he also wasn't very honest about his judge appointments..he won't admit that he intends to appoint CONSERVATIVE judges....
the reason for that is simple if he came right out and said it..he would lose completely....if he doesn't get some moderate votes...he gets 35% MAX
[This message has been edited by glassman (edited October 13, 2004).]
Janie
quote:
Originally posted by glassman:
LOL Bush wasn't honest about what he said about hunting down Osam....he did say that hunting down Osama wasn't that important...
quote:
Originally posted by ohdagagain:
Glass were you watching the same debate as us? Bush killed him.
Bush self-destructed again...he can't get his facts straight...
the only thing he did OK (not good) on was he didn't totally fall apart like the first debate...LOL he had quite a few nervous moments the first half.....
quote:
Originally posted by osubucks30:
I give Bush credit for speaking in complete sentences! He still pauses sometimes half way through a sentence. It is like he has to think of how to finish the sentence!
quote:
Originally posted by ohdagagain:
Glass which branch of service were you in?
USN........gunner
my first ship... http://www.ussmortondd948.org/
[This message has been edited by glassman (edited October 13, 2004).]
quote:
Originally posted by osubucks30:
I give Bush credit for speaking in complete sentences! He still pauses sometimes half way through a sentence. It is like he has to think of how to finish the sentence!
quote:
Originally posted by glassman:
Bush might have smiled OK but his substance was very weak...three days from now Bush will be the decided LOSER of this debate too by 60-40
quote:
Originally posted by mondayschild:
I think Bush did better tonight than in any of the other debates...but Kerry "spanked" himself with that comment about Dick Cheney's daughter...that was uncalled for.Janie
I was surprised cheney didn't smack edwards when he brought her up.... I am not impressed with their campaign, i still feel if kerry wins my pocket will take a beating.
quote:
Originally posted by osubucks30:
Well Kerry wins another! He is 3-0!
Kerry is the better speaker by far and he should go 3-0 as far as the public speaking part goes....
the first debate where kerry killed bush, i still think bush had better facts and statements..... although he spoke as if someone was whacking him with a bat.
does Bush have an eye-twitch or is he winking at people? LOL
cuz if i see people winking i ususally suspect they are up to something....
cuz he never does ANYTHING wrong.....
quote:
Originally posted by glassman:
gotta admit Bush will blame the media if he loses...LOLcuz he never does ANYTHING wrong.....
LOL- bush couldn't win with you no matter what LOL that sucks....
guess with those goggles, you see what you want. enjoy.
quote:
Originally posted by glassman:
that Hannity guy is a real creep...he's now trying to argue with Gen. Wesley Clark.
hannity is a creek but clark is a full of crap dork. LOL-dork is a good description.
you cant watch those morons,(any channel)they funnel your thinking....
quote:
Originally posted by keithsan:
hannity is a creek but clark is a full of crap dork. LOL-dork is a good description.you cant watch those morons,(any channel)they funnel your thinking....
Dick Morris just came on and said Bush did as good as he POSSIBLY can...but that he still lost..... Sean Hannity agreed with him.....cuz Baker made a mistake in the negotiaitions....LOL it was fixed????
quote:
Originally posted by keithsan:
LOL- bush couldn't win with you no matter what LOL that sucks....guess with those goggles, you see what you want. enjoy.
i meant the election.....
i only have one vote...
and that might be the difference...
and i will be bringging my lucky 1901 silver dollar to FLIP...LOL
quote:
Originally posted by glassman:
i meant the election.....
i only have one vote...
and that might be the difference...
and i will be bringging my lucky 1901 silver dollar to FLIP...LOL
that the one you got on your birthday...from grampa moses....
hey, whats racecar spelled backwards????
if your voting kerry you should probably turn in that dollar from part of your tax credit he'll repeal.
quote:
Originally posted by mondayschild:
I think Bush did better tonight than in any of the other debates...but Kerry "spanked" himself with that comment about Dick Cheney's daughter...that was uncalled for.Janie
completely agreed.
quote:
Originally posted by ohdagagain:
Glass,
If you were still in, could you serve under kerry as your commander in cheif?
no problem....
i served the country.....
i DEFENDED the constitution...
not the president....
but Bush is on a mission and he says so quite clearly....he says he plans to SPREAD freedom. and he palns to use the SWORD to do it...
he isn't hiding it....
and FREEDOM to him means freedom to trade futures in iraq oil...so i would have MORE problem serving him.....
the armed services are the department of DEFENSE... not OFFENSE
either way i would have served my BEST tho.....
and i am confident that our troops are doing a GREAT job right now.....
and NO they will not be able to come home any time soon no matter who gets elected....
i served the country.....
i DEFENDED the constitution...
not the president....
was a great response but then it got pretty lame. Bush does make it clear that he will not put up with terrorist and I believe they understand that as well.
I had contemplated getting out on my EAS if kerry were elected, just for the sheer fact of what kerry stands for, or doesn't stand for, never know which is which, but then I started thinking straight and realized I did join to defend my country and its people. But I do know alot on enlisted that say they are getting out if kerry wins. hopfully we won't have to worry about it but if we do I hope they realize the same.
Teresa probably knocked the crap out of him when she got the chance
Janie
quote:
Originally posted by keithsan:
I was surprised cheney didn't smack edwards when he brought her up.... I am not impressed with their campaign, i still feel if kerry wins my pocket will take a beating.
quote:
Originally posted by tigertony:
I don't know she looked like kerry might have smacked her around pretty good.LMAO
Thats funny. I've always thought that Teressa Heinz always looks as if she just rolled out of bed. Her hair is always in tangles and she dresses very sloppy. I understand that you vote for the husband, not the wife, but Laura Bush is much more first lady like then Teressa Heinz ever could be. I'm surprised the Kerry campaign allows her to be seen as much as she is. For as much money as she has, you think she could do better.
[This message has been edited by kbpkt (edited October 14, 2004).]
quote:
Originally posted by tigertony:
I don't know she looked like kerry might have smacked her around pretty good.LMAO
Our soldiers will find Osama, some day soon, I have every confidence in them!
quote:
Originally posted by Kate:
Yes, President Bush said in a quote, March 13, 2002,.
that finding Osama wasn't that important, but right after that, he also said it wasn't our first priority! Which it isn't! I took it to mean, that he was trying to convey that he wasn't worried about it, so that people wouldn't be scared! Just like I try not to place any significance on satan in my own life! If you ignore him, he goes away!
Kate....
please; this is just ANOTHER example of how Bush is not really being very honest with himself.....
he said he didn't say it..but he did say it and he was making excuses...
since when is catching THE mass-murderer of 3000 people not the most important thing?????
since iraq has so much oil...thats when...
today in respect to the sexual orientation of Cheney's daughter, Cheney accused Kerry of being willing to say anything to get elected, as if it is not the samre thing the Bush Cheney people are doing....
i see NO moral high ground.....
[This message has been edited by glassman (edited October 14, 2004).]
I think it's not a question as to whether he said it or not, because he did. How did you perceive it? I took it to mean that the first priority at that time was to stabilize Afghanistan, and get rid of the Taliban which allowed refuge and breeding grounds for the terrorists.
I don't think it meant that we were no longer looking for him, just that it wasn't #1 on the agenda at the time.
But while we are talking about inconsistencies, during the second debate, Kerry was asked if he would have done things the same as Bush or if he would have done things differently....He had already stated that he voted against the funding of the troops(I still don't understand his reasoning behind that one). Any way, he answered the question that he would have done everything differently...one reason being the military vehicles not being properly protected(one of the things he voted against by voting against the funding)
quote:
Originally posted by glassman:
Kate....please; this is just ANOTHER example of how Bush is not really being very honest with himself.....
he said he didn't say it..but he did say it and he was making excuses...
[This message has been edited by mondayschild (edited October 14, 2004).]
I think no on both counts, but I do want his head on a platter.
secondly..iraq was not a terrorists strong-hold nor was it a moslem nation..now it is and it will be...and that was a major malfunctiuon...
i have shown you all the DD and provided plenty of links...this admin wanted Sadam more than anything else...
