Treehouse of Horror VII" The Simpsons rarely goes for topical political humor, simply because it takes so long to produce an episode, that there's too much of a risk of the subject being obsolete by the time an episode airs. However, "Treehouse of Horror VII" went against the norm a bit with "Citizen Kang," a story focusing on Bill Clinton and Bob Dole, and their then-current rival presidential campaigns. Of course, it wasn't quite a realistic take, as the aliens (and frequent "Treehouse" players) Kang and Kodos come to Earth, and based on information from Homer, kidnap Clinton and Dole, and then impersonate them. Their plan is simple - no matter who is elected, it will be the aliens in charge. This very funny installment includes plenty of clever moments, such as when Kang finds himself getting booed by a crowd if he either completely endorses abortions or speaks out against them, only to get cheers by declaring, "Abortions for some, miniature American flags for others!" The amazing Phil Hartman also gets to take his Saturday Night Live Bill Clinton impersonation to The Simpsons, on an episode that includes Homer trying to free Clinton and Dole from a spaceship, only to accidentally kill them both by ejecting them (naked!) into space. This is bipartisan, dark comedy at its best.   pilgrim Advanced Member Username: pilgrim Post Number: 663 Registered: 9-2005 Posted From: 195.93.21.42 Posted on Thursday, November 29, 2007 - 9:49 am:        llm, You wrote,"it's the devils party until the end! it has been since the garden." I agree with you read Revelation 19:11-21 Jesus Christ himself will be the only one able to finish evil. You also said,"When we "elected" Bush, we got war and if we "elect" Hillary we'll get Homosexual marriages, and they'll be throwing moral preachers into jail for speaking against it from the pulpit." I wonder what the Americans will get if they vote for the following guy...? http://freestateblogs.net/node/2183 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XaxdUPNYj2s http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8-W-ef7GmT4 Anyway, I think that one of the things that is very important for the welfare of any nation is to keep/maintain the value of the currency that everyone in that Nation uses or is allow to use. I do not know much about the above guy(Ron Paul) so am not recommending him but it looks like he believes in a sound Monetary Policy. Although it is also true that someone could preach one thing and then when they are in power do something else. So some people wisely say "the proof of the pudding is in the eating". The most important thing is to believe and trust in Jesus Christ.   llm Advanced Member Username: llm Post Number: 567 Registered: 10-2005 Posted From: 192.76.84.196 Posted on Thursday, November 29, 2007 - 10:33 am:        If they vote for Ron Paul, they will get an ineffective idealist. You can't go back to the horse and buggy. We live in a global world now. There would be too any swarming knats around him. I would like to see someone like him become Prez, but it will never happen.   llm Advanced Member Username: llm Post Number: 568 Registered: 10-2005 Posted From: 192.76.84.195 Posted on Thursday, November 29, 2007 - 11:10 am:        Our currency is on its way out. We are headed for the AMERO. This is the first time in my life when I have seen the Canadian dollar worth more than the US dollar...You're right, only Christ can repeal the Devil's Law. Christians can help if they stop fighting amoungst themselves. What do they say? "There are no enemies beside you in the fox hole.   the_apostolic_truth_ministries Advanced Member Username: the_apostolic_truth_ministries Post Number: 867 Registered: 10-2005 Posted From: 12.217.145.168 Posted on Thursday, November 29, 2007 - 5:05 pm:        M(r)(s). llm: Quoting: "Christians can help if they stop fighting amoungst themselves." End quote. Amazingly enough, I have been a counter-cult apologist for nearly twenty-years. I have never seen two Christians fight among themselves! I have seen sheep and sheephearders exposing the wolf, but never two sheep fighting. Perhaps you could enlighten me.   llm Advanced Member Username: llm Post Number: 575 Registered: 10-2005 Posted From: 192.76.82.89 Posted on Thursday, November 29, 2007 - 5:48 pm:        Read Acts 15. There was the controversy of circumcision, and also the very sharp disagreement between Barnabas and Paul. There are also the divisions of denominationalism.   the_apostolic_truth_ministries Advanced Member Username: the_apostolic_truth_ministries Post Number: 869 Registered: 10-2005 Posted From: 12.217.145.168 Posted on Thursday, November 29, 2007 - 8:32 pm:        M(r)(s). llm: We might well debate the examples given. Unfortunately, I seriously doubt you read the scripture. The argument you point to was between the works of the law and the works of grace. Are you saved by your works? Were these people saved by their works? If not, were they really Christian as you desire? Denominationalism . . . another interesting topic or excuse. Denominationalism: Noun 1. devotion to denominational principles or interests. Denomination: Noun 1. a religious organization whose congregations are united in their adherence to its beliefs and practices. Merriam-Webster 11th Collegiate Dictionary. A religious organization is not necessarily Christian. Therefore, denominationalism is little more than an excuse to justify one's own self. As I recall the discussion, it centered on immaturity. All of St. Paul's writings on Barnabas are praises.   llm Advanced Member Username: llm Post Number: 579 Registered: 10-2005 Posted From: 75.47.174.51 Posted on Thursday, November 29, 2007 - 11:28 pm:        "Unfortunately, I seriously doubt you read the scripture." For someone who doesn't believe Christians fight or dispute, you sure have an insulting attitude. Acts 15 deals more than just grace and salvation. The gentiles were given their own set of rules that they had to abide by so don't deny the dispute: For it seemed best to the Holy Spirit, and to us, to put on you no greater burden except for these necessary things: 29 that you abstain from meat offered to idols, and from blood, and from anything strangled, and from fornication; from which keeping yourselves back, you will do well. Farewell. Denominationalism proves that Christians have differences, and there have been many disputes over them. Catholics and protestants have fought for years, and I'm sure we'll see many Catholics and Protestants in heaven. Just because Paul and Barnabas had a sharp dispute over something doesn't mean they held a grudge.   inkorrekt Senior Member Username: inkorrekt Post Number: 1120 Registered: 11-2005 Posted From: 71.33.139.45 Posted on Friday, November 30, 2007 - 4:00 am:        Yes, God's judgement (WRATH) upon us is coming. Who are we to tell God's chosen people to give away their land originally given by God to them? WOE to Condoleeeza Rice and President Bush. They never realize what we went through by appeasement of the enemies of Israel. USA will be Nuked a Big time if they continue in their foolish "PIECE BY PIECE negotiations whch will only help the Palestinians. We have heard that the terrorists have came here through the open borders in the south. The sleeper cells are waiting for the signal. Then only the PIECE mongers will realize, perhaps not. If we will be attacked it will be God's wrath upon us for working agsinst God's chosen people(Israel)   inkorrekt Senior Member Username: inkorrekt Post Number: 1121 Registered: 11-2005 Posted From: 71.33.139.45 Posted on Friday, November 30, 2007 - 4:03 am:        Democratic "SAINTS" (E.G Rapist Clinton in heaven).Will this not be wonderful!!!!!!   llm Advanced Member Username: llm Post Number: 583 Registered: 10-2005 Posted From: 75.43.212.48 Posted on Friday, November 30, 2007 - 9:37 am:        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruce_Cockburn There are some really GREAT Democratic minded saints I expect to see in heaven. Here is one of my favorites...   llm Advanced Member Username: llm Post Number: 586 Registered: 10-2005 Posted From: 192.76.82.89 Posted on Friday, November 30, 2007 - 12:56 pm:        If your equating the dispure over the Holy Land between Jews and Christians, as believers fighting amongst themselves, I would have to disagree. Some people even believe that the Khazars who inhabit the Holy Land today have no historical connection to it, or right to control it. Check out The 13th Tribe by Koestler. I thought it was interesting. http://churchoftrueisrael.com/13th-tribe/   sadtimes New member Username: sadtimes Post Number: 7 Registered: 11-2007 Posted From: 210.188.132.67 Posted on Wednesday, December 05, 2007 - 3:02 am:        We elected bush and he has gone from being a david to being a saul. This man is a liar, a fraud and a hypocrite. Bush sounds like a nice christian by the things he says, but he often twists biblical reference to fit the situation, and by his actions one can see that this man is clearly a fraudulent christian who uses the christian label to reel in unsuspecting christians. i agree that going into Afganistan was necessary, but the reasons for going into Iraq are far from being sincere and honest. bush has messed up everything from immigration, border control, war on terror, finances and economy, to his own integrity. and all those chrisitian organizations who support him are either wearing a blindfold and have no idea what they are doing, or they know perfectly well what they are doing, but choose to support this man and reject the principles of honesty, sincerity and righteousness for their own gains,,,,,,,sad times indeed. well neither hillary clinton or other candidates are any better. Heaven help us if hillary gets into office or any ot those other self serving, unscrupulous, fraudsters in the democratic and republican parties. the only person i would choose right now, not because he is righteous, but because he is the closest thing to it unfortunately; but i would vote for gulliani. yes, i know he has made some blunders and the news media and rebuplicans keep saying he supports gays and abortion....NONSENSE! LISTEN MORE CLOSELY TO WHAT HE IS SAYING he is against these things but rightly says a governnment cant force people to not have abortions or not be gay, that is not the role of government... thats the role of the church....so he has a good understanding of what is relevant and he has proved his abilities under exteme conditions before you can email a response to iskate4u@hotmail.com   bear Advanced Member Username: bear Post Number: 990 Registered: 4-2005 Posted From: 24.236.150.133 Posted on Wednesday, December 05, 2007 - 1:31 pm:        Inkkorekt, Do you have any legitimate Proof that the USA will be nuked do to our dealings with Israel? Sadtimes, How has Bush messed up on: 1. Immigration and border patrol? Could it be that he has worked for more strict enforcement of illeagals? My father came here from Mexico, and he did things correctly; he received his citizenship. 2. War on Terror? Could it be that an attack on US soil has not happened, that many have been foiled, and that the world is more alert to these sick Islamic extremist, than in the years prior to 2001? 3. Finances and the economy? Could it be that the president really does not have anything to do with the economy, and the USA is in a cycle that it has always been in? Could it be that states, such as Michigan, who has a Govenor (They have more to do with the economy than any president) who imposses a single business tax, forcing businesses to move out of state, thus causing a loss of jobs, has a more real effect? Whether you disagee, or hate the very idea, Bush will go down in history as one of the greatest leaders in History. Your great grandchildren will learn this in school.   easeltine Senior Member Username: easeltine Post Number: 1637 Registered: 5-2005 Posted From: 72.164.43.195 Posted on Wednesday, December 05, 2007 - 2:24 pm:        Bear, I agree with your Post. What hasn't been spoken about in any of the above posts that I can see, except your point #2, is 911 in the equation. Islamic Terrorism changed the perspective for the Bush Administration. One should respect the President's stubbornness regarding the war. Actually, the rules of engagement should have been more violent and forced the conclusion to these wars quicker. The U.S. is trying to save as many soldier's lives as possible, and if we had not been so politically correct the war may have ended now. Though, it looks like to me that it should end now, and let the Iraqi's handle their situation.   ba2 Senior Member Username: ba2 Post Number: 1131 Registered: 1-2006 Posted From: 165.189.16.117 Posted on Wednesday, December 05, 2007 - 4:25 pm:        1. Immigration and border patrol? The estimate is 10-20 million illegals in the US right now. The numbers are increasing each year. Rather than reducing the numbers, they have been increasing over the past number of years. If there is a real desire to reduce illegal border crossings, there doesn’t seem to be much affect. Could it be that closing the borders and/or providing legal work permits would force businesses to pay higher wages and provide benefits? Could it be that there is a business interest in keeping the borders open so that illegals can be hired on the cheap? Could it be? 2. War on Terror? Could it be that until 911 we have never had a terrorist attack on US soil, at least not from a foreign citizen? Could it be that 911 was the only time in US history that the administration fell asleep when warned about potential terrorist attacks? Could it be that the world supported us in our move into Afghanistan but were aghast at our move into Iraq, moving us in a few short months to be seen worldwide as one of the most dangerous countries in the world? Could it be that the world was fully supportive of the US and was finally ready to do something about terrorism, until we “changed the course” and went into Iraq? Could it be that the real culprit of 911 was trapped but got away because of our losing sight of our goal? What happened to Osama anyway? Could it be that the recently-released U.S. intelligence report slipped out because of a fear that this administration was about to send troops into Iran? Could it be? 3. Finances and the economy? Could it be that politicians do indeed have control over their states local economy but virtually nothing to do with national economy? Could it be that allowing unfair trade practices create a trade balance which sends companies scurrying to cheap labor and few rules? Could it be that the removal of banking regulations had much to do with the collapse of the housing industry and market? Could it be that we have had a president who came into office with little or no real world experience and was therefore subject to the influences of those who put him in office? Could it be? Some may think GW will go down in history as one of the greatest. Only time will tell.   the_apostolic_truth_ministries Advanced Member Username: the_apostolic_truth_ministries Post Number: 902 Registered: 10-2005 Posted From: 12.217.145.168 Posted on Wednesday, December 05, 2007 - 8:52 pm:        M(r)(s). BA2: Quoting: "1. Immigration and border patrol? The estimate is 10-20 million illegals in the US right now. The numbers are increasing each year. Rather than reducing the numbers, they have been increasing over the past number of years. If there is a real desire to reduce illegal border crossings, there doesn’t seem to be much affect. Could it be that closing the borders and/or providing legal work permits would force businesses to pay higher wages and provide benefits? Could it be that there is a business interest in keeping the borders open so that illegals can be hired on the cheap?" End quote. Yes. The business interest you allude to is primarily agriculture. You might examine those businesses a little closer. They tend to be insurance companies, docors and foreign country owners. All are supporters of liberalism. The republican are well known for standing against farm subsidies. Quoting: "2. War on Terror? Could it be that until 911 we have never had a terrorist attack on US soil, at least not from a foreign citizen? Could it be that 911 was the only time in US history that the administration fell asleep when warned about potential terrorist attacks? Could it be that the world supported us in our move into Afghanistan but were aghast at our move into Iraq, moving us in a few short months to be seen worldwide as one of the most dangerous countries in the world? Could it be that the world was fully supportive of the US and was finally ready to do something about terrorism, until we “changed the course” and went into Iraq? Could it be that the real culprit of 911 was trapped but got away because of our losing sight of our goal? What happened to Osama anyway? Could it be that the recently-released U.S. intelligence report slipped out because of a fear that this administration was about to send troops into Iran? Could it be?" End quote. As I recall from reading history in school, we have had several terrorist attacks involving foreign citizens. By the by, the U.N. approved the move into Iraq. At least try to get your ^&(*$$#& correct. Quote: "3. Finances and the economy? Could it be that politicians do indeed have control over their states local economy but virtually nothing to do with national economy?" End quote. Way to go GWB!! When Clinton left office, the DOW stood at 5000. Today, the DOW is over 13,000. Unemployment is the lowest since WWII. Quoting: "Could it be that allowing unfair trade practices create a trade balance which sends companies scurrying to cheap labor and few rules?" End quote. Could it be that consumerism drives cheap labor and few rules? You do have the choice of buying more expensive products. Your choice drives the market, my dear friend. Rules? Want to hear a funny one? Lead. Quoting: "Could it be that the removal of banking regulations had much to do with the collapse of the housing industry and market?" End quote. Could it be that the equity in the housing market is exhausted? Quoting: "Could it be that we have had a president who came into office with little or no real world experience and was therefore subject to the influences of those who put him in office?" End quote. Could it be that you are speaking of Carter or Clinton? Quoting: "Some may think GW will go down in history as one of the greatest. Only time will tell." End quote. He shore won't be known for the question "Define sex!" Have you noticed that BUSSSSH has not said a word about his legacy? OH, I forgot to mention since liberalism took over Congress a year ago, gasoline prices have increased 85 cents a gallon. Arguely the largest rise in history.   