i have a few questions for my friends at madjack's who doesn't like bush or chaney

[bjfinste]

You seem baffled by bfinstes comment that Osama is happy about our occupation of Iraq. Not to speak for him, but the answer seems obvious. He was and is no longer our main focus. In addition, we created a big playground for him.

Dogs,

Kosar pretty much hit the nail on the head. That is exactly what I meant.

 

[dawgball]

gw posted: i`m thankful that kerry appears to be garnering the democratic nomination....the best possible candidate,imo. he`s a little wishy washy on some policy issues...

-I have agreed with most of what you said, but this is the understatement of the year. He is wishy-washy on everything, imo. He seems to be for or against what is the majority sentiment at the time. I don't want that kind of person running my country. I think the guy is slimy (for lack of a better word). I think Edwards is more electable than Kerry.

My voting history: Perot, Clinton, Bush Jr.. I will most likely be voting for Bush Jr. again in '04. Edwards could possibly sway my vote.
-----
kosar posted: You also mention that you're sick of 'anti-religious zealots'. lol- come on man. If there *is* such a thing, it's about 98% to 2% the other way.

-I don't get this statement. If there is such a thing? Are you kidding me? That was a ridiculous comment. I guess most of you would consider me a crazy religous right because I believe in the worship of God, but the people that are opposite of me (against religion) think that I should not be able to talk about my faith. I don't bring it up, and I don't throw it in anyone's face. I have been accused of it if I show gratitude to God for things in my life, but it is usaully an over-reaction that seems to be caused by some anger inside. This is just from personal experience. Some of you met me in Vegas, and I don't think anyone who has would consider me a bible beater but I am a man of faith. These days it seems like that is a terrible thing to be. I don't get it. I'm also not saying what I believe is the absolute truth. I do believe that people should believe in something, though. This world didn't just happen to become what it is.

I guess this would be best in another thread, though.

Happy bashing.
-----

On another note, I would like to see Bush find another running mate for this election.

 

[kosar]

gw posted: i`m thankful that kerry appears to be garnering the democratic nomination....the best possible candidate,imo. he`s a little wishy washy on some policy issues...

-I have agreed with most of what you said, but this is the understatement of the year. He is wishy-washy on everything, imo. He seems to be for or against what is the majority sentiment at the time. I don't want that kind of person running my country. I think the guy is slimy (for lack of a better word). I think Edwards is more electable than Kerry.

My voting history: Perot, Clinton, Bush Jr.. I will most likely be voting for Bush Jr. again in '04. Edwards could possibly sway my vote.
-----
kosar posted: You also mention that you're sick of 'anti-religious zealots'. lol- come on man. If there *is* such a thing, it's about 98% to 2% the other way.

-I don't get this statement. If there is such a thing? Are you kidding me? That was a ridiculous comment. I guess most of you would consider me a crazy religous right because I believe in the worship of God, but the people that are opposite of me (against religion) think that I should not be able to talk about my faith. I don't bring it up, and I don't throw it in anyone's face. I have been accused of it if I show gratitude to God for things in my life, but it is usaully an over-reaction that seems to be caused by some anger inside. This is just from personal experience. Some of you met me in Vegas, and I don't think anyone who has would consider me a bible beater but I am a man of faith. These days it seems like that is a terrible thing to be. I don't get it. I'm also not saying what I believe is the absolute truth. I do believe that people should believe in something, though. This world didn't just happen to become what it is.

I guess this would be best in another thread, though.

Happy bashing.
-----

On another note, I would like to see Bush find another running mate for this election.

Dawg,

I doubt anybody would consider you a 'bible freak' or anything of the sort. There is no reason to be so defensive about this. I don't find that people try to shove 'anti-religion'(if that's even possible) down my throat. On the other hand, I sure as hell don't need the government to be one of 'institutions' waving it in my face. My belief is, 'don't tell me what to believe and how to believe it and you can do whatever the f*ck you want'.

If you consider people who are against having this country turn non-secular to be 'anti-religious zealots', then I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.

I'm not an Atheist and i'm not anti-religion. However, it seems obvious that the great majority of the 'zealots' are on the 'religious' side. I don't think it's a ridiculous comment at all.

All the people who get riled up because little Johnny can't say prayers in school would have a heart attack if Johnny's little buddy Osama started quoting the Koran. Freedom of Religion if it's the right religion. I bring this up because I imagine where there is some sense of 'anti-religion' is that there are a lot of people that fight religion in our schools. That's not being a zealot, that's just using common sense.