Saddam really was the LEAST of our Mid-east problems, now it's the BIGGEST...and you guys continue to ignore the facts i present you with...
we took Baghdad with NO resistance..no WMD .....
now we need permission to fight there from the gov WE installed---
our pilots were getting GREAT training flying over there...
its all LIES......
there is some kind of a HUGE SCAM going on and i expect it MIGHT become clear if Bush loses, cuz his control over all the data and the intel community will be lost...
i don't know the details, but it's pretty clear that something STINKS bad...
[This message has been edited by glassman (edited October 14, 2004).]
Then he says that:
KERRY: That's why Senator Lugar says: incompetent in the delivery of services. That's why Senator Hagel, Republican, says, you know: beyond pitiful, beyond embarrassing, in the zone of dangerous.
We didn't guard 850,000 tons of ammo. That ammo is now being used against our kids. Ten thousand out of 12,000 Humvees aren't armored. I visited some of those kids with no limbs today, because they didn't have the armor on those vehicles. They didn't have the right body armor.
I've met parents who've on the Internet gotten the armor to send their kids.
There is no bigger judgment for a president of the United states than how you take a nation to war. And you can't say, because Saddam might have done it 10 years from now, that's a reason; that's an excuse.
on iraq, you know my opinion and don't give me the spin that because of iraq there is no osama. thats bull. first its the lack of dropping a nuke when your intelligence is crap. another million soldiers won't find that needle any quicker.
He will be found though.... how many days till election...
quote:
Originally posted by glassman:
you echo Bush AGAIN.....
Bush made several derogatory facial expressions and even started to say something VERY negative about the media....
but he caught himself....
Kerry won hands down....does Bush have an eye-twitch or is he winking at people? LOL
cuz if i see people winking i ususally suspect they are up to something....
quote:
Originally posted by DiQuiRiesco:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by glassman:
[b]you echo Bush AGAIN.....
Bush made several derogatory facial expressions and even started to say something VERY negative about the media....
but he caught himself....
Kerry won hands down....does Bush have an eye-twitch or is he winking at people? LOL
cuz if i see people winking i ususally suspect they are up to something....
i always feel all giggly when i annoy you....( i hope it's annoying and not a turn-on...)
[This message has been edited by glassman (edited October 14, 2004).]
but, according to reuters, who is obviously less biased than cnn, bush took a 4 pt lead after debate. when he had a one point lead before.....
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=564&e=1&u=/nm/campaign_poll_friday_dc
would you hold the police chief responsible for tracking down the perp, or the police detectives assigned to the case? If you should ask him, would the Police Chief say, Oh, glassmans perp is number one on my list of priorities, and it is my obligation to take care of it right now? Or do you think he might say, the perp isn't that important, he isn't my first priority, because I'm too busy being in charge of 10,000 other issues???????? The implication being, that those who work for him, would take care of it? Hmmmm?
"Rumsfeld was saying that we needed to bomb Iraq," Clarke said to Stahl. "And we all said ... no, no. Al-Qaeda is in Afghanistan. We need to bomb Afghanistan. And Rumsfeld said there aren't any good targets in Afghanistan. And there are lots of good targets in Iraq. I said, 'Well, there are lots of good targets in lots of places, but Iraq had nothing to do with it.
"Initially, I thought when he said, 'There aren't enough targets in-- in Afghanistan,' I thought he was joking.
"I think they wanted to believe that there was a connection, but the CIA was sitting there, the FBI was sitting there, I was sitting there saying we've looked at this issue for years. For years we've looked and there's just no connection."
Kate, it's very SAD.....
we, the people were HAD.....
this is old news......
face the TRUTH: Bush himself may be honest, but he hired some real nasty folks to advise him......
and he REFUSES to fire them or even acknowledge the errors made....
the intel was ALWAYS there...
NOW the GOOD people in the intel world have been stifled at best and at worst are leaving and or ready to leave, and then our fate is sealed.....
and you will get your pockylips
Clarke says he and CIA Director George Tenet told that to Rumsfeld, Secretary of State Colin Powell, and Attorney General John Ashcroft.
Clarke then tells Stahl of being pressured by Mr. Bush.
"The president dragged me into a room with a couple of other people, shut the door, and said, 'I want you to find whether Iraq did this.' Now he never said, 'Make it up.' But the entire conversation left me in absolutely no doubt that George Bush wanted me to come back with a report that said Iraq did this.
"I said, 'Mr. President. We've done this before. We have been looking at this. We looked at it with an open mind. There's no connection.'
"He came back at me and said, "Iraq! Saddam! Find out if there's a connection.' And in a very intimidating way. I mean that we should come back with that answer. We wrote a report."
Clarke continued, "It was a serious look. We got together all the FBI experts, all the CIA experts. We wrote the report. We sent the report out to CIA and found FBI and said, 'Will you sign this report?' They all cleared the report. And we sent it up to the president and it got bounced by the National Security Advisor or Deputy. It got bounced and sent back saying, 'Wrong answer. ... Do it again.'
"So what did we do after 9/11? We invade an oil-rich and occupy an oil-rich Arab country which was doing nothing to threaten us. In other words, we stepped right into bin Laden's propaganda. And the result of that is that al Qaeda and organizations like it, offshoots of it, second-generation al Qaeda have been greatly strengthened."
so what we are saying here is BRING IT ON BABY.....
no, we are not safer, and we are not making ANYBODY safer and i am sick of the lies....
i am not anti-war i am anti-stupidity....
because, to paraphrase Sun Tzu the most intelligent warriors win without physical conflict.....
Like former treasury secretary Paul O’Neill, who published his own critical book on the Bush administration in January, Clarke describes the Bush administration’s leading personnel as “right-wing ideologues” who simply refused to consider any facts that did not conform to their world view, and who were focused on preparing war with Iraq from the time Bush entered the White House.
if you are interested....
http://slate.msn.com/id/2097685/
[This message has been edited by glassman (edited October 15, 2004).]
and these aren't liberals.....
and neither am i......
[This message has been edited by glassman (edited October 15, 2004).]
they are investigating quite a bit inside the pentagon right now too.....
if you recall Keith, i didn't start off being pro-Kerry....
i started off on this by getting annoyed about the propaganda...and the more i look, the more find.......
right now everybody is still yakking about Cheney's daughter .....
people are fighting a war....
and we are worried about this...come on..
CIA operatives have been OUTED!!! by the White House!!!!!!!
forget the gay issue...
the White House has waged war on OUR CIA.....
the White House apparently was able to stall the criminal ivestigation into who gave Valerie Plame's name to Robert Novak long enough to have it come out AFTER the election...he published it on 7-14-03.....it should have been solved already...
it was BAD politics, and on top of that it causes some serious problmes in freedom of speech issues...
the law is clear..it was classified.....making this a felony
i'm a Freedom of Speech person and i still think Novak should be i jail until he tells......
[This message has been edited by glassman (edited October 15, 2004).]
this is a difficult election....
Rep. Shays' Letter
In a letter to the 9/11 commission on Wednesday, Rep. Christopher Shays, R-Conn., told panel members that "Clarke was part of the problem before Sept. 11 because he took too narrow a view of the terrorism threat."
Shays said that before the Sept. 11 terror attacks, a House panel held 20 hearings and two formal briefings on terrorism - and Clarke "was of little help in our oversight."
"When he briefed the subcommittee, his answers were both evasive and derisive," Shays said in his March 24, 2004 letter.
Shays noted that "no truly national strategy to combat terrorism was ever produced during Mr. Clarke's tenure."
http://www.cnsnews.com/pdf/2004/911commissionLetter.pdf
Shays also released a copy of a letter he wrote to Clarke on July 5, 2000, telling Clarke that Shays' subcommittee found the information Clarke had given them "less than useful," and asking him to answer additional questions.
And Shays released a Jan. 22, 2001 letter he wrote to National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice complaining that Clarke had not answered the subcommittee's questions. "During a briefing to this Subcommittee, Mr. Clarke stated that there is no need for a national strategy," Shays wrote to Rice.