ba2 Senior Member Username: ba2 Post Number: 1132 Registered: 1-2006 Posted From: 165.189.16.117 Posted on Thursday, December 06, 2007 - 5:21 pm:        the_apostolic_truth_ministries, you are truly mean spirited. Someone disagrees with you and you start name calling. Quite honestly, my comments were simply meant to show how there can be different viewpoints. You said: “By the by, the U.N. approved the move into Iraq. At least try to get your ^&(*$$#& correct.” Nice language, I think? Yes, the support was due to the false information provided by the administration. The U.N. very reluctantly agreed to let us go in. I wonder how Mr. Powell feels about his message now? We go into Afghanistan with virtual world support. We have the perpetrators cornered and trapped, and we change the course and go into Iraq!!!! Outcome, we are no longer trusted throughout the world and Osama gets away. I will add, since we went in, we can’t just cut and run. I agree we need to do what is necessary to create a safe Iraq. But we did not need to go in at the time we did. Iraq had nothing to do with 911 and we had Sadam contained. He was of no imminent threat. This was not the time! You also said, “As I recall from reading history in school, we have had several terrorist attacks involving foreign citizens.” I spent a number of hours researching this. Results, very little foreign terrorist acts committed within the boundaries of the US. The exception is when we were at war, Revolution, 1812, Civil, WW1, WW2, etc. Almost every other case was an American committing the act of treason. Possible exception: 1954 March 1: U.S. Capitol shooting incident by Puerto Rican nationalists, wounding five Congressmen. But again, Puerto Ricans are considered citizens. We also had: 1886 Bomb at Haymarket Square, Chicago during a labor rally kills 12. But this was more of a riot, not terrorism. Most all terrorist attacks in this country are something like: August 24, 1970: the Army Mathematics Research Center on the University of Wisconsin campus was blown up resulting in 1 death 1978–1995: The Unabomber kills three and injures 29 in a string of anti-technology bombings. April 19, 1995: Oklahoma City bombing kills 168 people, 19 of them children. When I brought up the lack of experience with the president, you responded with, “Could it be that you are speaking of Carter or Clinton?” Both Carter and Clinton, like them or not, were always considered to be very highly educated and very brilliant men. Both had long working careers before becoming president. Real jobs. What did this president do before the presidency? The following link gives you a look at the resume that has been going around, a resume obviously created by someone who doesn’t like him. http://www.snopes.com/politics/bush/resume.asp But this link also has links both to refute the claims and to support the claims. Obviously, there are exaggerations, but when I see suggesting that the resume is a lie because it says GW traded Sosa to the Cubs, I just cringe. True, he traded him to the White Sox, ----big deal! As far as your comment on gas. There have been peeks and valleys, but the true rise in gas prices in the last 30 years has happened in the last 6 years, not just the last 2. http://www.randomuseless.info/gasprice/gasprice.html   easeltine Senior Member Username: easeltine Post Number: 1659 Registered: 5-2005 Posted From: 72.164.43.195 Posted on Thursday, December 06, 2007 - 5:49 pm:        Well, BA2...for the guy to start off the post with, "Republicans in Hell!", sort of starts off the tone of this Thread clearly with the hatred that the Democrats and the Left have become famous for. It's amazing the amount of hatred that is spewed out by the Left against the President and Republicans everyday. Then if a Republican starts quoting the facts in reply to the sarcastic way you presented the fact in reply to Bear, then the Left quickly talks about how, "mean spirited", the Republican is. What a bunch of hypocrites!   hardbones Member Username: hardbones Post Number: 76 Registered: 12-2006 Posted From: 65.93.28.152 Posted on Thursday, December 06, 2007 - 6:04 pm:        I'm not sure what Bushs legacy will be but I do agree with the appointing of conservative judges   easeltine Senior Member Username: easeltine Post Number: 1660 Registered: 5-2005 Posted From: 72.164.43.195 Posted on Thursday, December 06, 2007 - 6:34 pm:        We had a good economy with President Clinton... but regarding what hardbones is saying about the Bush legacy of appointing conservative judges, that is definitely a better legacy then, * appointing the head of the ACLU, (Ginsburg), and a left leaning judge, (Breyer), the the Supreme Court. & * a blue dress with a stain on it.   the_apostolic_truth_ministries Advanced Member Username: the_apostolic_truth_ministries Post Number: 907 Registered: 10-2005 Posted From: 12.217.145.168 Posted on Thursday, December 06, 2007 - 8:41 pm:        M(r)(s). BA2: Quoting: "Yes, the support was due to the false information provided by the administration." End quote. I really enjoy talking with a true scholar. It is a shame there is not one in this thread. The "false information" provided was passed down by Clinton. Worst yet, my dear friend, the information gatherers are democrats. You did know the Civil Service Union wrote the intel reports, don't you? Quoting: "There have been peeks and valleys, but the true rise in gas prices in the last 30 years has happened in the last 6 years, not just the last 2." End quote. Quoting: "This area contains a history of gasoline prices in parts of Texas for the past 28 years based on what I paid at the pump. Most recent tank: November 27, 2007." End quote. http://www.randomuseless.info/ I jest love factual research. Actually, my dear friend, in 1970 the United States had 330 refineries, mostly independents. Today, the U.S. has 60 refineries, all controlled by the union. Now take a wild guess who the union supports politically? Carter, by the way, was well known for his failure as both a politician and president. Carter sucked as governor of Georgia. As presid, he lead the world in inflation. Carter is still viewed as a quack by everyone. As to Clinton, how brillant was 125,000 hours of porno downloaded on taxpayer computers? Would you like to discuss his staff urinating in the White House floor on their way out the door?   ba2 Senior Member Username: ba2 Post Number: 1133 Registered: 1-2006 Posted From: 165.189.16.117 Posted on Friday, December 07, 2007 - 9:59 am:        easeltine, For your information, I have been a card carrying Republican for most of my life. I voted for Nixon, Ford, Regan, Bush the elder both times, and Bush the younger the first time. For the first time in my life, I switched parties and voted against Bush for the second term. I threw away that card a few years ago. It is the lock-step, only one way to do things, only my way is right attitude that turns me off. In my humble opinion, virtually nothing is completely black and white and I will not support any candidate that promotes that view. When it is all said and done, Clinton was not as bad as the conservatives, and especially the religious right claim. An embarrassment, yes. It appears to me that ATM won’t look at the facts. Only one way and if you disagree you will be criticized as being unscholarly or called other names. Every administration has had its faults but this current one goes way over the edge. It has been pretty well documented how the current administration twisted the facts and ignored the experts in the field. We have to put up with it for another year. You are right though, the title of the thread does not do much for promoting civility.   easeltine Senior Member Username: easeltine Post Number: 1664 Registered: 5-2005 Posted From: 72.164.43.195 Posted on Friday, December 07, 2007 - 11:32 am:        ...well I made a mistake once & promised myself never again...I voted for Carter.   ba2 Senior Member Username: ba2 Post Number: 1134 Registered: 1-2006 Posted From: 165.189.16.117 Posted on Friday, December 07, 2007 - 2:43 pm:        easeltine, we all make mistakes. I think my most recent one was jumping into this thread. On another note. The real fact is--- gas prices are not much out of line when compared to inflation over the past 100 years. Nevertheless, we don’t really need more refineries. We need to move into the new technologies. Let’s do away with any need for foreign energy. I think every president since Ford has suggested we need to move away from foreign oil dependence. How about we finally move forward on that? The capacity squeeze is a relatively new phenomenon, according to Joanne Shore, a senior analyst at the U.S. Dept. of Energy.“Until about the mid-1990s, we had too much capacity,” she said. “Demand finally grew into our capacity when we finally saw refiners run at full utilization after 1995, and then we started to see capacity increase again.” Can existing plants continue to squeeze more output? -John W. Schoen, Senior Producer, MSNBC, Mon., Nov. 22, 2004 Not that anyone cares, even with fewer refineries, we are putting out considerably more gasoline. The refineries have become much more efficient and the inefficient ones have been put out of business. Didn’t like the easy to read chart. These say the same thing regarding the history of gas prices. http://www.energy.ca.gov/gasoline/statistics/nytimes_gasoline_price.jpg http://www.energy.ca.gov/gasoline/statistics/gasoline_cpi_adjusted.html   easeltine Senior Member Username: easeltine Post Number: 1667 Registered: 5-2005 Posted From: 72.164.43.195 Posted on Friday, December 07, 2007 - 8:20 pm:        Just simply put - Interesting chart BA. Though, I live in California and I can remember the price of gas at 23.9 cents per gallon in 1972. I also know the price my parents and in-laws paid for their homes in 1972. The price of gas has gone up 14 times, but the price of a home in California has gone up 35 times. All things being equal the price per gallon would be $8.35 per gallon. Oh, you reminded me of the guzzler tax by Carter, and all the American cars were junk the next few year because of it. How can a President or politician go about forcing the car industries to use alternative energy? The answer is that that government cannot force the car industry into new technology unless the people change their minds. The only answer is the free market system, eventually the price of gas will be so high that we will be forced to go towards alternative energy.   the_apostolic_truth_ministries Advanced Member Username: the_apostolic_truth_ministries Post Number: 910 Registered: 10-2005 Posted From: 12.217.145.168 Posted on Friday, December 07, 2007 - 8:31 pm:        M(r)(s). BA2: You appear unable to deal with fact. As to marching in lock step, look no further than Clinton's impeachment. !00% of the democrats voted "NO." In fact, look at virtually any bill in Congress, democrats either vote 100% for or against it. The republicans on the other hand are always divided. As for card calling, I really ain't buyin' it.   ba2 Senior Member Username: ba2 Post Number: 1135 Registered: 1-2006 Posted From: 69.29.227.191 Posted on Saturday, December 08, 2007 - 4:59 pm:        easeltine, I do agree with you here. But I think the chart really makes the point that gas has had peaks and valleys since the 1920's, when the gas industry really got moving. The price in the early 70's was near a historic low. Right now, gas is not at an unreasonable level, when adjusted for inflation, unless of course, one would not look past 1970. And yes, the public must force the change in technology. But the government needs to help, through incentives. atm, you are just plain silly. Both parties are pretty much lock-step with their party. At least I gave a few references to my conclusions. There are many more but I think it would be a waste of time looking them up again. I suppose you would prefer to remain hostage to the powers that control the foreign oil production?   easeltine Senior Member Username: easeltine Post Number: 1675 Registered: 5-2005 Posted From: 66.245.201.177 Posted on Saturday, December 08, 2007 - 6:06 pm:        Ba2, I cannot for the life of me figure out why either political party doesn't do anything. When I get Los Angeles DWP sources of energy they are using 51% Coal power and less than 1 1/2% on any form of renewable energy. ...and VP Gore gets the noble peace prize while he is flying around in his private jet while his home in Tenn. uses 20 TIMES more energy than the average home.   the_apostolic_truth_ministries Advanced Member Username: the_apostolic_truth_ministries Post Number: 918 Registered: 10-2005 Posted From: 12.217.145.168 Posted on Saturday, December 08, 2007 - 7:35 pm:        M(r)(s). BA2: Quoting: "I suppose you would prefer to remain hostage to the powers that control the foreign oil production?" End quote. Which, my dear friend, is worst? Being held hostage by union(democrat) oil companies or being held hostage by a foreign oil company? Have you ever really considered alternative energy sources? Ethanol? It was tried under Jimmy Carter, remember? The only thing promising about etanol is hugh farm subsidies for democrat backed corporate farms. How about coal? Did you know the diesel engine was patented to run on coal? Of course, coal is also union controled and subsided by democrats. Al Gore's Inconvenient Truth is just that inconvenient to tell the truth. England requires running a disclaimer before the film can be shown because of the political motives and outright lies contained in the film. Hilarious.   the_apostolic_truth_ministries Advanced Member Username: the_apostolic_truth_ministries Post Number: 919 Registered: 10-2005 Posted From: 12.217.145.168 Posted on Saturday, December 08, 2007 - 7:39 pm:        Mr. Easeltine: Do you know what all seven of the last Nobel Peace Prize winners have in common? All are vehement Bush-haters. Hilarious, isn't it?   the_apostolic_truth_ministries Advanced Member Username: the_apostolic_truth_ministries Post Number: 923 Registered: 10-2005 Posted From: 12.217.145.168 Posted on Sunday, December 09, 2007 - 7:38 am:        Have you heard the line about 'history'? It says something about repeating itself? Now think back aways. When the liberals had control of Congress last under the first Bush, do you remember? The democrats shut down the federal government by refusing to pass the annual spending bills. Now think carefully, for we are about to repeat the same process. Shutting down the federal government? No, my dear friend, under the first Bush, the democrats shut down the federal government in order to pass the biggest tax increase in the history of man. Spend lightly for Christmas, folks. The TAX man cometh.   