 

[dawgball]

You're right, we will probably continue to disagree on this.

I think there are more anti-religious people screaming, but there are more religious people in power. I'm not saying that it makes the religious people right, but I do think the sentiment these days is anti-religion (using this term for a lack of a better one).

I don't like the notion of prayer in school. I think it is something to be done at home. My kids will most likely go to a Catholic school so I don't have to worry about it, but if they are in public school I don't expect/want organized prayer to be part of their day.

I don't think non-secular means anti-religion.

I will use Mark Richt (HC of UGA football) as an example because he is a public figure here and a very religious man. People have been up in arms since he has been here because he thanks God after wins and such. The usual statement is, "Does he think God wants Georgia to win more than the other team..." and it goes on. IMO, he is not thanking God for the win. He is thanking God for blessing him with his abilities and opportunities. I think he should have every right to express that without remorse. And this is in the part of the country that is supposed to be the bible belt.

Maybe it's the crowds that I hang out with: bars, gambling, etc. (Catholics allow themselves these things ) that are so vocal. Then my stomach always turns when I see basically anything from San Fran because of what I perceive as anti-religous zealots who seem to care more about animal rights and such than what I think is right.

Religous zealots, to me, are the people who picket abortion clinics (usually fellow Catholics). I strongly disagree with abortion, but I also strongly disagree with invading someone's rights as a person to have one. My personal goal as a Pro-Life person is to educate people about abortion as much as possible, but the ultimate decision is up to them. I also feel that sometimes it is a little too easy to have an abortion.

My goal for this thread: Bring up every touchy subject possible and still maintain a decent discussion with everyone!:tongue

 

[kosar]

"You're right, we will probably continue to disagree on this. "


We're probably closer than you think.

"I think there are more anti-religious people screaming, but there are more religious people in power. I'm not saying that it makes the religious people right, but I do think the sentiment these days is anti-religion (using this term for a lack of a better one)."


I think that there is somewhat of a backlash going on, as well. I believe that it's a direct result of this administrations decision to close the gap between church and state. People feel uncomfortable with that and are fighting back a little, as it were.



"I don't like the notion of prayer in school. I think it is something to be done at home. My kids will most likely go to a Catholic school so I don't have to worry about it, but if they are in public school I don't expect/want organized prayer to be part of their day. "

Obviously agree with that one.

"I will use Mark Richt (HC of UGA football) as an example because he is a public figure here and a very religious man. People have been up in arms since he has been here because he thanks God after wins and such. The usual statement is, "Does he think God wants Georgia to win more than the other team..." and it goes on. IMO, he is not thanking God for the win. He is thanking God for blessing him with his abilities and opportunities. I think he should have every right to express that without remorse. And this is in the part of the country that is supposed to be the bible belt."


See, this is probably where we diverge, as a result of how we naturally look at things and how we take things. I definitely see nothing wrong with Richt, or any of the others that do it, to thank God after a win. And I also have heard a million times people making the comment about 'what, does God like UGA more', but I don't see that as the least bit anti-religious. Never would even cross my mind. I see it as some goof thinking he's made a witty joke and he likes the chuckles it gets.



"Maybe it's the crowds that I hang out with: bars, gambling, etc. (Catholics allow themselves these things ) that are so vocal. Then my stomach always turns when I see basically anything from San Fran because of what I perceive as anti-religous zealots who seem to care more about animal rights and such than what I think is right. "


It sounds like it bothers you that those nuts seem to like animals more than people. I don't really think that we can assume that they are even anti-religious, much less a zealot. While they are weird, and hard to fathom, I think you're making a leap here. The loving animals, or whatever, goes against what you believe, so it bothers you. But how does that make them zealots?


"Religous zealots, to me, are the people who picket abortion clinics (usually fellow Catholics). I strongly disagree with abortion, but I also strongly disagree with invading someone's rights as a person to have one. My personal goal as a Pro-Life person is to educate people about abortion as much as possible, but the ultimate decision is up to them. I also feel that sometimes it is a little too easy to have an abortion. "

Seems like a good way to approach it.


"My goal for this thread: Bring up every touchy subject possible and still maintain a decent discussion with everyone!"


lol- yeah, you're taking a big chance by slipping abortion in there.

 

[dawgball]

I couldn't get PETA out of my mind. I knew it was a bad example when I wrote it. Yes, PETA wears me very thin. It's a great idea, but their delivery is over-zealous, IMO. I'm a huge animal lover, though. I'm from Kentucky! We like all kinds!