"This Subcommittee, and others, disagree with Mr. Clarke's assessment that U.S. government agencies do not require a planning and preparation document to respond to terrorist attacks," Shays wrote.
http://www.timeswatch.org/articles/2004/0622.asp
3. Stahl Concedes Negative Viewer Feedback to Promoting Clarke
60 Minutes conceded on Sunday night that most of the reaction it received, to Lesley Stahl’s two-parter a week earlier promoting Dick Clarke’s new book and his attacks on the Bush administration, was negative and questioning of CBS’s motives -- a bias re-enforced just minutes earlier when Ed Bradley delivered an interview with Condoleezza Rice that was far more hostile than how Stahl had treated Clarke.
this attitude that we need to discount our media sources entirely cuz they are liberal or conservative is a little strange... i listen to all of them and compare the spin......
Last Updated: Monday, 22 March, 2004, 19:52 GMT
Profile: Richard Clarke
Four successive US presidents have picked Richard Clarke to defend the country against terrorists.
Clarke will testify in the inquiry into the 11 September attacks
His fourth boss, George W Bush, may be regretting the choice.
Mr Clarke has turned on his former master, a year after stepping down as the cyber-security adviser charged with protecting America against an "electronic Pearl Harbour".
He has accused President Bush of doing a "terrible job" fighting terrorism - of ignoring the al-Qaeda threat before 11 September 2001 and distorting it afterwards.
show me how Clarke gained politically from this?????
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3559087.stm
many of these people have quit...and the White House keeps saying it's political...but these guys aren't democrats......
there are DOZENS and DOZENS........
[This message has been edited by glassman (edited October 15, 2004).]
thats how he gained.
Geez after a screw up like 9/11 people who had been there for years quit or where fired.....I'm glad!
quote:
Originally posted by glassman:
[b]
Clarke, a registered Republican as late as 2000, is a long-time associate of the most hawkish faction of the national security establishment. In 1991, he supported continuation of the first Persian Gulf War, arguing against the decision of President George H. W. Bush to call off the ground war after four days rather than pressing forward into southern Iraq. During the 1990s, he supported aggressive US military action against Iraq’s supposed stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction. That such an individual should come out publicly against the Bush White House is an indication of deep divisions within the American ruling elite and its military-intelligence apparatus over the deepening crisis in US-occupied Iraq.Like former treasury secretary Paul O’Neill, who published his own critical book on the Bush administration in January, Clarke describes the Bush administration’s leading personnel as “right-wing ideologues” who simply refused to consider any facts that did not conform to their world view, and who were focused on preparing war with Iraq from the time Bush entered the White House.
if you are interested....
http://slate.msn.com/id/2097685/[This message has been edited by glassman (edited October 15, 2004).][/B]
quote:
Originally posted by DiQuiRiesco:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by glassman:
[b][b]
Clarke, a registered Republican as late as 2000, is a long-time associate of the most hawkish faction of the national security establishment. In 1991, he supported continuation of the first Persian Gulf War, arguing against the decision of President George H. W. Bush to call off the ground war after four days rather than pressing forward into southern Iraq. During the 1990s, he supported aggressive US military action against Iraq’s supposed stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction. That such an individual should come out publicly against the Bush White House is an indication of deep divisions within the American ruling elite and its military-intelligence apparatus over the deepening crisis in US-occupied Iraq.Like former treasury secretary Paul O’Neill, who published his own critical book on the Bush administration in January, Clarke describes the Bush administration’s leading personnel as “right-wing ideologues” who simply refused to consider any facts that did not conform to their world view, and who were focused on preparing war with Iraq from the time Bush entered the White House.
if you are interested....
http://slate.msn.com/id/2097685/[This message has been edited by glassman (edited October 15, 2004).][/B]
[/B][/QUOTE]
You have no idea what "we" utopians are trying to do for you DQR.....
i suggest you get a subscription to scientific american and drop your subscription to Janes Defense Section......
SCIENCE might be a little too rigorous since you have enough trouble trying to tell the difference between South Carolina State Uninversity graduate, General Wesley Clark,
and
Richard Clarke
Clarke claims responsibility
Ex-counterterrorism czar approved post-9-11 flights for bin Laden family
By Alexander Bolton
http://www.hillnews.com/news/052604/Clarke.aspx
[This message has been edited by glassman (edited October 16, 2004).]
quote:
Originally posted by keithsan:
He was advertising his book.....thats how he gained, he also was appearing before the 9/11 commission at the same time.....thats how he gained.
Geez after a screw up like 9/11 people who had been there for years quit or where fired.....I'm glad!
Keith, Tenet and Clarke BOTH told the White House we were in trouble.....
they are gone, and the nay-sayers are still there....
the WRONG people are leaving, that's my point...and it's gonna get worse if this keeps up...
as for Tenet, his FAILURES, HIS, led to his demise!
changes will bring a significant new look at the top of the CIA, which has been under fire for the way the agency monitored terrorist activity before Sept. 11, 2001, and for intelligence failures leading up to the war in Iraq.
Tenet went to the White House to inform Bush about his decision Wednesday night.
April 17 - Washington Post assistant managing editor Bob Woodward, in his book "Plan of Attack," says Tenet had assured Bush that it would be a "slam-dunk" case to establish that Iraqi unconventional weapons posed a threat.
[This message has been edited by keithsan (edited October 16, 2004).]
i'm surprised you are ready to say get rid of them, but not Bush...i guesss you really dislike Kerry...
they placed anti-aircraft batteries in Italy for the July G-8 summit based on CIA intel saying osam had radio-control aircraft.......
abybody who bothers to spend a few weekends can find all this stuff...it ain't that secret...
try looking at Judith Miller at the NY times...
and address the issue of NOvak giving out CIA names....
[This message has been edited by glassman (edited October 16, 2004).]
here's more, these clowns were around longer than bush.....read closely i'm sure you can spin a couple of these into bush's personal fault.
FACT FILE Secure lapses under Tenet's watch
1998
May 11 - India begins a series of nuclear warhead detonations that stun the world and catch the CIA completely off-guard. Within days, Pakistan, India's neighbor and historic rival, follows suit. It later emerges that information on how the CIA monitors potential nuclear proliferators was passed to India inadvertently as part of a burgeoning U.S.-India military relationship in the mid-1990s.
1999
May 7 - U.S. warplanes bomb Chinese embassy in Yugoslavia during NATO Kosovo campaign, killing three Chinese journalists. NATO and the United States say the bombing was caused by shoddy CIA targeting. The agency later fires one employee and disciplines several others.
2001
Sept 11 - Three hijacked planes crash into U.S. landmarks, destroying New York's twin World Trade Center towers and plunging into the Pentagon. A fourth hijacked plane crashes in
Pennsylvania. The attacks, which the United States blames on Islamic militant Osama bin Laden and his al Qaeda network, kill 2,973 people.
Former U.S. counterterrorism official Richard Clarke this year tells a commission probing the attacks that Bush had not taken the terrorism threat seriously enough, and Tenet admits more could have been done to foil the strikes.
2003
July - Joseph Wilson, a former U.S. ambassador who said the CIA had asked him to investigate a report about Iraq buying uranium from Niger, accuses the Bush administration of twisting intelligence to exaggerate the threat posed by Saddam Hussein.
Bush accepts responsibility for making an ultimately discredited claim in his January State of the Union speech that
Iraq was seeking African uranium. Bush and his top aides blame Tenet for failing to head off the claim.
A newspaper columnist discloses the identity of Wilson's wife as a CIA operative. Wilson accuses the Bush administration of leaking his wife's identity in retribution for disputing the president's uranium claim.
2004
Jan 23 - David Kay steps down as leader of the U.S. hunt for banned weapons in Iraq and says he did not believe the country had any large stockpiles of chemical or biological weapons, contrary to allegations at the heart of Bush's case for war against Iraq.