ba2 Senior Member Username: ba2 Post Number: 1136 Registered: 1-2006 Posted From: 72.160.213.9 Posted on Sunday, December 09, 2007 - 6:14 pm:        easeltine, I think the oil companies, including foreign oil, has too much power. But eventually it will happen. Right now, there is an air powered car being built. Americans probably won't buy it until gas prices go even much higher but it is a viaable option. http://www.popularmechanics.com/automotive/new_cars/4217016.html The technology is still in its infancy so it probably is too small for Americans. We should be putting much more research into things like hydrogen and electric.   easeltine Senior Member Username: easeltine Post Number: 1683 Registered: 5-2005 Posted From: 66.245.201.93 Posted on Sunday, December 09, 2007 - 8:08 pm:        Truth and Ba2, Vice President Al Gore wins the nobel peace. Have either of you heard about V.P. Al Gore's mansion? It uses 20 times more energy than an average home, a huge home and he drives around in his own private jet. President Bush on the other hand, live in a home that was built by a professor, 4,000 s.f., environmentally landscaped to match the surrounding countryside, and powered by solar energy. That's just amazing to me!   the_apostolic_truth_ministries Advanced Member Username: the_apostolic_truth_ministries Post Number: 927 Registered: 10-2005 Posted From: 12.217.145.168 Posted on Sunday, December 09, 2007 - 9:51 pm:        M(r)(s). BA2: You need to pay attention to what is going on around you. Electric cars have been around for many years. Wrecks in electric cars are an enviro nightmare. Hydrogen, as a fuel source, dates back to WWII. Popular Mech mag has sponsered many concept cars over the years. None have been successful for a number of reasons.   the_apostolic_truth_ministries Advanced Member Username: the_apostolic_truth_ministries Post Number: 928 Registered: 10-2005 Posted From: 12.217.145.168 Posted on Sunday, December 09, 2007 - 9:55 pm:        Mr. Easeltine: Gore has several houses, not just the one you point at. Gore won the Nobel Peace Prize for one reason and one reason only. His blatant hatred of Bush.   ba2 Senior Member Username: ba2 Post Number: 1137 Registered: 1-2006 Posted From: 165.189.16.117 Posted on Monday, December 10, 2007 - 10:03 am:        easeltine, Although I sense that he is a decent man with good intentions, Gore lost credibility with me years ago, mainly because he appears to go way too far in his assertions. But make no mistake, the earth is warming and we should do something about it. We should move to renewable energy sources and the oil prices are approaching the point where it would be economically advantageous to make the switch. ATM is flat out wrong, energy sources like hydrogen or solar or electric have great potential. There are working models right now and they work almost as well as the gas run vehicles we are currently driving. Over time, they will become even better. Main problem is infrastructure (Where do we fill-up?). Cost is a problem too, but mainly because of the time and effort it takes developing. This is one area where the government can help. atm The Nobel Peace Prize (Swedish and Norwegian: Nobels fredspris) is the name of one of five Nobel Prizes bequeathed by the Swedish industrialist and inventor Alfred Nobel. According to Nobel's will, the Peace Prize should be awarded "to the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between the nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses." Let me see--- Why would you care so much who they give the peace prize to anyway, it is not an American prize to give. You have a complaint? Send your letter to Sweden and Norway.   the_apostolic_truth_ministries Advanced Member Username: the_apostolic_truth_ministries Post Number: 943 Registered: 10-2005 Posted From: 12.217.145.168 Posted on Tuesday, December 11, 2007 - 7:33 am:        M(r)(s). BA2: Gore's Global Warming Theory has been disproven in a court of law, get over it.   the_apostolic_truth_ministries Advanced Member Username: the_apostolic_truth_ministries Post Number: 944 Registered: 10-2005 Posted From: 12.217.145.168 Posted on Tuesday, December 11, 2007 - 7:44 am:        I rolled in the floor in laugher this morning as I read the newspaper. Dobb mouthing off that Bussssssh is a liar, Iran does not have nuclear weapons. Let me get this straight, a democrat controlled intellegence agency determines that a Jim Carter crafted, democrat backed terrorist state does not have nuclear weapons and that makes Busssssh a liar? Get a life. If we presuppose that Carter's terrorist nation does not have nuclear weapons, we should be yelling "PRAISE GOD!" A second piece has David Obey declaring we are going to close down the federal government unless Busssssh let us spend trillions of taxpayer dollars buying democrat pork. Does the phrase "been there, done that" come to mind? Spend lightly on Christmas, gentlemen, the tax man cometh.   ba2 Senior Member Username: ba2 Post Number: 1138 Registered: 1-2006 Posted From: 165.189.16.117 Posted on Tuesday, December 11, 2007 - 12:00 pm:        atm, I will never bother even looking at anything else you ever write. You don't bother trying to understand what others write so why should anyone listen to you? You obviously need help. Conspiracy theories and all - The hatred you strongly exhibit -- Obviously, you could not believe that anyone else but you could have anything right - If I were you, I'd see a shrink!   the_apostolic_truth_ministries Advanced Member Username: the_apostolic_truth_ministries Post Number: 946 Registered: 10-2005 Posted From: 12.217.145.168 Posted on Wednesday, December 12, 2007 - 2:43 am:        M(r)(s) BA2: I am sorry you had to find out your religion has lied to you.   inkorrekt Senior Member Username: inkorrekt Post Number: 1139 Registered: 11-2005 Posted From: 65.100.179.246 Posted on Wednesday, December 12, 2007 - 3:21 am:        USA cannot survive. Why? The Book of Chronicles, Kings decribe the fate of Isreal. When a Godly man became the ruler, all the enemies of God's people (Hittites,Zebuzites, Amalekites and PARASITES) brought silver and gold to surrender as slaves. When an evil man became the king, they all came, invaded and took away whatever was left. There is asimilarity between Jewish history and the history of USA. During 1990 -2000 we allowed Indians and chinese spies to work in our defense labs and they stole valuable data on thermonuclear devices and weapons technology. For campaign contributions we sold the most valuable technology (GPS) and a Supercomputer to our enemy China.We allwed them free access to our military facilities. Chinea is becoming asuper power dominating the world.We have also allowed 30 million people to invade this country. These people have already destroyed our middleclass families. We are feeding the Saudis with tons of money which they use to support terrorism within USA.We will never become oil independent. We will be slaves to the middle east oil. CAIR is a terrorist organization which is secretly supporting ALQuaida terrorist cells within the USA. The Domocratic congress men are cuddling with this organization. Can we be dumber than this? Yes, God's wrath is lready upon us. Let us wake up. Orelse we will be nuked. USA is not mentioned anywhere in the prophecy. So, in order for one world government to succeed, the superpower must be destroyed. By promoting abortion, homosexual marriage and abolishing the traces of free expression of christian faith, indoctrination of our school kids and pontification of pornography,we are setting ourseves up for God's wrath. History repeats itslf. USA cannot save itself from God's wrath unless we change our ways.   easeltine Senior Member Username: easeltine Post Number: 1714 Registered: 5-2005 Posted From: 72.164.43.195 Posted on Wednesday, December 12, 2007 - 3:46 pm:        12/12/07 - President Bush Approval Rating 37% Congress Approval Rating 22% Cola Nut/UnCola Nut - Can you choose wisely?   ba2 Senior Member Username: ba2 Post Number: 1139 Registered: 1-2006 Posted From: 165.189.16.117 Posted on Thursday, December 13, 2007 - 2:54 pm:        easeltine, I think you got it! Everyone is nuts. A few on this thread belong in a loony bin! I came here thinking this might have evolved into a decent discussion regarding politics, I thought wrong. I guess I'll move right along and go somewhere else.   87expellee Junior Member Username: 87expellee Post Number: 33 Registered: 8-2007 Posted From: 199.2.113.33 Posted on Thursday, December 13, 2007 - 3:42 pm:        You sheeple need to WAKE UP !!! youtube: Illuminati:Bloodlines of Power Mary Elizabeth Croft zeitgeistmovie.com Find out what is REALLY going on...   discerner New member Username: discerner Post Number: 22 Registered: 8-2007 Posted From: 99.236.178.156 Posted on Wednesday, December 19, 2007 - 1:55 pm:        Wo really is running the White House? Many believe it is Dick Cheney who wears the pants, not G.W. So why not vote Gulianni to take the Oval Office, since he likes to wear a dress! http://video.google.ca/url?docid=-2266782960320943569&esrc=sr5&ev=v&len=46&q=giuliani%2Bcrossdresser&srcurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3D4IrE6FMpai8&vidurl=%2Fvideoplay%3Fdocid%3D-2266782960320943569%26q%3Dgiuliani%2Bcrossdresser%26total%3D6%26start%3D0%26num%3D10%26so%3D0%26type%3Dsearch%26plindex%3D4&usg=AL29H23PQWbl_9tyM7Z8Edp8uoI5Pv1VmA   yourmaster Junior Member Username: yourmaster Post Number: 26 Registered: 9-2005 Posted From: 24.21.104.153 Posted on Saturday, December 22, 2007 - 2:26 pm:        Bush is a whole lot better than the Disgraced vietnam war Traitor/Coward, John Kerry.   easeltine Senior Member Username: easeltine Post Number: 1800 Registered: 5-2005 Posted From: 75.37.3.218 Posted on Sunday, December 23, 2007 - 8:38 pm:        Let's see 120 billion for Iraq Senate Vote in May 2007 - 80-14 House Vote in May 2007 - 280-142 70 billion for Iraq Senate Vote on December 18, 2007 Democrats control both Houses. Where is the Democrats backbone?? It's nothing! That's why they have a 22% approval rating. The President has a higher rating because he sticks to "his guns", after all "This isn't my first rodeo."   bluewater2 Senior Member Username: bluewater2 Post Number: 3455 Registered: 1-2006 Posted From: 66.74.207.89 Posted on Sunday, December 23, 2007 - 10:06 pm:        Bush is a complete moron and has absolutely zero historical knowledge and no common sense. Most of congress is the same, Democrats and Republicans. When we find a leader who can get the people excited, from both sides of the fence, by using some common sense while stringing an entire sentence together using proper grammar, Congress might start to do the will of the people. Our country is fragmented by a president and a congress that has no ability to use common sense. To say that Bush is good because his 28% is better that congress 22% is moronic. They are all a bunch of losers.   the_apostolic_truth_ministries Senior Member Username: the_apostolic_truth_ministries Post Number: 1041 Registered: 10-2005 Posted From: 70.221.163.26 Posted on Monday, December 24, 2007 - 8:08 am:        Ms. Bluewater2: Is there any chance the hatred, preached religiously by the left wing for seven years now, has anything to do with a divided country? Allow me a second question, if I may? Has your own hatred proven anything?   the_apostolic_truth_ministries Senior Member Username: the_apostolic_truth_ministries Post Number: 1045 Registered: 10-2005 Posted From: 70.220.103.154 Posted on Monday, December 24, 2007 - 9:22 am:        Quoting: “Bush is a complete moron and has absolutely zero historical knowledge and no common sense.” End quote. Some of my flavorite quotes come from the left-wing hate-mongers. Take the above quotation, in context please. Let us look to the historical context momentarily. Do you remember the ‘buscade’? When God Clinton ascended to the throne, He and Big Al stopped off at Mount Vernon for a national tv photo shoot. Big Al, with all the innocence of a small child, gestured at the busts displayed around the room, and asked on national tv “Who are these guys?” hehehehehehehehe   easeltine Senior Member Username: easeltine Post Number: 1803 Registered: 5-2005 Posted From: 75.36.166.186 Posted on Monday, December 24, 2007 - 11:04 am:        Blue, The President is up to 37%.   bluewater2 Senior Member Username: bluewater2 Post Number: 3460 Registered: 1-2006 Posted From: 66.74.207.89 Posted on Tuesday, December 25, 2007 - 12:44 am:        I love guys like you, TATM, who automatically pound Clinton when someone puts up a good arguement against Bush. I am not a big Clinton fan either. And I do not hate Bush. And as to where the divided country has come from; Bush and Cheney's inability to speak to people rather than at them. They are lousy. Your inability to admit it is no surprise, however.   inkorrekt Senior Member Username: inkorrekt Post Number: 1155 Registered: 11-2005 Posted From: 65.100.179.246 Posted on Tuesday, December 25, 2007 - 3:38 am:        BEAR: God promised blessings to those who bless Isreal. His curses also will be upon those who rise against Israel.We have open borders. The Muslom terrorists have come here through Mexico. They already have a suitcase bomb.There are rogue nations which hate America and they are acquiring nuclear materials. One does not need a Ph.D in political Science to understand the threats we are facing today.   inkorrekt Senior Member Username: inkorrekt Post Number: 1156 Registered: 11-2005 Posted From: 65.100.179.246 Posted on Tuesday, December 25, 2007 - 3:48 am:        RON PAUL is a Physician and a fool.He does not understand how the American Economy works.Our economy is not based on Gold by the Federal Reserve.It is only based on our exports. We lost our food market as we helped 3rd world countries to become self sufficient.We havae allowed the Chunese, Indians and Japanese to steal our Technologies.Only thing left is our military hardware. Ours is still the best and we sell them even to our enemies. What happens if no one buys our military hardware? This is when we need a War. The entire world except afew dictatorships are looking foir help as well as directions. We have been assigned the MORAL RESPONSIBILITY OF SUSTAINING PEACE ALL OVER THE WORLD. If we withdraw, we would cause BLOODY BATHS. Ron Paul is a Big fool on this matter just like Gore.Ron Paul is exactly like ROSS PEROT who put Clinton in the office.RON PAUL IS A SPOILER. He should never be nominated to any office. He is a NUT CASE.   ba2 Senior Member Username: ba2 Post Number: 1140 Registered: 1-2006 Posted From: 165.189.16.117 Posted on Wednesday, December 26, 2007 - 11:08 am:        I was told, “Gore's Global Warming Theory has been disproven in a court of law, get over it.” Is that a joke? What court of law was that? And what does that have to do with anything? Someone said, “Bush is a whole lot better than the Disgraced vietnam war Traitor/Coward, John Kerry.” Hmmm, let me see, Kerry – 3 Purple Hearts, Silver Star and Bronze Star. You can question whether or not he deserved it but at least he was there in the middle of it. Bush – Where was he? Maybe you meant George the elder? Someone said that America gave away everything but its military hardware. Back in 1969, the AK-47 was a much better weapon than the M-16. I am pretty sure the AK-47 is still superior to its American counterpart. This has nothing to do with liberal vs conservative. Yes, we have a system where everything seems to be for sale. So, maybe they just don’t want our hardware! Someone said, “History repeats itslf. USA cannot save itself from God's wrath unless we change our ways.” God’s wrath? I thought God was a loving and forgiving god. Maybe you mean the wrath of the world getting fed up with someone they might perceive as a bully? Someone said, “God promised blessings to those who bless Isreal.”sic. Is this another joke? Anwar Sadat supported peace with Israel. I wonder what happened to him? I will support Israel as long as they are a good ally. Someone said, “If we withdraw, we would cause BLOODY BATHS.” Probably true, nevertheless, we went into Iraq based on a lie and there was no imminent danger and still caused a bloody bath. We should have stayed the course and got Osama, whom we had trapped before getting sidetracked into an unnecessary campaign in Iraq. We should be able to win the battle in Iraq, but it is still a long way off. Win or not, was it worth the loss in world support and sympathy for the USA? Until very recently, this war has been nothing but a parade of missed opportunities and foolish mistakes.   