I bet AR is wondering how the hell this thread turned into this.

 

[DOGS THAT BARK]

Understand your thoughts now on Bin Laden. I think you would be in part correct simply because of diversion of lots of forces but I think the hunt has been on going and with Pakistan throwing in with us this week I think his days are numbered. Would have been far better for everyone involved had Suddan taken offer to get out of dodge on final offer. Would have like to have used 1/20th of Iraq war cost to build Afgan to model country.

Kosar I can go along with no organized prayer in school.where I draw the line is on Pledge of allegiance-in God we trust--kicking boy scouts out of public parks because they are a "religious org ect. --and the gay marriage issue-sheez it is against law in CA yet they ignore laws when they choose.
We each have our own set of values in life the nice thing is we can agree to disagree and while we do not share the others view, still respect them and their opinion--and as always I have the utmost respect for yours.

 

[AR182]

to tell you the truth, i am not surprised by the great responses, on both sides, that were stated here.and as others have stated, it's impressive that there were no bashing. good job guys!!

gw & dtb,

great posts!! probably because i agree with most of what you have said.


my political views cannot be lumped with one party or the other.

for example i think bush is doing a great job on the terrorism issue, but like others, i feel uncomfortable with some of the religious oriented statements that he has expressed. i also don't know how much pull the religious right has with the bush administration. as much respect i developed with his actions during the 9/11 tragedy, i think bush or someone in his administration should have admonished falwell & roberts for their moronic statements that "god was punishing those for being gay"(that's not an accurate quote, but it was something similar). imo,these two "god loving" morons are giving religious people a bad rep.

however, i do agree with what dtb stated:"Kosar I can go along with no organized prayer in school.where I draw the line is on Pledge of allegiance-in God we trust--kicking boy scouts out of public parks because they are a "religious org ect. --and the gay marriage issue-sheez it is against law in CA yet they ignore laws when they choose."

hoops quote:" I would say a majority of those outside the United States view him as a cartoon character and an embarrassment to our country."

i don't understand why people are concerned what people in other countries think about our leader. i also think that almost all of bush's harshest critics are liberal thinking.

i really think people are grossly underestimating bush's intelligence. because a person is not a good speaker does not mean he is not intelligent. it is said that lincoln was a horrible public speaker, and historians have rated him among the top presidents.


i will have more comments about this thread, later.

 

[Nolan Dalla]

***This is obviously a LESSER OF TWO EVILS debate. I almost shudder to think I'll be voting for Kerry in this election. I am not comfortable with that notion, at all -- given the Democrats history of wreckless spending, social engineering, and pandering to narrow special interests. I'd like to address comments by DOGS THAT BARK (Wayne).

1. If had my choice of intelligence or character and convictions---lets just say I had my fill of Rhodes scholars.
***Bush's character and "true believer" status gives him some appeal. In fact, I DO think character matters. We disagree on how important intellect and communication are to a President. I happen to think the President should be able to engage in a somewhat convincing defense of his positions and policies. This man is TOTALLY incapable of doing that, without a teleprompter or speechwriter. That might be okay if he was a Congressman or Governer, but I expect better communication skills from my President. The office DEMANDS that he be an advocate of national policy not only to the country, but to the rest of the world. He's a failure in this regard.

3 Dishonest Campaigner -- Show me one that isn't and ----"dirty campaigning" --hmmm you must not be watching democratic primarys?
***I haven't seen Kerry reduce himself to the depths of what the Bush campaign did in South Carolina in 2000. It's one thing to have an honest policy debate. It's another to COMPLETELY LIE and TOTALLY MISREPRESENT your opponent's record. To my knowledge, Kerry has not lied or misrepresented the records of Edwards, Clark, Dean, et. al.

4. While I detest the Jerry Falwells and religious fanatics I loath the anti religious zellots worse. I'll take environment and people in neighborhood with church on every corner over a San Fran atmosphere any day.--and I'll take the conservative judges over the ACLU BS every day of the week. Fortunately we have a Supreme Court that can counter these absurb rulings of liberal judges.
***We will have some genuine disagreement on some of these issues. I happen to belive the fight for civil liberteries and the environment is important. By the way -- I tend to agree with the notion that some Christians are often unfairly chartacterized (particularly in the media). So, I do see both sides here. It's just that my political leanings prioritize THE ROLE OF GOVERNMENT in our lives over other issues. And, I tend to favor a VERY LIMITED role for government, especially when it comes to social issues. Religious conservatives on the other hand want to impose THEIR STRICT BELIEFS on the rest of this.