April 17 - Washington Post assistant managing editor Bob Woodward, in his book "Plan of Attack," says Tenet had assured Bush that it would be a "slam-dunk" case to establish that Iraqi unconventional weapons posed a threat.
May 16 - U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell says the CIA was wrong about Iraq's purported prewar mobile biological weapons laboratories, a key part of the case about suspected
weapons of mass destruction.
Source: Reuters and Michael Moran
[This message has been edited by keithsan (edited October 16, 2004).]
the democrats seem to me to be being very polite about Bush's staffing problems....
VERY POLITE.....
a leaked name, never really was interested in that one myself so havent dd'd it....i'm sure i could find something to refute your normal position of placing obviously bias sources and people as the proponents for your thoughts...
the leaked name Valerie Plame was one of the first hints about the trouble in the intel community...
her husband was the former ambasssador to Niger, and was sent to africa to verify the uranium acquisition "intel" that Bush used in the state of the union....
i am not the one saying Bush created the iraq intel...it's the intel community that's saying it....
he will have a hard time with them if he get's back in office...
i know almost everybody has had a boss that takes credit for your hard work that turns out good, and then throws the blame on the mistakes right on down the line.......
watch them get him back....
[This message has been edited by glassman (edited October 16, 2004).]
I just posted you screw up facts, bush wasn't the boss who let crap roll down hill on all of em.....
Juduth isn't my freind....she is a reporter with extraordinary skills...
and if i didn't say this before, i will say it again..
after the election, no matter who care who wins, i will shutup about his stuf....
but i have been keeping track of it for months, and MY ISSUES have absolutely nothing to do with liberal versus conservative......i grew up in this community...one of the Iranian hostages' son went to school with me....
[This message has been edited by glassman (edited October 16, 2004).]
Much of Miller's reporting on WMD has been thrown into question, or proven inaccurate, as no WMDs have been found and information from Iraqi defectors, which she partly relied on, has been widely discredited. Last May, in an e-mail to fellow Times reporter John F. Burns, Miller revealed that Iraqi National Congress leader Ahmed Chalabi "has provided most of the front page exclusives on WMD to our paper," many of them, she said, written by her.
In his story, Kurtz cites more than a half-dozen unnamed military sources who claim Miller "intimidated" and "threatened" Army soldiers searching for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, threatening negative stories in the Times. Miller, who had a long-term reporter/source relationship with Iraqi National Congress leader Ahmad Chalabi, "came in with a plan," one senior staff officer tells Kurtz. "She ended up almost hijacking the mission." Another says that Miller turned MET Alpha, the military outfit searching for WMD whom Miller traveled with, into a "Judith Miller team," one officer says. Indeed, Miller grew so close to MET Alpha's leader, Kurtz reports, that when he got a promotion she was the one to pin the rank to his uniform in a Baghdad ceremony
Heres why, A. if she's distinguished, we respect her facts.
B. if shes full of crap like most times reporters...she's working for bush.
Hey, with this thinking, you are always right.
[This message has been edited by glassman (edited October 16, 2004).]
Now, he says, its bushes fault oil prices to high.. I wouldn't have oil this high. LOL
politicians true and true...
that's why i say Bush isn't so bright, he thought he was going to pull off this HUGE success with Iraq...it didn't work out as simple as he thought....
and he isn't NEARLY as powerful as he thinks/thought he is.....that's why they have been looking so nervous lately
he showed up in Wash in 2000 thinking he was gonna push everybody around...it don't work that way..especially with people that have been there for 20 years(and i mean civil service people, not the politicians)...
[This message has been edited by glassman (edited October 16, 2004).]
find a mirror yet...
k
Honestly, i really think your way off base here, if bush wants to throw people out after 20 years good. we all know those types in their jobs, hell i am one.
IMO he backed the u.n. into having balls enough to back up what they say! thats a fact for me, i don't care what the reasons are honestly, if the u.n says to do something, and promises a response, they better back it up!
If not, we're better on our own, a lot of your facts are refuttable and from biased sources, you skip certain sides even when I know you know their are other valid ways to view the situation.....
I point them out when i feel like it or if it really irks me.... but, you ignore them anyways.
quote:
Originally posted by glassman:
Keith, the Saudi oil minister admitted on face the nation that they planned to lower oil going into the election...
the Russkies fixed that tho......that's why i say Bush isn't so bright, he thought he was going to pull off this HUGE success with Iraq...it didn't work out as simple as he thought....
and he isn't NEARLY as powerful as he thinks/thought he is.....that's why they have been looking so nervous lately
he showed up in Wash in 2000 thinking he was gonna push everybody around...it don't work that way..especially with people that have been there for 20 years(and i mean civil service people, not the politicians)...
[This message has been edited by glassman (edited October 16, 2004).]
now you trust the oil minister hmmm....
okay, if oil prices go down, this won't be a point of kerry's ....
i have expressed my frustration over and over again with the "spin"--think about it...
i was a Bush supporter-all the way, until he told Saddam he had 48 hrs to leave town.....at that point,i didn't SUDDENLY decide i didn't like him, at that point i began to worry a little....
i understand that everybody feels better if we are waging a battle against terrorism we can see.....that's just good politics
heck, Iraq was really supposed to show the rest of the world that we would collect the debts two-fold.....i know this....
if WMD had been there, Bush is the champion of the world....they weren't
.....i figured they would be able to find something....even if they had to smuggle it in themselves...right????
that failure alone is just another sign that Bush is in trouble with his OWN intel people...
what's truly important is that it's not ME that's judging Bush to be a liar.....its 70% of the world.........
whoever wins this election is the CIC....i'll shutup again and follow....
but remember my FIRST post...
it going to be a 50/50 vote, don't make you're opponent look weak in terror or war cuz that's UNpatriotic....and Bush did it......Kerry was left with no choice but to go after him on this stuff...
Kerry presents serious problems i don't like too, but he won't spend any more than Bush...
quote:
Originally posted by keithsan:
now you trust the oil minister hmmm....okay, if oil prices go down, this won't be a point of kerry's ....
why do you say this? i saw it on TV with my own eyes, and this was months agao...we discussed the likelihood of it in free-forall in March i think.....Putin decided that he wanted everybodies attention so he clamped down.....Bob even asked about shorting oil....i think bliue said that's like stepping in front of a train, and i agreed.....he was right
more IRONY
i, a lifelong republican, spend several weeks trying to do some REAL DD on the situation in an attempt to get everybody interested and voting, get called all sorts of names because the "facts" that i discover don't agree with some people's ideologies.....
i don't really care if you guys don't agree with my conclusions, but at least argue with facts.....they are in short supply...
just like a stock, you can buy or not, but don't call me basher just bcuz i'm trying to find the truth...
i don't like what i'm finding either....
[This message has been edited by glassman (edited October 17, 2004).]
his nickname is TOKEN, and as far as i know he doesn't get high......
you said no terrorists with al-queda connections in iraq, i pointed them out.
you quote people who have been fired by an administration as un-biased.....
I can go and find a whole boatload of crap saying what a rotten person bush is too.
in fact, most of the books spent weeks on the n.y. times best seller list.
you bring up clarke, but don't tell he's selling a book.....with those statements.
How bout the bull he pulled at 9-11 commission apologizing to the families of victims, that loser has no right, damn embarrassment.
If i was a family member i'd a killed him. Judith miller next, c'mon alway writing propaganda, so far fetched, they keep her on the times. they wouldnt want someone note worthy that could actually bring convincing points....
Check my statements, (i know you save'em) I never will ever kiss one of these politicians behinds. But, i will point out slanderours or appropriate counterpoints.