bluewater2 Senior Member Username: bluewater2 Post Number: 3461 Registered: 1-2006 Posted From: 75.42.171.14 Posted on Wednesday, December 26, 2007 - 2:34 pm:        And Bush will never say anything like, "I wish I had done it different." There is not a single President that Bush is better than. He is a disgrace. He disgusts me and I would tell him that to his face.   the_apostolic_truth_ministries Senior Member Username: the_apostolic_truth_ministries Post Number: 1048 Registered: 10-2005 Posted From: 75.200.100.238 Posted on Wednesday, December 26, 2007 - 4:14 pm:        M(r)(s). Bluewater2: Shrub has restored 'integrity'to the White House after God Bill got done. Amazing how quickly some forgit. Did you notice God Bill had downloard 125,000 hours of porno on taxpayer dollars? No, I have a feeling you have no intention of allowing facts to get in the way of your hatred.   bluewater2 Senior Member Username: bluewater2 Post Number: 3463 Registered: 1-2006 Posted From: 75.42.171.14 Posted on Wednesday, December 26, 2007 - 5:05 pm:        You must be kidding. There is less integrity in the white house now then ever. Again, I do not have love for your whipping boy Clinton either. Do not let your hatred for Clinton cloud your judgment. Although, I fear, it is already too late since, even though I have explained to you that your generic greeting to me as an (s) is unwarranted, you continue to mock and insult me with your typical backhanded arrogance. If you weren't so obviously brainwashed, I wouldn't feel so sorry for you. What are some of the "facts" concerning your pals tenure that I seem to be missing. Try to be specific.   the_apostolic_truth_ministries Senior Member Username: the_apostolic_truth_ministries Post Number: 1049 Registered: 10-2005 Posted From: 75.200.100.238 Posted on Wednesday, December 26, 2007 - 5:22 pm:        M(r)(s). BA2: Quoting: “I was told, “Gore's Global Warming Theory has been disproven in a court of law, get over it.” Is that a joke? What court of law was that? And what does that have to do with anything? “ End quote. Joke? The joke is on you, my dear friend. Big Al’s political garbology was disproved in a court of law. In fact, when his garbology is played in England, it must be preceded with the acknowledgment of the fraud and political garbage contained in his polito-docudrama. What difference does it make? When does a lie help world peace? Quoting: “Someone said, “Bush is a whole lot better than the Disgraced vietnam(sic) war Traitor/Coward, John Kerry.” Hmmm, let me see, Kerry – 3 Purple Hearts, Silver Star and Bronze Star. You can question whether or not he deserved it but at least he was there in the middle of it. Bush – Where was he? Maybe you meant George the elder?” End quote. You claim here is hilarious. Where was God Clinton or Big Al? Speaking of gedunk medals, though, I will address the subject from a knowledgeable position. Ever hear of Panama? The Army had 37,000 troops in country during the capture of Manuel Antonio Noriega Moreno. The Army issued 1.3 million Panama Service Medals. During the invasion of Grenada, the Army did not come ashore until the action was over. It issued 700,000 Grenada Service Medals. During Viet Nam, there were several people who received far more Purple Hearts than Kerry . . . make that believable Purple Hearts. Quoting: “Someone said that America gave away everything but its military hardware. Back in 1969, the AK-47 was a much better weapon than the M-16. I am pretty sure the AK-47 is still superior to its American counterpart. This has nothing to do with liberal vs conservative. Yes, we have a system where everything seems to be for sale. So, maybe they just don’t want our hardware!” End Quote. Again from a knowledgeable source, the AR15/M16 was rejected by the AMSU during the 50's. General Lemay (USAF), a well-known democrat, while drunk during a July 4th party hand-wrote an order for the AR15/M16 Stoner rifle in open violation of military/government purchasing policy. Lemay, as you may remember ran with George Wallace as VP. Lemay was offered a Congressional post from California (as a Republican) which he refused. Lemay was a staunch union man and liberal (read Dennis Kucinich) . The latest info from the war front shows the AR15/M16 (various models: A, A1, A2, A3, M4, etc) has a reliability factor of 80%. The AK (various models AK-47, AK-74, AKM, etc.) has a near 100% reliability index. The AR15/M16 requires a great deal of modern machinery to manufacture. The AK is built from sheet metal parts at a fraction of the cost. continued   ba2 Senior Member Username: ba2 Post Number: 1142 Registered: 1-2006 Posted From: 165.189.16.117 Posted on Wednesday, December 26, 2007 - 5:22 pm:        Shrub, AKA “a little bush” - very good! No question, BC was an embarrassment and I don’t want to see him in the White House again. But no one died when Clinton lied! The fact is, BC lied in the same manner that most men would lie if caught being unfaithful. I am not condoning that behavior but most men would understand it. Take away his inability to keep his pants on and he was overall a decent president. Was it wrong for him to lie in court, absolutely yes. But lies and exaggerations used to start a war are unfathomable. Even if the eventual ends justifies the means, which it really never does. What did “Shrub” do for my attitudes regarding the next election – he turned me away from my Republican party! Hey Blue, how ya doing?   the_apostolic_truth_ministries Senior Member Username: the_apostolic_truth_ministries Post Number: 1050 Registered: 10-2005 Posted From: 75.200.100.238 Posted on Wednesday, December 26, 2007 - 5:26 pm:        Quoting: “Someone said, “History repeats itslf (sic). USA cannot save itself from God's wrath unless we change our ways.” God’s wrath? I thought God was a loving and forgiving god. Maybe you mean the wrath of the world getting fed up with someone they might perceive as a bully?” End quote. “Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it.” (George Santayana). That is a well-known saying. Quoting: “Someone said, “God promised blessings to those who bless Isreal.”sic. Is this another joke? Anwar Sadat supported peace with Israel. I wonder what happened to him? I will support Israel as long as they are a good ally.” End quote. What God really said was anyone who blesses the tribe of Israel, will be blessed. You, and many others, seem to believe God was talking about the present nation of Israel which he was not. Quoting: “Someone said, “If we withdraw, we would cause BLOODY BATHS.” Probably true, nevertheless, we went into Iraq based on a lie and there was no imminent danger and still caused a bloody bath. We should have stayed the course and got Osama, whom we had trapped before getting sidetracked into an unnecessary campaign in Iraq. We should be able to win the battle in Iraq, but it is still a long way off. Win or not, was it worth the loss in world support and sympathy for the USA? Until very recently, this war has been nothing but a parade of missed opportunities and foolish mistakes.” End quote. Ye speak of that which ye know nothing, my dear. Solider of Fortune magazine published several photographs of chemical weapons and air craft designed to deliver those weapons never published by mainstream media. Interestingly enough, SoF is a liberal publication from the Viet Nam era. As to a threat, the UN saw it as such. God Clinton provided the intel on which the UN acted. In fact, 100% of the CIA are/were democrats at the time. God Clinton allowed Osama Bin Laden to escape before Shrub was even elected. I would love to see the papers God Clinton ordered stolen from the National Archives to protect his legacy. As to the bulk of your comments, I dare say no real football coach would listen to an armchair quarterback. Nor should anyone listen to your ridiculous commentary. The generals, in the field, are conducting this war just as it should be. We can easily look back at several democrat started/fought wars and see the failure when politicians ran the battle. WWII, Korean, Viet Nam, Bosnia, all are excellent example of how not to fight wars. I find it hilarious when liberals demand the troops be bought home but never mention Bosnia, Germany, or Korean. At least try to get your facts straight. As to misrepresentations and lies, they were based exclusively on intel provided by God Clinton.   the_apostolic_truth_ministries Senior Member Username: the_apostolic_truth_ministries Post Number: 1051 Registered: 10-2005 Posted From: 75.200.100.238 Posted on Wednesday, December 26, 2007 - 5:36 pm:        M(r)(s). BA2: Quoting: "No question, BC was an embarrassment and I don’t want to see him in the White House again." End quote. Actually!! Several years ago, democrats promised Madam Clinton, if she would stay with God Clinton, the presidency in 2008. I see no reason to doubt their ability to buy enough votes to get their wishes. Besides, perhaps we can get lucky. Maybe Madam Clinton can find the lost Rose Law Firm files when she gets back inside the White House. She certainly can return some of the antiques she stole from the taxpayers. As to the free world, hang it up. The day Madam Clinton takes office, God Clinton will be assigned to the UN. He will take over as General Secretary, giving liberalism control of the free (??) world.   the_apostolic_truth_ministries Senior Member Username: the_apostolic_truth_ministries Post Number: 1052 Registered: 10-2005 Posted From: 75.200.100.238 Posted on Wednesday, December 26, 2007 - 5:45 pm:        Mr. Bluewater2: Its the economy, stupid! Ever heard that? Bush has led the nation to the best economic position in half a century. The jobless rate . . . as reported by democrat labor leaders . . . is at its lowest point since WWII. The Stock Market, when God Clinton was in office, was at 5000. Today it is at 13,000 plus. Consumer confidence is at an all time high. It is the economy, stupid! As to someone being brain washed, my friend, I do not rely on liberal mainstream news media for my news. As the old saying goes, the best way to tell when a liberal is lying . . . watch to see if his lips are moving.   llm Advanced Member Username: llm Post Number: 645 Registered: 10-2005 Posted From: 192.76.82.90 Posted on Wednesday, December 26, 2007 - 5:55 pm:        "As to the free world, hang it up. The day Madam Clinton takes office, God Clinton will be assigned to the UN. He will take over as General Secretary, giving liberalism control of the free (??) world." It's more likely she will appoint Bill to the Jumbo Supreme Court. http://cuttingedge.org/news/n1259.cfm   bluewater2 Senior Member Username: bluewater2 Post Number: 3464 Registered: 1-2006 Posted From: 75.42.171.14 Posted on Wednesday, December 26, 2007 - 6:09 pm:        The economy is but one measure of the health of a society and a nation, and the economy of our country is only as good as the numbers you choose. It would be nice if the health of the largest companies in America was the true measure of a nations' health. The Bush admin would certainly like you to think so.   bluewater2 Senior Member Username: bluewater2 Post Number: 3465 Registered: 1-2006 Posted From: 75.42.171.14 Posted on Wednesday, December 26, 2007 - 6:11 pm:        Again, I am amazed at how, the second someone throws an arrow at little bush, the clintons are quickly attacked. Very funny, indeed.   yourmaster Junior Member Username: yourmaster Post Number: 27 Registered: 9-2005 Posted From: 24.21.104.153 Posted on Thursday, December 27, 2007 - 12:30 am:        Kerry is a DISGRACED TRAITOR/COWARD. His purple hearts were from paper scratches and he only served 3 months over in Nam. He was the one who did the paperwork for all of his awards so naturally he got them. Kerry is a fool and a total moron.   the_apostolic_truth_ministries Senior Member Username: the_apostolic_truth_ministries Post Number: 1053 Registered: 10-2005 Posted From: 12.208.12.215 Posted on Thursday, December 27, 2007 - 7:34 am:        Mr. Bluewater2: As indicated, it was your party who invented the theory "It is the economy, stupid." As to the nation's largest companies, careful my dear friend. The nation's largest companies are solid democrats. As to numbers I believe, I accept the numbers given by your party. The labor leaders, of your own party, claim employment is at its highest level since WWII. hehehehehehehehehe, sorry I did laugh at both Madam Clinton's and John Edwards' Christmas commericals. Madam Clinton was searching in her presents for universal health care. Universal health care, that is, from those who bought us the nation's railroad system, the United States Postal System, welfare, and Social Security to name but a few flops. John Edwards woefully moaned 60 million Americans were denied health care last night. 60 million? There are only 300 million people in the U.S. Are you saying 1/5 of the population were seeking health care over night? hehehehehehehe Federal law, my dear friend, makes medical care available to everyone now. Go to your local hospital and ask. They are required to treat you, provide indigence health care, inorder to receive federal funds for Medicare/Mediaid. And of course, the intractable immigration problem. I wonder how intractable the problem really, really, really would be IF 4 out 5 illegals registered to vote as republicans rather than democrats?   ba2 Senior Member Username: ba2 Post Number: 1143 Registered: 1-2006 Posted From: 165.189.16.117 Posted on Thursday, December 27, 2007 - 8:41 am:        How can someone call themselves "apostolic" when they exhibit such hatred of their neighbors? It seems to me that Jesus narrowed the law down to one word - Love.   easeltine Senior Member Username: easeltine Post Number: 1821 Registered: 5-2005 Posted From: 76.204.17.250 Posted on Thursday, December 27, 2007 - 10:50 am:        Get all the Islamic Extremists Mr. President! I don't care what these fools say about you!   bluewater2 Senior Member Username: bluewater2 Post Number: 3466 Registered: 1-2006 Posted From: 75.42.171.14 Posted on Thursday, December 27, 2007 - 11:05 am:        I have no problem with our government working with those countries that harbor Islamic or Christian extremists, or Jewish extremists, for that matter. I do have a problem with haphazardly invading another country for one reason and then when it turns out, "oops, we were wrong", (they never have had the guts to say that), trying to sell us on the idea that they are actually after Islamic extremists. Most of what we have now labelled as Islamic Extremists were created by our invasion in the first place. What a joke and those that have fallen for it are obviously very capable of having faith in the motivations of a dishonest group of people, those that are the current management of this country. Another example where faith does a great disservice. tatm, I agree with you that Clinton, Edwards and Kerry are no better than the sad bunch of Republicans that are trying to grab the brass ring. Did you know that Huckabee is called the Huckster in his own state? I am not surprised that he is actually gaining traction when you can see by this thread the types of people that defend the Bush administration. Ultimately, it is sad that more Americans do not get involved in the election process. We can only hope that the last 7 years have irritated enough people that more than 50% of eligible voters will make it to the polls and use their minds rather than stay apathetic and uninvolved. I would like to see Bloomberg and Obama as a President/Vice President ticket.   easeltine Senior Member Username: easeltine Post Number: 1828 Registered: 5-2005 Posted From: 76.204.16.216 Posted on Thursday, December 27, 2007 - 2:55 pm:        Bluewater, You may be seeing Senator Mc Cain and Senator Lieberman as a President/Vice Presidential ticket on the Republican side. Both Senators have more much more experience, know the real truth regarding the importance of invading Iraq, and are not as Left as the people you mention.   the_apostolic_truth_ministries Senior Member Username: the_apostolic_truth_ministries Post Number: 1054 Registered: 10-2005 Posted From: 70.220.7.231 Posted on Thursday, December 27, 2007 - 3:10 pm:        M(r)(s). BA2: Quoting: "How can someone call themselves "apostolic" when they exhibit such hatred of their neighbors?" End quote. Would you show me where I have expressed hate for anyone? Or are you saying, telling the truth is hatred?   