5. Bush's Interventionalist Foreign Policy
I like it. Time will tell who is correct here.--but terrorism is the greatest threat to just not us but the world. I could post over 250 incidents of terrorist killing civilians since 1986 worldwide--and I can not think of any 1 person who has done so much in such short time to counter this threat.
***What we are experiencing is a SHORT TERM lull in the hurricane, while 1/5th of the world's population is regouping. I predict that we may have passed the point of no return when it comes to a major Christian-Judeo versus Muslim global conflict. Some say we are already there. The bottom line is -- America is perceived as a COLONIAL power when it has its battleships and megacorporations docked on foreign soil. It's not about our "enemies" hating America and the notion of freedom, as the simple-minded President so often parrots in his rhetoric. It's more about regular people in Egypt, Indonesia, and a host of other nations seeing what we call "culture" in this country, and BEING ABSOLUTELY TERRIFIED OF IT (re: Janet Jackson-Justin Timberlake). Frankly, I can't say I blame them. If my culture was being assulated by these images. I might be lobbing Molotov cocktails, too.

6 The bottom line that makes me side with Isreal is one basic fact. While Isreal does kill innocent civilians via colateral damage -Palestine targets them on purpose. They ARE a terrorist state and you can NOT negotiate with terrorist, Until they remove that element from Palistine there will be no peace.
***We will disagree on this point. I'll take a pass here, because this entire bebate could be sidetracked by this issue alone. So, you get the last word here (for now).

7. Explosion in the Size of Federal Government
8. Budget Deficits
9. Immigration Policies
1st I adamantly agree on immigration issue
***I'm glad you agree. Then, why aren't you opposed to Bush? This alone alone has such severe ramifications that I shudder to think what is going to hapen when these NINE million illegals are given totall access to jobs, GOVERNMENT BENEFITS, and so forth. Do we really want a couple of more million drawing welfare, medicare, and social services? What, does anyone in his right mind think this will STOP illegal immigration? Hell, no. It will only fuel millions more to come in and will gradually alter this entire society. This is to say nothing of the SECURITY concerns. What REALLy angers me about this is it's motivated by big corporate interests. Wal_mart would love to have NINE million more potential job applicants, to fill $6 an hour jobs. This helps to preserve a huge underclasss of workers, and will do nothing to create jobs.

I would like see any president go through choatic hit of 911 on economy and 2 wars (in 3 years)without increased spending.---was a little surprised by your assessment without cause factor?
To me it is absolutely incomprehensible our current financial and economy is where it stands While I disagree with tax cuts being cause here is article of pros and cons--but bottom line is things could be MUCH worse considering he inherited recession,911 and 2 wars.
***Again -- then why did this President push for TWO major tax cuts, when he knew spending would have to increase? That's a huge lapse in judgment that shows no economic sense. It;s true I perhaps unfairly did not mention the CAUSES of government spending -- but I for one don't feel any safer now because there are 300,000 more bureacrats working for the government. What is REALLY criminal is that the intelligence agencies continue to get bloated funding, but time and time again fail in their projections and predictions. Bush and the Republicans love to throw money at these agencies, despite their failings. Heads should be rolling all over the CIA, DIA, and NSA, but no one takes any responsibility over there.

SEE NEXT FRAME

 

[Nolan Dalla]

12. Personal Background
I do not know much about his backround except military.--and granted he joined the guard rather than go to battle but wonder why with family's money he could not find other modes of avoidance.
***Bush Jr. was clearly interested in a policial career, even back then. He must have been thinking ahead and knew that dodging the draft or going to Canada would kill his chances of being elected. So, the family opted for what seemed to be a safe compromise -- the Air National Guard. Reserve units were not called up back then, so this was the perfect "out." That might not be a violation of law, but in my view does show some weaknesses of character when faced with the prospect of serving in the military.

I have been doing research on Kerry's backround which I think some may prove interesting in the future.
Without going into detail do you find it unusual that a person would volunteer for Viet Nam (Navy mind you) and after being transfered from safe ship to patrol boat on Delta (combat) gets 3 trivial wounds) "walking wounded" in his own words,and immedediately requested to be sent home.
"Navy rules, he pointed out, allowed a thrice-wounded soldier to return to the United States immediately".
Seems 3 months of patrol boat combat changed his outlook
***Those are fair questions. I cannot answer them. Perhaps someone else can.