Again, I was 100% for the war with iraq even before the scary (whooo) WMD speach....
some things just need to be done, you've pointed out a few more, but, it can't be just random....
i wish the election was over already....
been looking at ADSX...they just got the FDA aproval on their mediacl records chips human implantable, true big brother stuff probably do well eventually....
not a simple company, i haven't bought any yet....
so this is NOT a pick yet....LOL
Clarke quit BEFORE he wrote the book, he quit Bush BEFORE we went into Iraq.....
i do think we could have handled Iraq without bombs....
yes, we would still have had to put people on the ground there eventually, but we did some things really wrong and now we are going to have to pay a lot more to fix them.....
we basically agree on goals, we have differences on how to acheive them...
i am all for taking over the world...seriously....i just think we could do a much better job with the "spin" we use on the people we are trying to annex....i have always felt the illegal immigrant problem can ONLY be solved by building other countries UP so that people want to stay at home.....
as i told you i think sadam was well under control, and now i think iraq is a mess...
i have been trying to figure out if it's by accident, or if there is an underlying plan to bring the whole mid-east into a conflict.....
many of the questions i have been asking have been an attempt to encourage people to look for themselves and see if they spot things i am missing....and you have...
i am a fiscal conserative.....but i also recognise that some investments will only ever be done thru govt. work...space is the EZ example, but smallpox eradication is another.....
This will be a runway between syria and iran that we can use to spy. With better control and closer contact with iraqi's we (hopefully) can infiltrate varying mosques and organizations in those 2 countries where we have always had rotten intelligence.
With the spy planes from iraq, and some better ground intelligence. Not to mention the close proximity of our military forces. We will be able to monitor and launch quicker better and more accurately into an area that will need our military intervention soon.....
[This message has been edited by keithsan (edited October 17, 2004).]
Ooooh Keith...I'm going to hold my ears when he responds to that one...LOL
Janie
[This message has been edited by mondayschild (edited October 17, 2004).]
Next step will be, making people get the chips. Don't get me started Glass!
Keith you have followed my posts on this from day one, you know that i have been critical of the METHODS... lying, propaganda and mismanagement...
it's non-stop...
the White House did most definitely make serious erros of judgemnet over and over again.....
and i've shown you that in writing over and over ....you chalk it up to "liberal" media or opinion...LOL
i have ALWAYS been much more concerned about how badly things have been managed than i am about taking iraq.....
and you guys are way MORE forgiving of screw-ups than i am.....
where is osam???????
LOL-glass if you want me to be impressed with your sources, stop quoting michael moore, and people who have had to resign.
You want to discuss spin, start talking about Kerry talking to seniors about what bush will do to social security, or scaring mothers with draft talk after the pres specifically said no draft.....
thats your guy...
Of us, who can be trusted?
quote:
Originally posted by DiQuiRiesco:
The real threat... hmmn. You know what? You might have a point. When looking at the big picture one is confronted with battles of old which have become the greatest of unseen wars.
I have eluded in the past to this witless war on islamist terrorists as being a biproduct of the cold war that we won.
Did we win?
Are you sure it is over?
Of us, who is keenly aware of the doublespeak heard from Russia?
Of us, who sees the world as a chess board?
Of us, who sees a war between good and evil?
Of us, who knows who is good and who is not?Of us, who can be trusted?
good post comrade
quote:
Originally posted by ohdagagain:
Where is Osama? Well we don't know, but if clinton would have had some balls we wouldn't have to wonder. Speaking of wonder, do you ever wonder if clinton would have been more worried about defense than blow job, would 9/11 happened? hmmmm...
How can kerry claim to be Catholic and support abortion?
How can kerry claim to be Catholic and support same sex marriage?
I know alot of Catholics, none of them can explain it.
http://thecrowe.com/
see....typical Bush supporter LIES
Kerry does NOT suppot same sex marriage....
quote:
Originally posted by keithsan:
Osama is where he should be....hiding and quiet, hopefully dead quiet.LOL-glass if you want me to be impressed with your sources, stop quoting michael moore, and people who have had to resign.
You want to discuss spin, start talking about Kerry talking to seniors about what bush will do to social security, or scaring mothers with draft talk after the pres specifically said no draft.....
thats your guy...
stop quoting Moore? why? he's strong on facts....show me a lie he told and i'll show you two facts to match it...
people who have had to resign?....Valerie Plame...
this is one that could in fact bring about another WATERGATE...so we'll just have to wait and see how the Valerie Plame case plays out won't we......if the GOP didn't controll the whole house and senate , it would have been in court already, but it will get there...and the crimes have already been committed.....it's just a mtter of getting the facts out...
the DRAFT? LOL you guys want to fight more war the same way as this one? DRAFT-- i have never seen so many poeple that refuse to see reality...cuz we don't have the troops to do anything more than we are doing...
ask the RESERVES about the draft....
social security? i don't think anybody born after '57 has any under the BEST scenario's right now....
and osam..... that's just more BS...Bush made a commitment..i heard it, and his FAILURE to follow up on that commitment is why he has so many detractors today including ME...all he had to do was finish that job FIRST and he could have had Iraq and more....kind of makes you wonder why he didn't ......
[This message has been edited by glassman (edited October 19, 2004).]
Sharpton presented the draft bill..not Kerry...
I'm not for a draft....it will just make it harder to fight the way we need to....but we are stretched right now....
We can't open another front until we get Iraq straightend out....
and that is not likely to happen with all of this mid-eastern faith-based bickering.....
stalemate.....
look at how Iraq is going right NOW...turning over the country in June just made thing worse....
elections? maybe they will quiet people down, but you KNOW Bush wanted to hear that Iraq would be a cake-walk..... we are bogged down there for two years minimum, maybe forever......
it's only a matter of time before the house of cards begins to fold....the real question is how the back room deals/plea bargains will go....we aren't likely to see much in the news since there is a war on, but if you know what to look for.....
the fear i smell is on the dems, after the last debate seems they lost a point or 2 if not that much then definately the momentum.
Glass's History teacher Michael Moore.
Fahrenheit 9/11 is a sinister exercise in moral frivolity, crudely disguised as an exercise in seriousness. It is also a spectacle of abject political cowardice masking itself as a demonstration of "dissenting" bravery.
Continue Article
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In late 2002, almost a year after the al-Qaida assault on American society, I had an onstage debate with Michael Moore at the Telluride Film Festival. In the course of this exchange, he stated his view that Osama Bin Laden should be considered innocent until proven guilty. This was, he said, the American way. The intervention in Afghanistan, he maintained, had been at least to that extent unjustified.
Fahrenheit 9/11 makes the following points about Bin Laden and about Afghanistan, and makes them in this order:
1) The Bin Laden family (if not exactly Osama himself) had a close if convoluted business relationship with the Bush family, through the Carlyle Group.
2) Saudi capital in general is a very large element of foreign investment in the United States.
3) The Unocal company in Texas had been willing to discuss a gas pipeline across Afghanistan with the Taliban, as had other vested interests.
4) The Bush administration sent far too few ground troops to Afghanistan and thus allowed far too many Taliban and al-Qaida members to escape.
5) The Afghan government, in supporting the coalition in Iraq, was purely risible in that its non-army was purely American.
6) The American lives lost in Afghanistan have been wasted. (This I divine from the fact that this supposedly "antiwar" film is dedicated ruefully to all those killed there, as well as in Iraq.)
In the interval between Moore's triumph at Cannes and the release of the film in the United States, the 9/11 commission has found nothing to complain of in the timing or arrangement of the flights. And Richard Clarke, Bush's former chief of counterterrorism, has come forward to say that he, and he alone, took the responsibility for authorizing those Saudi departures.
it was after, and not before, the 9/11 attacks that Abu Mussab al-Zarqawi moved from Afghanistan to Baghdad and began to plan his now very open and lethal design for a holy and ethnic civil war. On Dec. 1, 2003, the New York Times reported—and the David Kay report had established—that Saddam had been secretly negotiating with the "Dear Leader" Kim Jong-il in a series of secret meetings in Syria, as late as the spring of 2003, to buy a North Korean missile system, and missile-production system, right off the shelf. (This attempt was not uncovered until after the fall of Baghdad, the coalition's presence having meanwhile put an end to the negotiations.)
[This message has been edited by keithsan (edited October 19, 2004).]