ba2 Senior Member Username: ba2 Post Number: 1146 Registered: 1-2006 Posted From: 165.189.16.117 Posted on Thursday, December 27, 2007 - 3:31 pm:        TATM It is the overall attitude. I don’t believe you read past a line or two of anyone’s post unless you are in full agreement with them. You call some of us liberal without having any idea where one’s political persuasion lay. “You make comments like, the best way to tell when a liberal is lying . . . watch to see if his lips are moving.” You make comments like, “God Clinton or Madam Clinton.” And “the tax man cometh.” You say, “I really enjoy talking with a true scholar. It is a shame there is not one in this thread.” And on and on. Now, taken by themselves, the statements are not a big deal. But the context you put everything in makes me believe you dislike everyone with a different point of view than your own.   the_apostolic_truth_ministries Senior Member Username: the_apostolic_truth_ministries Post Number: 1057 Registered: 10-2005 Posted From: 70.220.7.231 Posted on Thursday, December 27, 2007 - 4:01 pm:        M(r)(s). BA@: Let us look at your claims. Oh, by the by, I answered your previous post, point by point. Perhaps, it is you who has never read an entire post? Quoting: "“You make comments like, the best way to tell when a liberal is lying . . . watch to see if his lips are moving.” End quote. If you take the time to research that saying, it originated under God Clinton. It is not mind. Quoting: "“God Clinton or Madam Clinton.” End quote. Again, not mine. I simply am quoting media sources. Quoting: "“the tax man cometh.” End quote. You may want to talk that one over with Harry Reid. It is the democrats who are begging to increase taxes, first on tobacco, then on gasoline, now on the AMT. Quoting: "I really enjoy talking with a true scholar. It is a shame there is not one in this thread.” End quote. Tis true, my friend. It would be great to discuss any subject with someone knowledgable enough to put words into complete sentences. So far, I am the only one around willing to admit the truth. But hey, I will give you the golden opportunity here, right now. OK? You tell me "Who should be running the war, the democrats in Congress or the Generals in the field?" Let us start there with an intelligent conversation.   the_apostolic_truth_ministries Senior Member Username: the_apostolic_truth_ministries Post Number: 1058 Registered: 10-2005 Posted From: 70.220.7.231 Posted on Thursday, December 27, 2007 - 4:02 pm:        M(r)(s). BA2: Let us look at your claims. Oh, by the by, I answered your previous post, point by point. Perhaps, it is you who has never read an entire post? Quoting: "“You make comments like, the best way to tell when a liberal is lying . . . watch to see if his lips are moving.” End quote. If you take the time to research that saying, it originated under God Clinton. It is not mind. Quoting: "“God Clinton or Madam Clinton.” End quote. Again, not mine. I simply am quoting media sources. Quoting: "“the tax man cometh.” End quote. You may want to talk that one over with Harry Reid. It is the democrats who are begging to increase taxes, first on tobacco, then on gasoline, now on the AMT. Quoting: "I really enjoy talking with a true scholar. It is a shame there is not one in this thread.” End quote. Tis true, my friend. It would be great to discuss any subject with someone knowledgable enough to put words into complete sentences. So far, I am the only one around willing to admit the truth. But hey, I will give you the golden opportunity here, right now. OK? You tell me "Who should be running the war, the democrats in Congress or the Generals in the field?" Let us start there with an intelligent conversation.   ba2 Senior Member Username: ba2 Post Number: 1147 Registered: 1-2006 Posted From: 165.189.16.117 Posted on Thursday, December 27, 2007 - 4:24 pm:        Again, it is the overall attitude you portray. Your quote or not, you keep repeating it. But to make a point, I never once said we should pull out of Iraq. I did say we never should have gone in there, at least not at that time. Who should run the war? Probably the field generals within limitations. But we never listened to the generals. The field generals needed a division to capture Osama but they were told to use the Pakistani army instead. The field generals said they couldn’t trust them and they were told, do it anyway. Osama got away. The field generals did not want to go into Iraq without finishing in Afghanistan but here we are. If we would have listened to the generals, we would have been successful in Afghanistan and the world would have continued to support the war on terrorism.   bluewater2 Senior Member Username: bluewater2 Post Number: 3467 Registered: 1-2006 Posted From: 66.74.207.89 Posted on Thursday, December 27, 2007 - 9:28 pm:        Tatm, you are a real piece of work. And I don't mean that in a complimentary way. Why do you feel it necessary to insult people by insinuating that they are female when you know they are not? Why do you say that when you say "God Clinton, or Madam Clinton" you claim to be "quoting media sources". If that were the case, you should put those in quotes and mention the source. Otherwise you are being very misleading. But of course, that is your goal all along. You are so transparent in your pseudo intellectual word-smithing. Too bad Bush did no listen to the Generals earlier, eh? He is just a little punk. He will be gone soon.   the_apostolic_truth_ministries Senior Member Username: the_apostolic_truth_ministries Post Number: 1061 Registered: 10-2005 Posted From: 75.201.35.38 Posted on Thursday, December 27, 2007 - 9:34 pm:        M(r)(s). BA2: You are simply quoting the left-wing media. Quoting: "Probably the field generals within limitations." End quote. What limitations?   the_apostolic_truth_ministries Senior Member Username: the_apostolic_truth_ministries Post Number: 1062 Registered: 10-2005 Posted From: 75.201.35.38 Posted on Thursday, December 27, 2007 - 9:39 pm:        Mr. Bluewater2 & M(r)(s). BA2: Why is it that you applauded when I called Bush . . . Shrub, but cried when I called Clinton, God & Madam?   bluewater2 Senior Member Username: bluewater2 Post Number: 3468 Registered: 1-2006 Posted From: 66.74.207.89 Posted on Thursday, December 27, 2007 - 9:46 pm:        Show me where I applauded when you called Bush Shrub. And show me where I cried when you called clinton, god and madam? If I remember correctly, I said that I was no fan of clinton either. Right? Now, why do you feel it necessary to mislabel people with a gender that you know is false?   the_apostolic_truth_ministries Senior Member Username: the_apostolic_truth_ministries Post Number: 1063 Registered: 10-2005 Posted From: 75.201.35.38 Posted on Thursday, December 27, 2007 - 10:01 pm:        Mr. Bluewater2: You told me to call you Mr. If you would like to be called Ms. Mrs. or anything else, please enlighten me. Otherwise, I will follow your previous wishes. Quoting: "Again, I am amazed at how, the second someone throws an arrow at little bush, the clintons are quickly attacked. Very funny, indeed." End quote. bluewater2 Senior Member Username: bluewater2 Post Number: 3463 Registered: 1-2006 Posted From: 75.42.171.14 Quoting: "I have explained to you that your generic greeting to me as an (s) is unwarranted," End quote. bluewater2 Senior Member Username: bluewater2 Post Number: 3465 Registered: 1-2006 Posted From: 75.42.171.14   bluewater2 Senior Member Username: bluewater2 Post Number: 3469 Registered: 1-2006 Posted From: 66.74.207.89 Posted on Thursday, December 27, 2007 - 10:08 pm:        "You told me to call you Mr. If you would like to be called Ms. Mrs. or anything else, please enlighten me. Otherwise, I will follow your previous wishes." I am commenting on what you do to others as well as what you have done to me. "Again, I am amazed at how, the second someone throws an arrow at little bush, the clintons are quickly attacked. Very funny, indeed." How is that relevant to anything that you ahve brought up? I will try one more time and see if I can get even one straight answer out of you; Now, why do you feel it necessary to mislabel people with a gender that you know is false?   inkorrekt Senior Member Username: inkorrekt Post Number: 1157 Registered: 11-2005 Posted From: 65.100.179.246 Posted on Friday, December 28, 2007 - 3:57 am:        Bush is paying the heavy price because he went after the islamofascist terrorists who want to destroy the western civilization.We have foiled their attempts to attack us. Since 911, we are living in peace.Does anybody understand this? All we hear is condemnation of Bush. We were attacked 10 times during 1992 and 2001. Why? We took the wrong route of appeasing our enemies. If someone broke into my house and was threatening to kill my family. Anyone with little brains and little courage would first kill the intruder to protect the family.This is exactly what Bush did. On the other hand, Jim Mcdermot (a stupid Physician) and John Conyers went to Baghdad and warned Saddam Hussein to hide the weapons as we were coming. They also accused Bush as a liar on our enemies' soil. If this is not treason, what is this, then?They took the oath of office to protect the constitution and they broke it. They are still in congress. What did the Republican cowards do? nothing. Yes, the next President will be a "Democ"RAT" and we will be attacked big time. Then only we will realize our stupidity. It will be too late. WAKE UP AMERICA" PLEASE CHECK OUT THE NEW BEST SELLER "IF ONLY THE DEMOCRATS HAD BRAINS, THEY WOULD BE REPUBLICANS" by Ann Coulter. This must be an eye opener for the slumbering Liberals   ba2 Senior Member Username: ba2 Post Number: 1148 Registered: 1-2006 Posted From: 165.189.16.117 Posted on Friday, December 28, 2007 - 9:02 am:        atam, So, I guess you would let the generals have free reign without any controls? Do you know who McAurther was? To jog your memory, he was a great general during a world war without constraints. But, after WW2 he wanted to go into China which would have been a complete disaster for the USA. Truman rightfully removed him from that leadership position. Constraint means you follow rules of engagement, rules of war, and keep the war contained. inkorrekt : you said, “Bush is paying the heavy price because he went after the islamofascist terrorists who want to destroy the western civilization.” Certainly, Sadahm was a thug and many in his country hated him. But, Iraq was just about the most Westernized Islamic country in the Middle East. Although Sadahm certainly was no fan of Israel, there is no evidence that he was out to get America or any other European country. There is evidence that he had a strong dislike for Osama and Al Qaeda. He viewed Islamic extremists as a threat to his regime. And Iraq kept Iran in check. There was “No Al Qaeda Link In Pre-War Iraq.” This is pretty universal knowledge now. Do we go after every thug leader in the world? I think not.   bluewater2 New member Username: bluewater2 Post Number: 1 Registered: 12-2007 Posted From: 75.42.171.14 Posted on Sunday, December 30, 2007 - 7:43 pm:        "If someone broke into my house and was threatening to kill my family." Are you trying to tell us that Iraq broke into our country so we are justified in invading them? Last I looked, most of the hijackers were from Saudi Arabia. What ignorant logic. "We have foiled their attempts to attack us." Oh pleeeeeeease. There has been more death at the hands of terrorists since the invasion of Iraq. An unjustified invasion, 4000 American soldiers dead, 10's of thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians and people like you still try to link our invasion of Iraq with the 911 terrorist attacks. How many years was it between world trade center attacks? 10 years? Beside of our home grown terrorist that attacked the Murrah building, that is it on American soil. When 2011 rolls around and we have not had an attack on American soil I will see your point. Right now your point is pointless. Ann Coulter is one of the most ignorant people I know of. I wouldn't buy a book by her if I had nothing else to read. I would rather think than read her crap.   easeltine Senior Member Username: easeltine Post Number: 1840 Registered: 5-2005 Posted From: 75.37.5.135 Posted on Sunday, December 30, 2007 - 8:36 pm:        Ba2, It's interesting to wonder how the world would have been if Roosevelt had allowed Patton to invade the Soviet Union and if Truman had allowed MacArthur to invade Communist China. You are probably correct that both men should have been removed by the Presidents. This is not what is going on right now. "Constraint means you follow rules of engagement, rules of war, and keep the war contained." The present rules of engagement are very confining to our military. We cannot really compare the loss of around 4,000 soldiers in the present conflict to the loss of around 54,000 in the Vietnam War. We are spending too much money, and we should now think of letting the Iraqi government now defend for themselves, though it is incorrect to say that the U.S. will not accomplished some main goals of the conflict: * Another country with a U.S. Military Base in the Middle East. We can protect Israel and defend people like Iran, (or like Iraq when they invaded Kuwait in '91). * A bunch of these terrorist have already died fighting in Iraq, better there than here. * Another democracy in addition to Israel in the Middle East. * Another U.S. ally that can supply us with oil. Every little bit helps. Follow the money honey. * The accomplishment of President George Bush Jr. in defeating Sadaam Hussein that we condemned his father for not doing. The President got approval from the Senate, and the U.N. Security Council before going in. It wasn't like the American public was against him before he did it. Also, I think there are still secret weapons of mass destruction that must remain secret. A person would have to be stupid if they believe they aren't...I mean these cameras can read anything, I know they saw something. Bluewater, Our government, some of it is the Bush Administration, some of it is Democrats with the Bush Administration have indeed foiled the attempts for the terrorists to attack us. I am proud of our U.S. government to defend us from more terrorist attacks, and I mean the Bush Administration, the Rebublicans, and the Democrats of both the House and Senate. I am proud of our two party system and the U.S. Government! No other country in the world could have accomplished what our Country has accomplished.   bluewater2 New member Username: bluewater2 Post Number: 2 Registered: 12-2007 Posted From: 66.74.207.89 Posted on Sunday, December 30, 2007 - 9:02 pm:        I too am proud of our governments ability to defend us. Too bad an invasion of Iraq has not helped that cause in any way, diverted much money and human resources from being used in a more effective way and too bad there are people like you who cannot see the difference. Papa Bush had every right to move into Iraq with the support of the Arab nations but chose not to. Another stupid Bush move. Iraq had attacked another country. Not in this case. Hussein was handcuffed and the world knew it. It does not surprise you that you are so easy to blindly follow.   easeltine Senior Member Username: easeltine Post Number: 1842 Registered: 5-2005 Posted From: 75.37.5.135 Posted on Sunday, December 30, 2007 - 9:26 pm:        Bluewater, Let's look at what you are saying and compare it to historical facts: "Papa Bush had every right to move into Iraq with the support of the Arab nations but chose not to. Another stupid Bush move." The fact is that we did move into Iraq, freed Kuwait, and won that war. What President Bush Sr. failed to do was continue to Baghdad, and capturing Sadaam Hussein. Everybody was upset at President Bush Sr. at the time for not taking Baghdad and capturing Sadaam Hussein. Both the taking of Baghdad, and the capture of Sadaam Hussein, (that for which Bush Sr. was criticized for), was accomplished by President Bush Jr. and the present Bush Administration. I have given my reasons why an invation of Iraq has helped our governments ability to defend the U.S. The main reason is that we have seen the death of many terrorists as a result of the invasion, and better there than here. So, yes, I do disagree with you on that point. As I stated above to Ba2: "We are spending too much money, and we should now think of letting the Iraqi government now defend for themselves, though it is incorrect to say that the U.S. will not accomplished some main goals of the conflict..." I was not to thrilled with the last 70 Billion Dollar spending spree on Iraq that was passed in a big way by the Democrat controlled Senate. If you want to look at people that are blind consider the Democrats in the Senate that just voted, "Yes Sir!", to the Bush Administration and gave more money. What a bunch of losers with absolutely all talk and no backbone. Hilary, historically has gone with the rest of the Republicans in the past, but since she is running she has to try to get the Leftist, completely anti-war crowd.   