I was surprised by your raising issue that he ducked question of drug use? Surley your not one that prefers the "never inhaled" speil
***One has nothing to do with the other. I'm not pro-Clinton, so that's not a fair comparison.

13. Unwillingness to Address Specific Issues:
I disagree. As I think Saftey and ecomomy are 2 of citizens major concerns currently and supported by poles.
Which of your "any other candidate" has spoke on SOLUTIONS to issues rather than whining bout others being wrong.
***I'm not a supporter of Edwards, but he speaks on more specifics than any other cnadidate (except for Kucinich -- who is VERY specific about what he would do -- but has no chance in the elction). As for President Bush, I guess I'm just fed up with rah-rah sound bites, an the crater void of specifics that characterize all of his speaking engagements. I'd like my President to TEACH ME SOMETHING and perhaps even PERSUADE ME -- that's a true LEADER. By the way, C-Span carries many of the stump speeches LIVE, so I am talking about full speech texts, not just what appears on the national news in 10 second sound bites.

Since jobs seems to be one of the "others" as well as many citizens current concerns I would be most curious to any solution a candidate or yourself has to create jobs.-----because I consider it impossible given increased productivity of modern era. Manufacturing jobs have declined constantantly since 1986 and will continue to do so because 1 man can do job of 3 back then because of inovations and technology.
***The outsourcing issue is HUGE. Corporations are sending many of the top high tech jobs overseas because labor is cheaper. Then, they are given tax credits by OUR government -- pushed mainly be Republicans. INS allows J-1 visa applicants to swarm the country (I think it's a J-1, it's been awhile since I was with the government) because these jobs are supposedly 'scarce." We are NOT taking care of our own people, and are creating huge incentives to send all of the manufacturing and high tech jobs overseas. We are becoming a "service" economy -- full of hamburger flippers and WalMart cahiers (non-union). Government does not CREATE jobs, but its policies go a long way to determine what kind of people in this country find work, and the quality of pay and benefits they receive. Furthermore, the Republican (Bush) push to STOP ovetime pay and keep the minimum wage lower than the poverty level clearly ANTI-WORKER.


***Thanks for the debate, Wayne.

-- Nolan

 

[Blitz]

To my knowledge, Kerry has not lied or misrepresented the records of Edwards, Clark, Dean, et. al.

He doesn't need to, he does a good enough job misrepresenting his own record....

 

[djv]

Blitz spelled it out as others have here. Your answer is very week with out some examples.
As for Saddam if a theat a real GD threat. We would have finished him in 91. So it was all hot air.
Nolan you say very little at times. But when you do you sure do tell it like it is.

 

[DOGS THAT BARK]

Enjoyed your response as always Nolan---and as I expected we are not far off on most important issues.

Extremes in religion can be harmful for sure. I have always wondered how (even dating back to biblical times) the amount of wars and deaths that have ocurred in the name of religion,who's doctrine for most part teaches just the opposite, however would much prefer to live in world where people adhere to relgious values(whichever they may be) than where anything goes.

Interesting that you favor Edwards as I genuinely like this guys attitude,however I disagree with his 2 class philosophy.
Most middle class people are those earning 35 to 50K.
The people he refers to are actually a small portion of population that will never have more than we give them by their choice.
My father never earned more than 35K in one year,is retired from Chrysler,owns house and 2 farms,draws $1,200 a month retirement plus social security,has full medical benefits for life---and never has had a credit card. You get out of life what you put in.

On international issues I knew Middle East would spark an issue. Was great article you had years back. I, as you,will leave that issue alone but will say that with your previous work backround you have had lots of hands on experience in that area which is more prudent than what most of us only read about--so will give you the nod

I do think that Bush raising fear is "good" and necessary in many instances. It is only recourse with some countries such as Iran,Syria ect. Knowing that there could be reprecussions for their actions seems to be working much better than previous idle threats--aka Lybia.

Could not agree more with you on ilegal aliens--but who will stop them. We the people say no---but both political parties are more concerned about minority votes than the will of the people.

on jobs issue I still can see no solutions--I agree with you that Bush is definately pro business and especially small business---where we disagree is does this make him anti worker??
Who supplys the jobs and writes the checks--not the unions or those against business. If companys can not make a profit they will go under or move where they can--simple economics.
I do see abuses up the corporate ladder though and can see no justification for exorbant corporate pay.Would like to see law passed where corporate salaries and bonuses ect could be no more than certain percentage of workers pay--of course that won't happen.