Moores lies about the 2000 election>
http://www.davekopel.org/Terror/Fiftysix-Deceits-in-Fahrenheit-911.htm#2000_Election_Night
Moore lies about bush before 9/11
http://www.davekopel.org/Terror/Fiftysix-Deceits-in-Fahrenheit-911.htm#Bush_Presidency_before_September_11
saudis lies, i think i covered this early but know its a favorite of glass...
http://www.davekopel.org/Terror/Fiftysix-Deceits-in-Fahrenheit-911.htm#Saudi_Departures_from_United_States
domestic issues
http://www.davekopel.org/Terror/Fiftysix-Deceits-in-Fahrenheit-911.htm#Cooperation_with_9/11_Commission
moore
http://www.davekopel.org/Terror/Fiftysix-Deceits-in-Fahrenheit-911.htm#Flint
quote:
Originally posted by keithsan:
michael moores letter to the president.
http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/message/index.php?messageDate=2003-03-17
Why won't voters read and believe this?
Bush is so corrupt!
quote:
Originally posted by Nanny:
Why won't voters read and believe this?
Bush is so corrupt!
because that would be idiotic!
Kopel is DEAD wrong in saying that Enron had no interest in a pipeline across Afghanistan too....they built a natural gas electric plant in India that NEEDED cheap natural gas badly, Clinton was in on this stuff too....no doubt......that doesn't change things tho......
and where this guy Kopel does make a strong case for a lie, they are meaningless in the political sense. they are mere technicalities like which suburb Moore grew up in.....
Mrs. Lipscomb is from Flint, Michigan, which Moore calls "my hometown." In fact, Moore grew up in Davison, Michigan, a suburb of Flint. Davison is much wealthier than Flint.
big LOL---what a joke...
i thought you weren't going to see it???
i guess you didn't, since you are willing to accept this guys (Kopel) web-site as factual
the point about Clarke is interesting....
he's the guy who you said had to quit...LOL
quit equating me with Moore......
i did my own DD...and i used hundreds of reliable sources, you constantly acuse me of just using liberal media, and that is not true....
i didn't even see the movie until a week after it came out on DVD.....
there are a lot of rhetorical questions in the movie that's for sure, but if he lied, and it was actionable, he would have been sued by now...LOL
[This message has been edited by glassman (edited October 19, 2004).]
there's a lot of BUTT covering going on...this is what i've beeen trying to point out to you guys.....
and if the Dems get enough power to run the committes, we will see blood....watergate will seem like detention...
of course they might be willing to negtiate it away.....
This new account of the events seemed to contradict Clarke’s sworn testimony before the Sept. 11 commission at the end of March about who approved the flights.
“The request came to me, and I refused to approve it,” Clarke testified. “I suggested that it be routed to the FBI and that the FBI look at the names of the individuals who were going to be on the passenger manifest and that they approve it or not. I spoke with the — at the time — No. 2 person in the FBI, Dale Watson, and asked him to deal with this issue. The FBI then approved … the flight http://www.hillnews.com/news/052604/Clarke.aspx
there are actually some really decent people working for all of US in and around the Beltway.....
you never hear much about them cuz they get the job done.....
they are the unknown heroes....
and i salute them!
[This message has been edited by glassman (edited October 19, 2004).]
quote:
Originally posted by keithsan:
moooooore... i'm getting bored, i'll stop soon...it was after, and not before, the 9/11 attacks that Abu Mussab al-Zarqawi moved from Afghanistan to Baghdad and began to plan his now very open and lethal design for a holy and ethnic civil war. On Dec. 1, 2003, the New York Times reported—and the David Kay report had established—that Saddam had been secretly negotiating with the "Dear Leader" Kim Jong-il in a series of secret meetings in Syria, as late as the spring of 2003, to buy a North Korean missile system, and missile-production system, right off the shelf. (This attempt was not uncovered until after the fall of Baghdad, the coalition's presence having meanwhile put an end to the negotiations.)
links?????
Kim-Jon-il in Syria??? that would be news to me..
nothing i have ever seen confirms this....
a google did reveal this but it is just more BS..interesting but not DD
http://www.serendipity.li/iraqwar/blood_cult.htm
[This message has been edited by glassman (edited October 19, 2004).]
when your using michael moore i'm allowed to use koppel. no credible people waiste their time.
also, the quotes werent from koppel, the only thing attribatable to koppel where the links.
food for thought...
The capture of Saddam was big news on December 14. But another big story also unfolded that day in the pages of the London Sunday Telegraph in a story by Con Coughlin. He revealed the content of an Iraqi intelligence document showing that Mohamed Atta, the ringleader of the 9/11 terrorist hijackers, was trained in Baghdad just a few months before almost 3,000 people were murdered on American soil. The then-head of the Iraqi Intelligence Service said that Atta "displayed extraordinary effort" and demonstrated his ability to lead the team that would be "responsible for attacking the targets that we have agreed to destroy."
Appearing on NBC News just hours after the capture of Saddam Hussein, Coughlin explained the details of the document, calling it "concrete proof" of al Qaeda working with Saddam. Coughlin said he had the document authenticated and that it was a "very explosive" development. Tom Brokaw thanked Coughlin for his comments and noted that the story was posted on the website of the Telegraph
quote:
Originally posted by Kate:
I haven't actually heard John Kerry say he was against same sex marriage; he just said that he thought it should be up to the states! That's the same as saying, I don't want say one way or another, because I don't want to get involved!
he has said he is against it, but will leave it up to the states. if I remember correctly.
kerry's comments are to try and slow down the voting appearances of some borderline christian voters....
IMO why else.
quote:
Originally posted by Kate:
I haven't actually heard John Kerry say he was against same sex marriage; he just said that he thought it should be up to the states! That's the same as saying, I don't want say one way or another, because I don't want to get involved!
same thing Cheney says Kate.....that's why Kerry was so rude to mention the un-mentionable.....Bush can't deliver an amendment to the constitution....but he makes a lot of noise about it...
the partial birth abortion law that they passed? did not have a provision in it for SAVING the life of the mother....that's why Kerry voted against it..(he says)....
it was even found unconstitutinal in Nebraska because of it..Bush delivered another flawed bill ----he seems to do this often...
i think he talks the talk well...BUT.....
[This message has been edited by glassman (edited October 19, 2004).]
Rosenbaum and Halbfinger point out: "After weeks of facing attacks that his campaign and outside commentators called distortions, Senator John Kerry has begun criticizing President Bush on Social Security and the draft in a manner that reaches far beyond Mr. Bush's positions. Mr. Kerry may also have exaggerated the president's responsibility for the shortage of flu vaccine…. The truth is that Mr. Bush has promised not to cut the Social Security benefits of current retirees or those nearing retirement age. He said flatly in the debate on Wednesday that he had no plans to reinstate military conscription. And as for the vaccine shortage, experts say Congress is as much to blame as the president for allowing domestic manufacturers to stop production. In his years in the Senate, Mr. Kerry apparently never addressed the matter, either….the chances are extremely remote that Congress would approve a general draft. On Friday, Mike McCurry, a spokesman for the Kerry campaign, suggested that Mr. Kerry was 'not alleging that there's a secret plan or anything like that' 'for the draft but simply mentioning a possibility in answer to a question from the paper. Even so, a group that supports Mr. Kerry, Win Back Respect, said its advertising in swing states raised prospects restarting the draft."
you know my concerns aren't domestic....
heres the law. obviously interpretation takes into account mothers health.
The Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act (H.R. 760, S. 3) would ban performance of a partial-birth abortion except if it were necessary to the save a mother's life. The bill defines partial-birth abortion as an abortion in which “the person performing the abortion deliberately and intentionally vaginally delivers a living fetus until, in the case of a head-first presentation, the entire fetal head is outside the body of the mother, or, in the case of breech presentation, any part of the fetal trunk past the navel is outside the body of the mother,” and then kills the baby. The bill would permit use of the procedure if “necessary to save the life of a mother whose life is endangered by a physical disorder, physical illness, or physical injury, including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself.”