bluewater2 New member Username: bluewater2 Post Number: 3 Registered: 12-2007 Posted From: 66.74.207.89 Posted on Sunday, December 30, 2007 - 9:30 pm:        "If you want to look at people that are blind consider the Democrats in the Senate that just voted, "Yes Sir!", to the Bush Administration and gave more money." I see. So you blame the Democrats for letting Bush spend money. How convoluted. Let me ask you a question, easeltine. If you know that your neighbor hates you and would kill you if he had the chance, do you have the right to go into his house and kill him?   easeltine Senior Member Username: easeltine Post Number: 1844 Registered: 5-2005 Posted From: 75.37.5.135 Posted on Sunday, December 30, 2007 - 10:47 pm:        Absolutely, I blame the Democrats for letting the Liberal Bush Administration spend the money! The Democrats control both the House and the Senate, and my blaming the Democrats is the exact reason the Congress has a 22% approval rating, while the President has a 37% approval rating. Most of the American public agrees with me, including the majority in the U.S. Appox. 52% of whom are Democrats that took the poll and both Dems and Rep together gave the Congress a 22% approval rating. Yes, approx. 78% of the nation agrees with me.   bluewater2 New member Username: bluewater2 Post Number: 4 Registered: 12-2007 Posted From: 66.74.207.89 Posted on Sunday, December 30, 2007 - 10:52 pm:        congress had a dismall approval rating when the Republicans were in office as well and gave Bush all the money he wanted. He never used a veto once when the Republicans were in office, but has used it numerous times since. Whether you know it or not, you do not have the right to go into your neighbors house just because he hates you and would like to see you dead. Thats the law, like it or not.   bluewater2 New member Username: bluewater2 Post Number: 5 Registered: 12-2007 Posted From: 66.74.207.89 Posted on Sunday, December 30, 2007 - 10:54 pm:        Why do you think that just because I think that Bush is a moron that I like the Democrats? I don't like them either.   easeltine Senior Member Username: easeltine Post Number: 1845 Registered: 5-2005 Posted From: 75.37.5.135 Posted on Sunday, December 30, 2007 - 11:23 pm:        Bluewater, President Bush only used one veto that I know of & that was for the 22 billion dollar water spending projects. It's the only time he showed fiscal responsibility. Both parties are spending way too much money for me. I believe in being much more tight fiscally speaking than either party.   bluewater2 New member Username: bluewater2 Post Number: 6 Registered: 12-2007 Posted From: 66.74.207.89 Posted on Sunday, December 30, 2007 - 11:31 pm:        I agree with you that Bush is very fiscally irresponsible. So, do you really think that you have the right to enter another man's house and kill him if you know he hates you?   easeltine Senior Member Username: easeltine Post Number: 1846 Registered: 5-2005 Posted From: 75.37.5.135 Posted on Sunday, December 30, 2007 - 11:40 pm:        "So, do you really think that you have the right to enter another man's house and kill him if you know he hates you?" This you are saying in regards to Iraq and Saddam Hussein. The Kurds asked the U.S. to come into the house to save their people. The dictator of the house had killed one million of the people of the house. It would be my right and duty to come into the house to save the life of another in the house, especially if a member in the house pleaded for my help. If I came into the house I would not execute the killer, I would allow other members in the house to decided the killers fate.   bluewater2 New member Username: bluewater2 Post Number: 7 Registered: 12-2007 Posted From: 66.74.207.89 Posted on Sunday, December 30, 2007 - 11:49 pm:        "The Kurds asked the U.S. to come into the house to save their people." It is not the Kurds country. Why are we not in Darfur, or Mayanmar, or any of these other countries where poeople are being mistreated? Im not sure where you get the 1,000,000 number but if you are saying that we have the right to invade a country that has a brutal leader we have lots of countries to invade, don't we? We have wasted time, money, people and good will on this ill concieved venture simply for Bushy to finish daddies job. There are smarter ways to slowly move a country towards democracy and as slow as they might seem, probably not take as long as this cluster f**k that Bush has gotten us into. Bush is a complete and total moron who embarasses me everytime he opens his mouth to say something.   easeltine Senior Member Username: easeltine Post Number: 1847 Registered: 5-2005 Posted From: 75.37.5.135 Posted on Sunday, December 30, 2007 - 11:58 pm:        You are correct, Bluewater. I stated the number that were totally executed by Sadaam Hussein: During the war, Iraq used chemical weapons against Iranian forces, Iranian civilians, and Iraqi Kurdish civilians which were implictly supported all over the Arab World and by the Americans. Considering the racial backgrounds of victims, this act could be described as a racial genocide motivated by pan-Arabism and anti-Iranian sentiment. The al-Anfal Campaign was a genocidal campaign against Kurds led by Saddam Hussein and Ali Hasan al-Majid, between 1986 and 1989. The Anfal campaign included the use of ground offensives, aerial bombing, systematic destruction of settlements, mass deportation, concentration camps, firing squads, and chemical warfare, which earned al-Majid the nickname of "Chemical Ali". "...were killed during chemical and conventional bombardments stretching from the spring of 1987 through the fall of 1988. The attacks were part of a long-standing campaign that destroyed almost every Kurdish village in a vast areas of northern Iraq -- along with a centuries-old way of life -- and displaced at least a million of the country's estimated 3.5 million Kurdish population. Independent sources estimate 100,000 to more than 200,000 deaths and as many as 100,000 widows and an even greater number of orphans[27] Amnesty International collected the names of more than 17,000 people who had "disappeared" during 1988[28]. The campaign has been legally characterized as genocidal in nature, notably before a court in The Hague, as well as gendercidal, because "battle-age" men were the primary targets, according to Human Rights Watch/Middle East[29]. According to the Iraqi prosecutors, as many as 180,000 people were killed[30]." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saddam_Hussein Bluewater, Remember, it isn't just President Bush, it's the Democrats in the Congress that overwhelmingly agreed with the President. It's the 15-1 vote by the U.N. Security Council that forced Iraq to follow or be subject to invasion. He is not a moron. You are badly mistaken, and history will remember President Bush in a way that it remembers President Truman. President Bush will have this as his legacy, which will always be better than the stain on the blue dress.   bluewater2 New member Username: bluewater2 Post Number: 8 Registered: 12-2007 Posted From: 66.74.207.89 Posted on Monday, December 31, 2007 - 12:06 am:        "During the war, Iraq used chemical weapons against Iranian forces, Iranian civilians, and Iraqi Kurdish civilians which were implictly supported all over the Arab World and by the Americans." It is a known fact that Iranians used chemical weapons as well in that WAR. It was a WAR from their perspective. Like it or not. You keep bringing up clinton. How sad. I didnt like him that much. You blame the democrats for everything that Bush did wrong. How funny.   bluewater2 New member Username: bluewater2 Post Number: 9 Registered: 12-2007 Posted From: 66.74.207.89 Posted on Monday, December 31, 2007 - 12:11 am:        "Independent sources estimate 100,000 to more than 200,000 deaths and as many as 100,000 widows and an even greater number of orphans" Very similar to the numbes of INNOCENT Iraqi's that have been killed since our invasion of Iraq.   bluewater2 New member Username: bluewater2 Post Number: 10 Registered: 12-2007 Posted From: 66.74.207.89 Posted on Monday, December 31, 2007 - 12:14 am:        Currently, most of the world views Bush as an ignorant and arrogant slob. As the layers of the deception onion continue to get pealed back by history he and his cronies will be viewed by history as exactly what they were: short sighted, arrogant imperialists with absolutely no historical understanding of the middle east.   easeltine Senior Member Username: easeltine Post Number: 1848 Registered: 5-2005 Posted From: 75.37.5.135 Posted on Monday, December 31, 2007 - 12:42 am:        Bluewater, We will wait and see. I think that you will be incorrect.   easeltine Senior Member Username: easeltine Post Number: 1850 Registered: 5-2005 Posted From: 75.37.4.35 Posted on Monday, December 31, 2007 - 7:29 am:        What is very sad is to have so much hatred that the truth of the events of the past are forgotten. One has to bring up the history to people that are so filled with irrational hatred. People like this had the same problem with Vice President Dan Quayle. Some homosexuals I have met have had this same problem with hatred towards anybody in politics that has Christian ideas, or talk about terms such as "Family Values."   bluewater2 New member Username: bluewater2 Post Number: 11 Registered: 12-2007 Posted From: 66.74.207.89 Posted on Monday, December 31, 2007 - 9:49 am:        "What is very sad is to have so much hatred that the truth of the events of the past are forgotten." And what events are you concerned that I might forget due to my immense dislike for George Bush? I have a pretty good memory. I certainly won't forget what his original stated motives were and how it has now transformed into fighting terrorists. Without so much as an acknowledgement from him that he was wrong and that now that we are there we have to clean up our mess. He is always acting like he knew what he was doing from the get go. And about his few vetoes. I guess it is much better that he used "signing statements" that basically say, "I can do what I want regardless of what Congress says." And people like you continue support him. That is sad. It would be nice to see christians stop using the term family values as a cover for "chrisitian values."   smyrna New member Username: smyrna Post Number: 2 Registered: 12-2007 Posted From: 148.70.237.171 Posted on Monday, December 31, 2007 - 12:33 pm:        Most presidents don't get just treatment while they are in office. Only afterward are they appreciated. History confirms this: Nixon was lauded after he left office as an elder statesman, even by the liberal press. Kennedy was the first "media darling" president, and every president since then was judged more by how he looked on camera rather than his political views, so in is more difficult to see thorugh this illusion and look at the actual accmplishments. Most democratic presidents since Kennedy actually looked worse after then during their presidencies. And that is because they were no longer propped up by a protective, liberal press. As for Bush, he won't be recognized for his accomplishemtns until well after he is out of office. All presidents make mistakes, and it is not true that Bush never conceded mistakes have been made in Iraq. What causes me to laugh at his critics, is that the majority of them have never, and will never be able to do a job as time consuming, stressful, and bears as enormous a responsibility as the job of President of the United States. Really, can you see Bluewater handling a Cuban Missle Crisis? Or a Great Depression? A 9/11 and a Katrina, as well as incredible terrorist plots against this nation? There is a reason that we have not been attacked since 9/11, though plenty of plots have been foiled. There is a reason why unemployment is at such a low level, there is a reason why taxes are in check, there is a reason why the number of people that have been convicted of malfeasance in office, in the current administration is no where near that of Clinton's, there is a reason why the recession Bush inherited from the Clinton years and made worse by 9/11 is now history, and a boom is still in progress. And the reason for all those things is George W. Bush.   the_apostolic_truth_ministries New member Username: the_apostolic_truth_ministries Post Number: 1 Registered: 1-2008 Posted From: 75.200.60.46 Posted on Tuesday, January 01, 2008 - 7:52 am:        Mr. BA2: Quoting: “atam, So, I guess you would let the generals have free reign without any controls? Do you know who McAurther(sic) was? To jog your memory, he was a great general during a world war without constraints. But, after WW2 he wanted to go into China which would have been a complete disaster for the USA. Truman rightfully removed him from that leadership position. Constraint means you follow rules of engagement, rules of war, and keep the war contained.” End quote. May I have the great pleasure of introducing you to a General? Westmoreland, General Westmoreland that is. General Westmoreland was infinitely controlled by a democrat president and a left-wing Congress. Would you like to know his record? Oh, by the by, should I be surprised at your “MacArthur” commend? In fact, the Chinese Army is the largest contributor to liberalism election finances. Madam Clinton has taken in 2 million from them so far. Who knows how much God Clinton got for selling nuclear secrets to them. Quoting: “inkorrekt : you said, “Bush is paying the heavy price because he went after the islamofascist(sic) terrorists who want to destroy the western civilization.” Certainly, Sadahm(sic) was a thug and many in his country hated him. But, Iraq was just about the most Westernized Islamic country in the Middle East. Although Sadahm(sic) certainly was no fan of Israel, there is no evidence that he was out to get America or any other European country. There is evidence that he had a strong dislike for Osama and Al Qaeda. He viewed Islamic extremists as a threat to his regime. And Iraq kept Iran in check. There was “No Al Qaeda Link In Pre-War Iraq.” This is pretty universal knowledge now.” End quote. Any chance you have ever looked outside liberalism for the news? Quoting: “Do we go after every thug leader in the world? I think not.” End quote. Somalia comes to mind first. God Clinton ran from the Muslim extremists in that country rather than defending freedom. Would you like to discuss ‘pirates’?   the_apostolic_truth_ministries New member Username: the_apostolic_truth_ministries Post Number: 13 Registered: 1-2008 Posted From: 70.220.27.161 Posted on Tuesday, January 01, 2008 - 6:34 pm:        I just listened to God Clinton describe how Madam Clinton wants to bargain with drug companies for lower drug prices for seniors. Have you ever heard "some people never get the word?" God & Madam Clinton have been usurped by Walmart. Walmart already offers generic drugs at four dollars a prescription, requardless of your age. hehehehehhe   inkorrekt New member Username: inkorrekt Post Number: 2 Registered: 1-2008 Posted From: 65.100.179.246 Posted on Wednesday, January 02, 2008 - 2:39 am:        I am not a Bush Fan. Harvard University does not admit morons. It does not grant degrees to morons either.Do yall who attack Bush have degrees from Harvard, Yale, MIT etc? What kind of degrees do yall have? 2 years ago, our troops found tons of saran gas capsules in Iraq. Doesa anyone know what Saran Gas is? Probably not. This is a chemical weapon that destroys the brain cells. It is the media of the LOOOOOOnatic Left that portrayed that Bush Lied. After the WMD's were found, the media never corrected its errors. If (Antiamerican Broadcasting Company) ABC, (Clinton News Network) CNN are the sources of your information, then bury your heads in the sands and compliment the Islamofascists who will attack us again. Alright all of you who hate Bush, get ready for the new regime which will kill you if you spoke a word against them. It will come and then you will remember me.   easeltine Senior Member Username: easeltine Post Number: 1874 Registered: 5-2005 Posted From: 72.164.43.195 Posted on Wednesday, January 02, 2008 - 1:14 pm:        "It would be nice to see christians stop using the term family values as a cover for "chrisitian values."" OK, Good point. Against having children out of wedlock - Not family values, Christian values Against Divorce - Not family values, Christian values Against Pornography - Not family values, Christian values Against Abortion - Not family values, Christian values Against Gay Marriage - Not family values, Christian values Against World Slavery - Not family values, Christian values - after all it was Christians like Wilberforce who stopped slavery in the first place. Against Cruelty to Animals - Not family values, Christian values - Wilberforce again. Pro 10 Commandments - Not family values, Christian values. There, now are you happy?   