----and thank you for discussion Nolan--certainly enjoyed your input.

 

[Nolan Dalla]

***My comments

Interesting that you favor Edwards as I genuinely like this guys attitude
***No, I do NOT support Edwards. Sorry if my comments made it seem that way.


On international issues I knew Middle East would spark an issue. Was great article you had years back. I, as you,will leave that issue alone but will say that with your previous work backround you have had lots of hands on experience in that area which is more prudent than what most of us only read about--so will give you the nod
***I'll bounce back the other way now and say that there are MANY. MANY people with tons more experience that I on this matter, who happen to support Israel. So my limited credentials mean very little here. Furthermore, if someone can make a convincing argument about anything, I don't care if he's a truck driver or a PhD -- there are a lot of people with no formal education who are "street" smart and developed intellectual capacity, while many Ivy League types are completely clueless. My point is -- no one deserves "the nod" because of a resume or other paper credentials. But thanks you anyway.


I do think that Bush raising fear is "good" and necessary in many instances. It is only recourse with some countries such as Iran,Syria ect. Knowing that there could be reprecussions for their actions seems to be working much better than previous idle threats--aka Lybia.
***Yes, you make a good case here. There is certainly historical precendent for the policy of standing up to bullies.



Could not agree more with you on ilegal aliens--but who will stop them. We the people say no---but both political parties are more concerned about minority votes than the will of the people.
***Glad you agree. This new proposed immigration policy is CRIMINAL and is going to cause havoc in this nation. I don't understand why people aren't furious about this issue -- especially lower middle class workers, urban Blacks, and others who will be ruined by this new law. EVERYONE should care because for political and economic stability it is critical that people at the low end of the economic scale have OPPORTUNITY. Those opportinies wil be lost in a swarm of NINE million illegals now competing for limited jobs. It's like having enough food to feed 10 people, and inviting another NINE to the dinner table. Absolutely insane. And THIS PRESIDENT is the one who is proposing it!


on jobs issue I still can see no solutions--I agree with you that Bush is definately pro business and especially small business---where we disagree is does this make him anti worker??
Who supplys the jobs and writes the checks--not the unions or those against business. If companys can not make a profit they will go under or move where they can--simple economics.
I do see abuses up the corporate ladder though and can see no justification for exorbant corporate pay.Would like to see law passed where corporate salaries and bonuses ect could be no more than certain percentage of workers pay--of course that won't happen.
***We agree here for the most part. But the key here is the undercalss of workers -- those in the $5.15 to $10 an hour range, who make barely livable incomes. First, most companies are cutting back on benefits, including health insurance. That is going to create a massive health crisis, especially for the working poor (as opposed to the poor -- who qualify for some government health benefits). Second, companies want a large cheap source of labor, so they can pay slave wages. They want unions crushed (and are succeeding). Third, these free trade agreements are costing the US economy MILLION of jobs. We have a trillion dollar trade defiticit (PROOF THAT THESE AGREEMENTS ARE NOT BALANCED) -- and worst of all, many of the best high tech jobs are being outsourced overseas. Our manufacturing base is in steep decline. As far as security -- Thousands of trucks roll over the US border with Mexico every day, and no one knows what is in the cargo. It's a ticking time bomb. My position -- one of "economic nationalism" works very well in many modern economies. Switzerland and most of the Scandanavian countries have very tight controls on immigration and trade, yet they continue to be the most properous nations per capita. Go to Zurich or Bern -- there are no slums. There are no unemployment offices filled with thousands of outcast workers. I'll get off the soapbox now.

----and thank you for discussion Nolan--certainly enjoyed your input. [/B]

***I agree, Wayen -- that we are not that far apart.


Nolan

 

[StevieD]

To answer your question AR. Cheney is a crook and possibly a traitor because while CEO of Halliburton he contacted work with Iraq thru a loophole. This propped up Saddam and made the sanctions weaker. He is a crook because of the sweetheart deals Halliburton has in this war. He is a crook because of the way Halliburton over charges the US Gov't, stealing our hard earned tax money.

Many of us wanted Saddam out when Reagan and Bush Sr. and Rumsfeld where doing business with him. At the same time he was committing these attrocities that bother the right 20 years too late.

I don't like Bush because I can't a guy who surrounds himself with Cheney and Rummy.

Not as eloquent as most responses on here but just my two cents.