• In a partial-birth abortion, the abortionist pulls a living baby feet-first out of the womb and into the birth canal (vagina), except for the head, which the abortionist purposely keeps lodged just inside the cervix (the opening to the womb). The abortionist punctures the base of the baby’s skull with a surgical instrument, such as a long surgical scissors or a pointed hollow metal tube called a trochar. He then inserts a catheter (tube) into the wound, and removes the baby's brain with a powerful suction machine. This causes the skull to collapse, after which the abortionist completes the delivery of the now-dead baby. (See www.house.gov/burton/RSC/haskellinstructional.pdf)
i couldn't believe anybody would even consider doing one, has anybody ever seen any data showing the number performed? because they shouldn't be legal......
i and i question why they would get such a flawed peice of legislation passed other than to inflame our sensibilities....
Death is a degree of harm, its use points out the severety needed. to invoke the exception.
kerry again wants it both ways, he's against it but only if the word death is changed to really really severe injury,
give me a break. take a stand, on something. say its wrong say its good i don't care, he doesn't get my vote cuz he hasn't made a principled stand on anything yet.
[This message has been edited by keithsan (edited October 19, 2004).]
"abortion that is necessary to save the life of a mother whose life is endangered by a physical disorder, physical illness, or physical injury, including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself."
why would they deliberately write it to be unconstitutional?????
Third Federal Judge Rules Against Partial-Birth Abortion Ban
By Melanie Hunter
CNSNews.com Deputy Managing Editor
September 08, 2004
(Editor's note: Clarifies judge's ruling in first paragraph.)
(CNSNews.com) - Another federal judge, this time in Lincoln, Neb., ruled the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act unconstitutional, because the judge said "it does not allow, and instead prohibits, the use of the procedure when necessary to preserve the health of a woman."
Nebraska is not a liberal haven...
part of the problems is that the terms used are not medical....they are designed to create political tension.....
[This message has been edited by glassman (edited October 19, 2004).]
their testing the constitutionality of the law, not just nebraska although nebraska weighed in a bit heavy to try to have it avoid the supreme court. the other courts were federals in N.Y. and San Fran.....
which are the hotbed of liberalism.
as you must know these constitutionality issues often arise.
Look i didn't bring this argument up, its basically a good law, this stuff is sick. but the fanatics are afraid all womens right to choose will be taken away.
Glass, the problem is he doesnt take a stand, is his answer the same as yours? as a normal person? I woulda voted for it but ...(like he knew the technacalities) come on. are you kidding. he needs to take a position. did he say I will create a better law. No. did he say I will never support this. NO.....you've got to be kidding.
No spin, really this is just all legal mumbojumbo. its a power play and worry that it will lead to the "slippery slope" of banning all abortions. the slope argument is normally bull. restrict what needs to be restricted.
If you think the bill is flawed, then you must think the constitution is flawed, cause its challenged all the time.
U.S. District Judge Richard Kopf of Lincoln ruled against the measure Wednesday, saying Congress ignored the most experienced doctors when it determined that the banned procedure would never be necessary to protect the health of the mother -- a finding he called "unreasonable."
Thursday, April 01, 2004
LINCOLN, Neb. — The doctor who got the U.S. Supreme Court to strike down Nebraska's ban on a controversial abortion procedure testified Thursday that a similar federal law is so vague it would outlaw nearly all abortions after the first trimester.
"There are at least 21 different procedures that it covers," Dr. LeRoy Carhart (search) said during a challenge of the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act (search), signed last year by President Bush. "There are terms in this act that I do not understand ... and that have many definitions."
He challenged it in less than an hour and thats kerry's postion?
On Wednesday, less than an hour after Bush signed the law, a federal judge in Nebraska made a similar ruling that covers four abortion doctors licensed in 13 states across the Midwest and East. The Justice Department (search) said in a statement that it "will continue to strongly defend the law prohibiting partial birth abortions using every resource necessary."
Opponents of the law say it is overly broad, lacks any exemption for the health of a woman and could outlaw several safe and common procedures. They also contended it is the first step in a larger campaign to ban all abortions and undo Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court's 1973 landmark decision establishing a woman's right to an abortion.
Abortion-rights advocates expect a showdown over the new law with the Bush administration at the U.S. Supreme Court.
BUSH: What he's asking me is, will I have a litmus test for my judges? And the answer is, no, I will not have a litmus test. I will pick judges who will interpret the Constitution, but I'll have no litmus test
now, keith, all of US know that this is not what is expected of him.....
what exactly do you call an answer like this??????
is it the truth?????
they all cop out...
then later when asked a different question about his FAITH...
SCHIEFFER: Mr. President, let's go to a new question.
You were asked before the invasion, or after the invasion, of Iraq if you'd checked with your dad. And I believe, I don't remember the quote exactly, but I believe you said you had checked with a higher authority
I would like to ask you, what part does your faith play on your policy decisions?
First, my faith plays a lot -- a big part in my life. And that's, when I was answering that question, what I was really saying to the person was that I pray a lot. And I do.
And my faith is a very -- it's very personal. I pray for strength. I pray for wisdom. I pray for our troops in harm's way. I pray for my family. I pray for my little girls.
But I'm mindful in a free society that people can worship if they want to or not. You're equally an American if you choose to worship an almighty and if you choose not to.
If you're a Christian, Jew or Muslim, you're equally an American. That's the great thing about America, is the right to worship the way you see fit.
Prayer and religion sustain me. I receive calmness in the storms of the presidency.
I love the fact that people pray for me and my family all around the country. Somebody asked me one time, "Well, how do you know? "I said, "I just feel it. "
Religion is an important part. I never want to impose my religion on anybody else.
But when I make decisions, I stand on principle, and the principles are derived from who I am.
I believe we ought to love our neighbor like we love ourself, as manifested in public policy through the faith-based initiative where we've unleashed the armies of compassion to help heal people who hurt.
I believe that God wants everybody to be free. That's what I believe.
And that's been part of my foreign policy. In Afghanistan, I believe that the freedom there is a gift from the Almighty. And I can't tell you how encouraged I am to see freedom on the march.
And so my principles that I make decisions on are a part of me, and religion is a part of me.
[This message has been edited by glassman (edited October 19, 2004).]
i am not sure what he means here. it sounds like we have already started a holy war.....
i'm sure that some people are hearing it that way.....
quite frankly a lot of the things that he says are GREAT one liners, but they don't mean much at all if you try to put them in to the context of his actions
great feel-good speeches with little or nothing to back them up...
Most important, he cannot win a debate because he has done nothing good. Kerry can say when I get into office I will do this, or I will do that, but Bush has already been there for years and he can't do that for a whole lot of things. Yes he can say I did this about some things, but when it comes down to the things that are most important, where is he at?
i know a lot of what bush stands for, i see it in action, some things i like, some things blow.
kerry, whos attempting to sell himself to me for a vote, can't commit. Honestly if he picked a side and made a stand i think he'd have a hell of a lot better chance to win, he's used to politics mass style.
as for the courts bush wanted estrada. hispanic and toprated by the bar... no vote.
the title of the thread was some hogwash about Bush winning a debate.....
LOL maybe in 2000????
maybe i should forget the pity and do a line by line critique of the last debate too....some of it really is disconnected....
[This message has been edited by glassman (edited October 20, 2004).]
quote:
Originally posted by glfpimp:
I don't know who you are trying to fool, but no way did Bush win that debate...he can't ever win a debate. First of all, he is not nearly as smart as Kerry, so that doesn't help. Also, he cannot form sentences and pauses every two seconds. Also, when he starts to say something and doesn't know how to finish he just starts talking about something else quickly.Most important, he cannot win a debate because he has done nothing good. Kerry can say when I get into office I will do this, or I will do that, but Bush has already been there for years and he can't do that for a whole lot of things. Yes he can say I did this about some things, but when it comes down to the things that are most important, where is he at?
Firstly, he did run that last debate, sure it was not a landslide victory, but he did extremely well.
secondly, he is exactly where he should be, running our country. He has done many things that are more than noteworthy. Iraq, he was right on, what war actually turns out like you want it to? The economy, shortest recesion anyone could have ever expected post 9/11. Stem cell research, right move. It has taken 20 years or so for scientists to finally realize what exactly can be done with these cells. Why start to cross a moral ground continuously when they can first be educated about cells already available, and adult stem cells. Both have their upsides, and both have their downsides, but you can not rush into anything before you know what you are dealing with. Kerry on the other hand, from what I know, can not fiscally do what he says he wants to do. He is a fake, a lier, and a real flip=flopper. His record does not back in any way the things he says he wants to do. He has no identity, he comes across as more and more of a lier every time he opens his mouth. There are so many positive things that he as done as our president, but I guess if you want to have a different opinion you are entitled.
quote:
Originally posted by glassman:
[b]I believe we ought to love our neighbor like we love ourself, as manifested in public policy through the faith-based initiative where we've unleashed the armies of compassion to help heal people who hurt.i am not sure what he means here. it sounds like we have already started a holy war.....
i'm sure that some people are hearing it that way.....quite frankly a lot of the things that he says are GREAT one liners, but they don't mean much at all if you try to put them in to the context of his actions
great feel-good speeches with little or nothing to back them up...[/B]
i think i understand what it is....it's a defense against being quoted in a commercial??? i dunno...think Bush knows??LOL
maybe FEMA is now a faith-based organistaion and they forgot to tell US????
there are lots of things like this in Bush's statements....
[This message has been edited by glassman (edited October 20, 2004).]
quote:
Originally posted by futuresobjective:
Firstly, he did run that last debate, sure it was not a landslide victory, but he did extremely well.
secondly, he is exactly where he should be, running our country. He has done many things that are more than noteworthy. Iraq, he was right on, what war actually turns out like you want it to? The economy, shortest recesion anyone could have ever expected post 9/11. Stem cell research, right move. It has taken 20 years or so for scientists to finally realize what exactly can be done with these cells. Why start to cross a moral ground continuously when they can first be educated about cells already available, and adult stem cells. Both have their upsides, and both have their downsides, but you can not rush into anything before you know what you are dealing with. Kerry on the other hand, from what I know, can not fiscally do what he says he wants to do. He is a fake, a lier, and a real flip=flopper. His record does not back in any way the things he says he wants to do. He has no identity, he comes across as more and more of a lier every time he opens his mouth. There are so many positive things that he as done as our president, but I guess if you want to have a different opinion you are entitled.
Don't get me wrong, I do feel that it is good we got Saddam out. However, the reasons we got for going to war with Iraq are all not true. It will be good that he is no longer in power though. Also, the whole stem cell research thing can go either way, it is a moral debate and no point in getting into it. Yes, he may not be able to help the problems that have come about but I think somebody could do better. What it comes down to is that morals are based on his religious beliefs and this will be true for all presidents, but I have a problem with that.
You see when I was in high school, teachers were not allowed to say Merry Christmas because it is a christian holiday and not everybody is christian. Another important story is of the judge (true story) who based her judgment on the bible. Because of this, the judgment was thrown out. Now, lets relate this to gay marriage. Originally I was completely against gay marriages, but after doing a thesis on it, I have changed my mind completely.
If Bush, or anybody else for that reason, says gay marriage is wrong, he is saying so because of his religious beliefs. He is entitled to these beliefs. However, just as in the judge example, if she was not allowed to make a judgment based upon what it says in the bible, (the same bible the defendent had to place his hand on and swear to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth...so help him God) then why should a judgment for marriage be made based upon the bible? (The Bible is not everybodys book!) Everybody is supposed to be treated equal - religion does not allow this when it comes to gay marriage. Because of this, there is no justifiable reason that gay marriages should not be allowed. Simply put, saying the bible says it is wrong is not good enough.
P.s I know my spelling is horid (excuse it), and tonight it is worse. I am just to tired to spell check...
[This message has been edited by futuresobjective (edited October 20, 2004).]
quote:
Originally posted by glassman:
congrats on beating the yankers..LOL
the title of the thread was some hogwash about Bush winning a debate.....
LOL maybe in 2000????maybe i should forget the pity and do a line by line critique of the last debate too....some of it really is disconnected....
[This message has been edited by glassman (edited October 20, 2004).]
if i were your president christopher reeves could walkd again, stevie wonder would be able to see......(notice not quoted) not far off though, that was the hint...
...in response to why we shouldn't be quoting moore....
....not a lot of people quoting limbaugh, hannity and those other windbags....
nor for opinion people who werent asked to resign......(the have the opposite bias to clarke etc.)
LOL
Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Powell, all have had to retract statements....i have seen the Press interviews and the retrations.....
Rumsfeld ON FOX (ten days ago)said he NEVER expected the insurgency to get this bad....one day later he is back on trying to say that's not what he meant....
and it probably wouldn't have if not for Abu Graib.....we still have a lot learn about how all that got so far out of hand too.....
there are a lot of good reasons to be unhappy with the way things have gone...
yes they have.
yes there are things that went wrong, also things that went well, the first year after WW2 10k died in germany, first year AFTER.
this stuff is never easy.
worse things happen in our own prisons, a way to big deal was made of this.
more important to problems was not using necessary force in the beginning. they were there and prepared, the ball was dropped.
looks to me like its getting better, yes there are car bombs etc. but that still happens in israel and they should be in a much safer spot than iraq is.
back to Valerie Plame, this was when MY board went red......after i understood the implications of this situation, i realised that we are not dealing with patriots in MY sense of the word....
do you realise that this case is IT?
have you read up on it???
rumors go both ways in the beltway. novak wrote the story. that caused the contoversy and then 6 other "reporters" are saying they were called by the white house....
it may be true, if so fire somebody like tenent was.
i can only go by the guy who wrote the story.
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/robertnovak/rn20031001.shtml
the watergate break-in was a joke,in the sense of need/national security.
this case was what got me really interested in looking at the Bush admin as a neutral observer and not a GOP member....(not moore)
[This message has been edited by glassman (edited October 20, 2004).]
[This message has been edited by keithsan (edited October 20, 2004).]
[This message has been edited by glassman (edited October 20, 2004).]
[This message has been edited by keithsan (edited October 20, 2004).]
one of the things about Wash. is that you have to remember that it is really run by civil service people... Bush has had a hard time with that, Reagan DID NOT!!!!!
Reagan was loved, he did some dumb stuff, but he was loved,by the people he worked with,
it isn't fun to go to the toilet and find no paper is it???? don't forget the little guys.....
quote:
Originally posted by keithsan:
LOL- did someone mention stem cells....if i were your president christopher reeves could walkd again, stevie wonder would be able to see......(notice not quoted) not far off though, that was the hint...
...in response to why we shouldn't be quoting moore....
....not a lot of people quoting limbaugh, hannity and those other windbags....
nor for opinion people who werent asked to resign......(the have the opposite bias to clarke etc.)
LOL
the idea that he would have been able to walk again is ludicrous, at least in his lifetime. the idea that he could have seen again is also insane. Study after study would've had to be conducted, and any results are and would most likely be at least 15-20 years off. It is not not reasonable to state (or hint) that things that can simply not be accomplished could be, its just not. People voting based on that want further advancement in that field, as we all do, however that advancement will most likely no come in time for the majority of people who presently need it. There is a fine balance between life and science. Science is the study and preservation of life (weapons aside) and fetal stem cell research is presently sitting on that line. The cells currently available are being studies, and I am sure in the future applications will be made, but for now I do see adult stem cells as a viable alternative. Both are being studies, and both have the potential to do many good things. The question is which one is forcing something negative to happen in order for the good? It is all opinion at this point. Eventually that opinion will be forced into judgment, but for now I feel comfortable with the point we are at.
quote:
Originally posted by keithsan:
has he said he doesn't want osama anymore, killing him and him being the number one priority are 2 totally different things. no don't dig up dd. I want that maggot hunted down, but, first i want my ass protected!on iraq, you know my opinion and don't give me the spin that because of iraq there is no osama. thats bull. first its the lack of dropping a nuke when your intelligence is crap. another million soldiers won't find that needle any quicker.
He will be found though.... how many days till election...
he's baaaaaaaaaacccccccccck