ba2 Senior Member Username: ba2 Post Number: 1150 Registered: 1-2006 Posted From: 165.189.16.117 Posted on Friday, January 04, 2008 - 11:50 am:        tatm, What makes you think that just because someone doesn’t care too much about GW, it makes them a “liberal?” I listened to the current Republican candidates, they don’t seem to care much about him either. But they are party members so they obviously can’t make too strong of statements. You seem to disagree with my comment that “constraint means you follow rules of engagement, rules of war, and keep the war contained.” So you would have it another way, let the generals do whatever they please, regardless of the consequences? North Korea started a civil war by moving south of the 38th parallel and invading South Korea. They were attempting to reunite Korea which was divided by the allies right after WW2. They just about won that civil war before the USA and a few allies entered. To gain control, General MacArthur not only bombed North and South Korea but also supply depots near and into China, which terrified the Chinese. MacArthur was ordered to take control of South Korea but he was not to march troops across the 38th parallel. The order was ignored and US troops pushed deep into North Korea. So, a paranoid China thought MacAurthur was pushing the war into China. He got the Chinese ticked off and they sent in troops. Those Chinese troops quickly pushed us back south of the 38th parallel and more or less defended that line. MacAurthur was removed and negotiations started. tatm, you would have allowed a general to start WW3 ? How foolish. You bring up Westmoreland. Vietnam was about the dumbest war we ever got involved in. It served absolutely no point and we are still feeling the effects. I wish I never saw the place. I still have nightmares. By the way, Nixon won the election because he claimed to have a plan to quickly get us out of that mess. Except for the extreme right wing element, and those that have something to gain, Americans do not want to get involved in unneeded war. As far as you suggesting that Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden having some sort of relationship, this has been invalidated by virtually all reliable sources, conservative and liberal alike. Yes, Saddam was a thug, but there are hundreds like him, many worse.   kingdavid Intermediate Member Username: kingdavid Post Number: 182 Registered: 9-2005 Posted From: 166.214.51.147 Posted on Tuesday, January 08, 2008 - 1:13 pm:        Down with Republipigs! Down with george bush!   bluewater2 New member Username: bluewater2 Post Number: 13 Registered: 12-2007 Posted From: 66.74.207.89 Posted on Wednesday, January 09, 2008 - 10:17 pm:        Looks like Bush is doing everything he can to hand a war, two wars, and a recession to the next president. Unemplyment is on the upswing, crime is rising and the CIA tape destruction is just beginning. "Harvard University does not admit morons." Yes they do if Daddy and gramps were there before him. He was an average student. One does not need a degree to look at someone and notice that the lights are half on and no one is home. He is broken.   the_apostolic_truth_ministries Member Username: the_apostolic_truth_ministries Post Number: 55 Registered: 10-2005 Posted From: 12.208.13.185 Posted on Friday, January 11, 2008 - 3:57 pm:        Mr. BA2: Quoting: "What makes you think that just because someone doesn’t care too much about GW, it makes them a “liberal?” I listened to the current Republican candidates, they don’t seem to care much about him either. But they are party members so they obviously can’t make too strong of statements." End quote. Recent surveys show 75% of republician support George Bush. Now try being honest, what percentage of democrats supported God Clinton during his reign of terror? Quoting: "tatm, you would have allowed a general to start WW3 ? How foolish." End quote. Pure speculation, my dear friend (or wishful thinking on your part). There is no indication, out side liberalism, that we ever were in any danger of WWIII. Quoting: "tatm, you would have allowed a general to start WW3 ? How foolish. You bring up Westmoreland. Vietnam was about the dumbest war we ever got involved in. It served absolutely no point and we are still feeling the effects. I wish I never saw the place. I still have nightmares. By the way, Nixon won the election because he claimed to have a plan to quickly get us out of that mess. Except for the extreme right wing element, and those that have something to gain, Americans do not want to get involved in unneeded war." End quote. You need to read a real history book and not your party's mantras. It was a democrat (FDR) who started WWII with a preemptive strike against an ally without justification. It was a democrat(Truman) who started the Korean War (Police Action) with a preemptive strike. It was a democrat (JFK) who started Vietnam War (Police Action) with an unjustifiable criminal assault on a non-enemy for no apparent reason. It was a democrat (God Clinton) who start a war in Bosnia with a preemptive strike against an ally without any provocation. Quoting: "As far as you suggesting that Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden having some sort of relationship, this has been invalidated by virtually all reliable sources, conservative and liberal alike. Yes, Saddam was a thug, but there are hundreds like him, many worse." End quote. I don't remember making any association. However coma as the old saying goes, it is not a far stretch. I said "GOD CLINTON AND NOT GEORGE BUSH" allowed bin Laden to escape.   easeltine Senior Member Username: easeltine Post Number: 1936 Registered: 5-2005 Posted From: 66.245.201.244 Posted on Sunday, January 13, 2008 - 2:15 am:        "I said "GOD CLINTON AND NOT GEORGE BUSH" allowed bin Laden to escape." - Absolute Fact! TATM you are correct, President Clinton let Bin Laden go several times!   bluewater2 New member Username: bluewater2 Post Number: 14 Registered: 12-2007 Posted From: 66.74.207.89 Posted on Sunday, January 13, 2008 - 11:35 am:        George Bush is a complete idiot. His approval ratings, not just in the US, but worldwide are dismal. Like it or not, Most of the world is not wrong and has a lot more common sense than our moronic management team, Democrats included.   the_apostolic_truth_ministries Member Username: the_apostolic_truth_ministries Post Number: 57 Registered: 10-2005 Posted From: 12.208.13.185 Posted on Sunday, January 13, 2008 - 5:31 pm:        Well I see the latest CNN poll is in and posted here. I must admit I laughed at it. The claim that 33% of people support Bush is really interesting. After making the pronouncements of doom and gloom, the poll takers exposed themselves. It seems of those surveyed 75% of republicians supported Bush, 10% of democrats and 25% of independents. Let's see shall we? Feel free to help me with this higher math, 75% of ingredient "A" mixed with 10% of ingredient "B", then fold into 25% of ingredient "C" yeilds 33% of the aggregate. My calculator keeps coming up with the word "tilted," does anyone know what that means?   bluewater2 New member Username: bluewater2 Post Number: 15 Registered: 12-2007 Posted From: 75.42.171.14 Posted on Sunday, January 13, 2008 - 7:55 pm:        Post that link, will you?   bluewater2 New member Username: bluewater2 Post Number: 16 Registered: 12-2007 Posted From: 75.42.171.14 Posted on Sunday, January 13, 2008 - 8:06 pm:        Here are a couple that put it all into perspective. The second one has graphs that show the trend of viewers from various radio and TV networks, even Bush's Fox Network. They all mirror each other in what they feel about your boy. www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/custom/2006/02/02/CU2006020201345.html www.hist.umn.edu/~ruggles/Approval.htm He is a moron and I think that even he knows it. He just wants to get back to the old barbeque, sucking on some sausage, drinking a beer. That is where he belongs.   now_what Member Username: now_what Post Number: 97 Registered: 8-2005 Posted From: 68.230.7.236 Posted on Monday, January 14, 2008 - 2:07 am:        And where do you belong? Maybe in a world where Saddam and his sons are still torturing thousands? That is real torture not the made up frat-hazing you liberals are so worked up about. Ironic that those that are self proclaimed prophets of love and compassion would have easily damned millions to continuing tyranny, at least Bush made a stand and did something about it, what have you done except hate, and ignore the plight of millions because they did not have the good fortune to be born a spoiled rotten brat in America?   easeltine Senior Member Username: easeltine Post Number: 1944 Registered: 5-2005 Posted From: 66.245.201.120 Posted on Monday, January 14, 2008 - 3:54 am:        Here are the facts: President Bush Sr. is criticized for not taking Hussein in the first Iraq war. Clinton Administration lets Bin Laden get away a few times. 911 happens. President Bush Jr. decides that we should go into Iraq. The President goes to the Congress and the Congress overwhelmingly gives their approval. The President goes to the U.N. Security Council and they give their approval by 15-1. The Kurds in Iraq were asking the U.S. to help them. We beat the army of Iraq quickly. We get Hussein, a murderer who with his sons killed hundreds of thousand, especially Kurds. In all the time in Iraq we lose 4,000 soldiers compared to 56,000 soldiers in Vietnam. Iraq has held several elections that have been successful. All the Presidents requests for money for Iraq have been EASILY approved everytime by Congress. There is a person running for President on the Democrat Ticket with the name of Barack Hussein Obama, that has voted with the Bush Administration for approval of money to Iraq everytime. He has been in the Senate for only 2 years. There is another person running for President on the Democrat Ticket, Hillary Clinton, that has a historical record of scandals, Whitewater, Campaign Funding issues, and multiple rumors. She is only a one time Senator. She complains about Obama voting for funding, but she has approved it everytime also. The you have Edwards, a person that was a one term Senator, that hardly was ever in the Senate when he was in the Senate. A one term Senator also. Then there is Hee Haw Dr. Dean in charge of the D.N.C. The Congress, controlled by the Dems have a considerably lower approval rating than the President. The Dems are probably going to win...but it won't be with my vote.   ba2 Senior Member Username: ba2 Post Number: 1152 Registered: 1-2006 Posted From: 165.189.16.117 Posted on Monday, January 14, 2008 - 9:49 am:        Here are some more facts: 1. Many presidents have made mistakes, some learn from them. A few felt that George the Elder made a mistake, but not the generals and not the majority of the world. We accomplished our stated goal and contained Saddam. 2. Before 911, Osama never attacked American soil, he was considered an ally when he was fighting the Soviets in Afghanistan. So, taking him out did not have quite the same priority as it does now. 3. Yes, we hear that Clinton had the opportunity to take him out, but that was before everyone in the USA knew he was a criminal, it was before 911. Clinton has admitted waiting too long for secondary verification before bombing the location of Osama hopefully killing him with the others who would be near him. 4. Rightfully, GW goes after Osama, and because of 911, the world is in total support. Everyone now knows how dangerous he is. Oddly, right when Osama is close to being trapped, GW changes course and focuses on Iraq, who was of no imminent threat, Saddam was contained before this move. The world wonders what the heck we are doing. GW gets support because of the claims he made concerning the weapons of mass destruction. Reasons for going into Iraq are now known to be false. Mistake 1: going into Iraq on false premises. Mistake 2: going into Iraq without defined goals. Mistake 3: going into Iraq without an exit plan. Mistake 4: going into Iraq when we needed our energies and focus in Afghanistan. However, the mistake could have been turned into a great victory, with many fewer causalities. We could have got in, got Saddam, and got out. Mistake 5: Once Saddam was eliminated, not turning over the country to the Iraqi military leaders with a stern warning. Had we done this, the shock and awe that we produced would have had a very lasting effect. These leaders would have feared the USA’s ability to take out any leader who gets out of hand. Instead, we get bogged down. Instead, these leaders see that they just have to wait it out. Instead we dismantled the army and upset the balance of power with Iran. Now we have all these trained military men scattered across the country, very bitter about the fact that they were not allowed to participate in their country’s future. Ask any military leader and if they are honest, they will admit this. I don’t support a quick withdrawal; we missed the opportunity for that. Now we are stuck for the long haul. So, yes, we have to support this mistake. Imagine were we would have been in Afghanistan had we stayed the course and focused our energies there. I am no fan of the Clinton’s and I don’t think anyone on this site is stating that they are supporting Hillary’s candidacy, so why even bring that up. I haven’t seen anyone hint at being a liberal on this thread. Pointing out the errors of your leaders does not make one a liberal. Blindly supporting the leaders makes one a fool. Finally, it is obvious that no potential president wants the sitting president to help with their campaign. They have all distanced themselves.   bluewater2 New member Username: bluewater2 Post Number: 17 Registered: 12-2007 Posted From: 75.42.171.14 Posted on Monday, January 14, 2008 - 11:20 am:        Now What says, And where do you belong? Maybe in a world where Saddam and his sons are still torturing thousands? I think that the US is responsible for killing more Iraqi's in a shorter amount of time than those you mention. And all of this even though Bush said war is "The last resort". What a joke. That is real torture not the made up frat-hazing you liberals are so worked up about. Ok, lets invade every country that tortures. And I do not consider myself a liberal. You just love to label people, don't you? . . . . . at least Bush made a stand and did something about it, what have you done except hate, and ignore the plight of millions because they did not have the good fortune to be born a spoiled rotten brat in America? Show me where I have ignored the plight of millions and what in my posts shows me to be a spoiled brat? Easeltine says, President Bush Sr. is criticized for not taking Hussein in the first Iraq war. Rightly so. 911 happens How many Iraqi's were on those airplanes? President Bush Jr. decides that we should go into Iraq Another stupid move. There are more ways to skin a cat and Bush took the most ignorant approach. Let's see, 10 years of military involvement or 10 years of diplomacy. I would pick 10 years of diplomacy everytime. Not Bush. He is a moron that has very little historical perspective concerning that region. The President goes to the Congress and the Congress overwhelmingly gives their approval Most of Congress, Dems and Reps are idiots and certainly the administration has done nothing to expose the idiocy of both sides, chosing instead to create the most partison Congress in history. In all the time in Iraq we lose 4,000 soldiers compared to 56,000 soldiers in Vietnam. And your point is? I'll bet if we invade Darful we would lose even less. Great justification for war. There is a person running for President on the Democrat Ticket with the name of Barack Hussein Obama, that has voted with the Bush Administration for approval of money to Iraq everytime. Most people, including Obama who did not approve of the war in the first place see the need to clean up our mess. There is another person running for President on the Democrat Ticket, Hillary Clinton, that has a historical record of scandals, Whitewater, Campaign Funding issues, and multiple rumors. She is only a one time Senator. She complains about Obama voting for funding, but she has approved it everytime also. I am no Clinton fan. But I know you wish I was since you bring them up everytime we discuss our CURRENT President. The you have Edwards, a person that was a one term Senator, that hardly was ever in the Senate when he was in the Senate. A one term Senator also. See note above concerning Clinton. Then there is Hee Haw Dr. Dean in charge of the D.N.C. See not above concerning Clinton. The Congress, controlled by the Dems have a considerably lower approval rating than the President. Yes, Bush has, in 7 years, done a really good job of laying out an agenda that unites forces. Instead, as has been the way for many years, he has pushed his agenda, not an agenda for the American people. We need a good communicator in office who can speak to the people and get the people involved again. Bush was elected by 25% of the eligable voters in this country and considers that a mandate, rather than a failure of the system. Bush is an ignorant slob, most of Congress is as well, and most of the people in this nation who do not bother to pay attention.   the_apostolic_truth_ministries Member Username: the_apostolic_truth_ministries Post Number: 59 Registered: 10-2005 Posted From: 75.201.40.253 Posted on Monday, January 14, 2008 - 12:34 pm:        Quoting: "Bush was elected by 25% of the eligable voters in this country and considers that a mandate, rather than a failure of the system." End quote. A gooder way of saying it is, liberalism was dealt a serve defeat by 25% of eligible voters.   bluewater2 New member Username: bluewater2 Post Number: 18 Registered: 12-2007 Posted From: 75.42.171.14 Posted on Monday, January 14, 2008 - 12:42 pm:        A gooder way of saying it is, liberalism was dealt a serve defeat by 25% of eligible voters I guess that would be true if the other 75% were all liberals. Only 51% of those that voted, voted for Bush. If you see that as a mandate for Bush, and a slap on the liberals, that is your right. Anyone that things that the 25% got it right have enough problems in their lives. I just hope that one day the 50% of those that chose not to vote now find a reason to based on the failed administration of the last 7 years. Enough of letting the radical Christians decide who our president is.   coolinfinity New member Username: coolinfinity Post Number: 7 Registered: 12-2007 Posted From: 71.194.182.119 Posted on Monday, January 14, 2008 - 12:55 pm:        It is ludicrous to even think or blame the The United States for insane Islamic terrorist radicals whose only mindset is to kill all non Muslems and all those in other religions. http://stoptheaclu.com/archives/2007/10/14/hillary-scandal-video-tops-google-most-watched-list/ The latest "Hillary Bill Scandals has Hillary fundraising over legal limits, and worked with fugitive, indicted and convicted fraud Norman Hsu, who used his influence in Asian-American circles to help raise millions for Democrats, all while he was considered a fugitive from a 15-year old grand theft conviction. The Los Angeles Times looked at 150 donations made to Clinton after fundraising events targeting the Chinese community. It had trouble tracking down many donors. Most had not even registered to vote, many held low-paying jobs that would make it difficult to scrounge together cash for political contributions and some said they said they were instructed to give by community leaders, the paper reported. Hillary Clinton denied knowing about or having anything to do with illegal fundraising events. Caught on videotape is Hillary proving her involvement and well known knowledge and ochestration of this event. In a written declaration for the California court filed on April 7, 2006, Clinton said that she did not remember discussions with Paul about the fundraiser. "I have no recollection whatsoever of discussing any arrangement with him whereby he would support my campaign for the United States Senate in exchange for anything from me or then-President Clinton," Clinton wrote. "I do not believe I would make such a statement because I believe I would remember such a discussion if it had occurred." This is a felony. Sen. Clinton's participation in soliciting performers and planning the event would make his more than $1.2 million in contributions a direct donation to her Senate campaign rather than to a joint fundraising committee, violating federal statutes that limit "hard money" contributions to a candidate to $2,000 per person. Knowingly accepting $25,000 or more in a calendar year is a felony carrying a prison sentence of up to five years. Knowingly soliciting $25,000 or more in a calendar year is a felony carrying a prison sentence of up to five years. Court to Hear Other Hillary Fundraising Case Title 2 section 437 of the U.S. federal elections code states: “Any person who knowingly and willfully commits a violation of any provision of this act which involves the making, receiving, or reporting of any contribution, donation, or expenditure aggregating $25,000 or more during a calendar year shall be fined under Title 18, or imprisoned for not more than 5 years, or both.” January 6 2008 (World News.com) - Barely a week after questions emerged about suspicious donations to Sen. Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign, a three-judge panel in California will hear arguments Friday regarding an illegal fundraising event from her campaign. Clinton can be heard agreeing to plan a fundraiser, which was later determined to be illegal by the Federal Elections Commission (FEC). Paul's legal counsel, the United States Justice Foundation (USJF), filed a brief in July. It said the videotape "captures the very commission of a crime, namely, that of knowingly soliciting, coordinating and accepting federal campaign contributions far in excess of the legal limit of $2,000 and $25,000."   coolinfinity New member Username: coolinfinity Post Number: 8 Registered: 12-2007 Posted From: 71.194.182.119 Posted on Monday, January 14, 2008 - 12:58 pm:        continued... Her star-studded fundraiser that included Cher, Diana Ross, Brad Pitt, Sugar Ray and other Hollywood celebrities. After failing to properly report the money raised, the Clinton campaign had to pay a $35,000 fine to the FEC. Clinton's campaign finance director, David Rosen, was accused of lying to the FEC. "Everything I complained about in 2001, and she denied, was supported in the Rosen trial and the FEC," Paul said. "Only her direct knowledge continues to be denied, and the tape contradicts that. Hillary's obstruction is worse than Nixon's obstruction in Watergate." Over the last six years Clinton's staff said she played no role in planning the fundraiser. Yet the videotape shows Paul, Lee, and movie director Aaron Tonkin speaking with Hillary Clinton on speakerphone as she expresses enthusiasm about the event and telling Paul to contact her aide any time to further plan details.In a written declaration for the California court filed on April 7, 2006, Clinton said that she did not remember discussions with Paul about the fundraiser. "I have no recollection whatsoever of discussing any arrangement with him whereby he would support my campaign for the United States Senate in exchange for anything from me or then-President Clinton," Clinton wrote. "I do not believe I would make such a statement because I believe I would remember such a discussion if it had occurred." If Clinton helped to plan the event, it could legally constitute a direct hard money donation to her Senate campaign, rather than to her joint fundraising committee, "New York Senate 2000." The donation from Paul would be more than a thousand times the legal limit for an individual donation. Knowingly soliciting an individual contribution of $25,000 or more is a felony punishable by up to five years in prison. At one point on the tape Tonkin said the celebrities are "coming out in full force knowing this is for your Senate race, it's unbelievable." Clinton replied, "I'm just thrilled. I'll check in with you from time to time because I know that putting something like this together is challenging even when people are enthusiastic and looking forward to doing it." Clinton also says on the tape that Paul and her campaign aide Kelly Craighead "talk all the time, so she'll be the person to convey whatever I need." Clinton instructed Paul to talk to one of her top aides, and why Clinton said on the tape that she contacted Cher about performing at the fundraiser, Paul's attorney D. Colette Wilson of the USJF said in an interview. News Service first reported the existence of the videotape in April. In a written declaration for the California court filed on April 7, 2006, Clinton said that she did not remember discussions with Paul about the fundraiser. "I have no recollection whatsoever of discussing any arrangement with him whereby he would support my campaign for the United States Senate in exchange for anything from me or then-President Clinton," Clinton wrote. "I do not believe I would make such a statement because I believe I would remember such a discussion if it had occurred." http://stoptheaclu.com/archives/2007/10/14/hillary-scandal-video-tops-google-most-watched-list/   bluewater2 New member Username: bluewater2 Post Number: 19 Registered: 12-2007 Posted From: 75.42.171.14 Posted on Monday, January 14, 2008 - 12:59 pm:        Why is always that when Bush gets hit on that people always bring up the Clintons? That is the weakest defense of Bush I can think of.   trainedobserver Senior Member Username: trainedobserver Post Number: 3126 Registered: 10-2005 Posted From: 198.49.119.27 Posted on Monday, January 14, 2008 - 1:55 pm:        There is only one question that needs to be established about the war in Iraq. Is it legal? By that, I mean is it legal according to the United States Constitution? All other questions, "Is it helping, is it hurting, are we winning, are we losing?" are all immaterial. The answer is that it is illegal. Immediate withdrawal to defend OUR borders is the only ethical thing that we can do.   easeltine Senior Member Username: easeltine Post Number: 1953 Registered: 5-2005 Posted From: 72.164.43.195 Posted on Monday, January 14, 2008 - 8:08 pm:        Down with George Bush? Since he will not be President in a year I ask: Which of these people running do people like? We have 8 main choices. Only McCain has real experience.   bluewater2 New member Username: bluewater2 Post Number: 20 Registered: 12-2007 Posted From: 66.74.207.89 Posted on Monday, January 14, 2008 - 9:19 pm:        I suggest a new thread. This is the thread for exposing the idiocy of our current president. My hope is that we learn from our mistake. It will take many years to undo the damage he has done. Hey easeltine, I responded to your statements above. Can you continue the line of thought or do you want to throw in the towel and start discussing our next choice for president? Can you comment on the one graph that is available at the second link a few messages up?   coolinfinity New member Username: coolinfinity Post Number: 9 Registered: 12-2007 Posted From: 71.194.182.119 Posted on Monday, January 14, 2008 - 11:45 pm:        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Dalton_Thompson Fred Thompson who was declared the winner of last nights South Carolinas Republican television debate also has long successful experience in Governent, is an American politician, attorney, lobbyist and he represented Tennessee as a Republican in the U.S. Senate from 1994 through 2002 and is a candidate for the 2008 Republican nomination for President of the United States. He worked as an assistant U.S. attorney from 1969 to 1972,[14] successfully prosecuting bank robberies and other cases.[11] Thompson was the campaign manager for Republican U.S. Senator Howard Baker's reelection campaign in 1972 and was minority counsel to the Senate Watergate Committee in its investigation of the Watergate scandal (1973–1974). Throughout the 1980s Thompson worked primarily as an attorney, with law offices in Nashville and Washington, DC. Thompson handled personal injury claims and he defended individuals accused of white collar crimes. He also accepted appointments as Special Counsel to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee (1980–1981), Special Counsel to the Senate Intelligence Committee (1982), and Member of the Appellate Court Nominating Commission for the State of Tennessee (1985–1987).Thompson was an attorney on the Watergate asked about listening devices in the White House at a public committee hearing to former White House aide Alexander Butterfield, thereby revealing the existence of tape recordings of conversations within the White House. National Public Radio later called that session and the discovery of the Watergate tapes "a turning point in the investigation." Thompson served as chairman of the International Security Advisory Board at the United States Department of State, is a member of the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission, a member of the Council on Foreign Relations, and is a Visiting Fellow with the American Enterprise Institute, specializing in national security and intelligence.[3][4][5] He resides in McLean, Virginia, near Washington, D.C.[6] In 1996, Thompson served two terms as US senator of Tennessee and was re-elected (for the second term in the US Senate ending January 3, 2003) with 61 percent of the vote, defeating Democratic attorney Houston Gordon of Covington, Tennessee, even as Bill Clinton narrowly carried the state by less than three percentage points on his way to re-election.   easeltine Senior Member Username: easeltine Post Number: 1955 Registered: 5-2005 Posted From: 66.245.201.13 Posted on Tuesday, January 15, 2008 - 1:52 am:        Thompson is who I am currently considering as the best choice, and if he is there for me in California that's who I am voting for. Bluewater, The President has gone up to 37% I think was the last poll. The President's approval rating is improving due to the recent success of the SURGE. It is obviously working. Democracy is advancing while the Islamo Facist Pigs...Oh that is good, PIGS! are being KILLED. Listen Bluewater, you are an atheist, and I get the idea also that you are a homosexual, you and I are in the same boat. If these Islamo Pigs ever get a hold of us they would take a knife and cut your head off! If you are a homosexual they would cut your you know what's off before your head. I'm a Christian and the President is a Christian and we would have out heads cut off as well. Consider that in the entire spectrum of what you are talking about. You get Hillary as President and those Islamo Pigs are going to get what they want! Same with BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA...the 2 year Senator. Get a clue bud! You need a leader that is tough on terrorism and doesn't care what people like you think, you that would allow the Islamo Pigs to slit your throat...and they don't do it like the false prophet Mohammed did, they slowly cut it. Michael Savage is right and you need to smell the coffee and get out of the fantasy world, the mental disorder, (LIBERALISM), you are livin' in.   easeltine Senior Member Username: easeltine Post Number: 1956 Registered: 5-2005 Posted From: 66.245.201.13 Posted on Tuesday, January 15, 2008 - 2:04 am:        Bluewater, I don't care about a stupid graph, or opinion poll. Masses have been you know whats in the past. A main purpose of the President as Commander and Chief is to protect the life of the citizens of the United States. There has not been another act of terrorism since 911 due to the Bush Administration doing their job and protecting the American public. I bring up President Clinton or a possible President Gore and they would not have done as good a job as President Bush, not maybe, absolute fact. President Clinton would have checked the opinion polls to see what he should do, and that is not the type of leader we needed after 911. The fact that President Clinton missed getting Bin Laden has been admitted by Clinton as a mistake, the line above about Bin Laden is just incorrect. We get a liberal, anti-war, freak in the Office of the Presidency and this country will see major problems, and it's probably going to happen.   inkorrekt New member Username: inkorrekt Post Number: 12 Registered: 11-2005 Posted From: