Reptile & Amphibian Forums

Welcome to kingsnake.com's message board system. Here you may share and discuss information with others about your favorite reptile and amphibian related topics such as care and feeding, caging requirements, permits and licenses, and more. Launched in 1997, the kingsnake.com message board system is one of the oldest and largest systems on the internet.

Click here for Dragon Serpents
Click for ZooMed
Click for 65% off Shipping with Reptiles 2 You

I believe in Bush.....Pass it on!!!!

Tony D Oct 26, 2004 01:37 PM

I believe in President George W. Bush. I've always believed him.

I believe the president invaded Iraq to secure liberty and democracy for the Iraqi people. I believe he had compelling evidence that Iraq was a significant threat to America and the world, and presented that evidence in a complete and balanced manner. Like 42 percent of Americans – and 62 percent of Republicans – I believe Saddam Hussein was involved in the September 11 attacks.

I believe we have enough troops on the ground in Iraq to ensure stability. I believe the rising American fatality rates, the rising casualty rates, and the rising American share of those coalition fatalities and casualties testify to the undeniable progress we're making there. I believe it is inappropriate and traitorous, however, for the media to broadcast pictures of American flag-draped caskets returning from Iraq.

I believed then-candidate Bush when he said during the 2000 campaign that America should not nation-build, and believe him now when he says our nation was divinely chosen for this task. I believe, as the president claims, that "free societies are peaceful societies," but that the political and civil rights in oppressive, undemocratic countries like Saudi Arabia and Pakistan are exempt from this standard. I believe Iraqis view Americans as liberators, and that once this swift, cheap war concludes the world will be more stable, our allies more cooperative, and our enemies fewer and less threatening.

I believe the best response against an Islamic fundamentalist network operating from a South Asian cave which used boxcutters to attack us is to invade a secular Arab dictator living in 11 palaces in a Middle Eastern country whose (supposed) weapon of choice was nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. I further believe that the best way to accomplish that mission was to land on air aircraft carrier in military garb and stand in front of a banner declaring it so.

I believe the president when he says he would have moved "heaven and earth" had he any "inkling" that terrorists were planning to attack America with hijacked airplanes. I believe the security briefing the president read five weeks before the attacks – which was entitled "Bin Laden Determined to Strike Inside United States," and specifically mentioned hijacked airplanes and New York City as a target – was an inkling-free, "historical" document. I believe we should re-double our investments in a missile defense system, which could have prevented the 9/11 attacks and will prevent future attacks like it from occurring.

I believe the president was right to oppose the formation of the 9/11 Commission, to change his mind but then oppose fully funding it, to change his mind but then oppose granting its request for an extension, to change his mind but refuse to testify for more than an hour, to change his mind but then testify alongside Vice President Dick Cheney so long as transcripts and note-taking were prohibited. I believe the investigation into the Abu Ghraib prison scandal shows it was the fault of a handful of misguided underlings who simply misunderstood a memo signed by the Secretary of Defense which authorized the use of dogs to interrogate prisoners.

Domestically, I believe income tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans are the solution to budget surpluses or deficits, high or low inflation, stable or unstable interest rates, expanding or shrinking trade deficits, widening or narrowing wealth gaps, increasing or decreasing poverty rates, rising or falling unemployment, prosperity or recession, wartime or peace. I believe record-setting budget deficits, record-setting trade deficits, and a burgeoning national debt are examples of the president's fiscally-conservative economic leadership.

I believe that a president who insists that hard-working Americans deserve tax breaks should continue to stand fast against cutting payroll taxes – the direct tax on hard work. Clearly, I do not believe that payroll taxes coupled with income taxes on work constitute "double taxation," but the dividend tax on assets does. I believe those who complain that one third of American children live in poverty, or that the wealthiest nation on the planet should feel sheepish about having 45 million uninsured citizens, deserve California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's ridicule as "economic girlie men."

I believe the best way to improve local-run schools is to spend billions of dollars on a massive, federal testing program to tell us our schools are failing. I do not believe, however, that requiring local school districts to meet new, federal standards without resources is an example of an "unfunded mandate." I believe the president's education initiative will leave no child behind, much as his "clear skies" and "healthy forests" initiatives will make skies clearer and forests healthier.

Finally, I believe a white man of privilege who was accepted to Yale University despite a middling performance in prep school; was accepted to Harvard Business School despite a middling performance at Yale; was admitted to the Texas Air National Guard despite no flight background and an entrance exam score in the bottom quartile; was given funds by Osama bin Laden's father to start a failed oil company; and was chosen to serve as Texas governor and 43rd President of the United States despite a lifelong record of mediocrity, is a man with the moral authority to criticize affirmative action as a policy that gives opportunities to the undeserving.

Make no mistake: I believe that President Bush, just as he promised he would, has restored honor and integrity to the White House and united us as Americans.
I Believe

Replies (40)

rearfang Oct 26, 2004 02:26 PM

Ultra-partisanism is an interesting form of blindness.

Frank
-----
"The luxury of not getting involved departed with the last lifeboat Skipper..."

dfr Oct 27, 2004 07:30 PM

` It's understandable why some support Bush. Those at the upper end of the economic scale, corporations, etc.
` It has always nauseated me however, at how some who have nothing to gain, can be convinced of abstract issues. Then, they fall in line and follow the leader. Spouting propaganda fed to them. A great majority of people love to be screwed.
` Honor? What a crock. Makes me want to vomit, too.

Image
-----

` Stop the world! I want to get off.

repzoo44 Oct 26, 2004 03:15 PM

I dont think we were meant to take it seriously. At first I thought this person was a nut job, but after finishing it, I find myself laughing at how wrong Bush is for this country. Although, this exact quote could be used used by blind and deaf republicans who just dont hear theirself speaking.

EP
-----
Occupants not paying rent:
7 balls
2.1.10 corns(candy cane, creamsicle, ghost, 6 normal, 4 anery )
1 pueblan milk
1 everglades rat
1 cal. king
1 gray band king
1 w. hognose
1 bearded dragon
1 fish
1 mouse
3.3 cats

Thane Oct 26, 2004 03:32 PM

I agree for the most part. There are other issues Bush hasn't addressed. As far as the war in Iraq: you'll get folks that are unaware or just don't care of the mass murders this mini-Hitler did in the country of Iraq. There have been mass graves found with mothers holding babies that were shot in the head, lots of 'em. There are a number of mass graves of murdered people, who were murdered by this cretin. People cry and whine there were no WMDs found. With a "govt." that treats its citizens this way, to me, it doesn't matter if there were WMDs or NOT. It IS well documented that he was WORKING on acquiring WMDs, wouldn't cooperate with inspectors to see that there were none being made there. If we continued to sit on our hands and playing the "wait and see" game of idiocy, what do you think would have happened ? What ? Iraq would have joined the civilized world, and made peace with itself and all surrounding neighbors ? Yeah, they always WERE so peaceloving there WEREN'T they ?

See my website. Go to the 2004 button and read if you dare. If you disagree, try to come up with something better than, "racist", "homophobe" or other names. They're just NAMES, not ways to sensibly support a disagreement to my P.O.V.
Thanes Place

-----
Thane

rearfang Oct 26, 2004 03:43 PM

Uh...You can go into several central African countries that are practicing genocide today. we haven't invaded them. So please lets not think that Iraq is unique.

The bottom line is...There were no WMD's and there was no immenent threat to the USA that compelled us to invade when we did. With a country that was allready tied to one war and recovering from a recession the blind charge into Iraq was incredibly bad timing and showed poor judgement from our President.

Frank
-----
"The luxury of not getting involved departed with the last lifeboat Skipper..."

rearfang Oct 26, 2004 03:44 PM

(lol) Just checking....

Frank
-----
"The luxury of not getting involved departed with the last lifeboat Skipper..."

Thane Oct 26, 2004 03:59 PM

Uh...You can go into several central African countries that are practicing genocide today. we haven't invaded them. So please lets not think that Iraq is unique.

True.

The bottom line is...There were no WMD's and there was no immenent threat to the USA that compelled us to invade when we did. With a country that was allready tied to one war and recovering from a recession the blind charge into Iraq was incredibly bad timing and showed poor judgement from our President.

Perhaps there wasn't an immediate threat. The president had the support of his constituents for ridding the world of this mini-hitler. Even Kerry agreed at the time that we should take the action we took. Saddam wasn't allowing inspections of what his arsenal was moving towards, so should we have just sat on our hands and waited for a mushroom cloud to motivate us ? Have you studied a little bit about Islam and the religion of peace ? Read any of the Qura'n ? If so, you KNOW how dangerous these people are. THEY WANT US ALL DEAD !! Wake up.

Thanes Place

-----
Thane

rearfang Oct 26, 2004 05:04 PM

Funny you should mention that. During my service time I served in southern Spain that is full of Moslems. I spent several nice evenings in their homes and often discussed politics. And yes I am very familiar with the so called "Religion of peace (lol)".

However, if you pay attention to what is being said, it is not that Saddam wasn't worthy of removal, it is that there was no reason to justify going into a war with him when the economy was so fragile.

Our country was in no shape to support rebuilding Iraq at this time.

Plus...We were not in immenent danger.

Frank
-----
"The luxury of not getting involved departed with the last lifeboat Skipper..."

Thane Oct 26, 2004 05:16 PM

Too put this. But didn't wanna start a new thread:

In a post below "undfun" says the following and I reply:

(undfun)In my friends neighborhood near Chicago people are buying $200,000 houses - typically smallish 3 bedroom single story homes built in the 60s, and tearing them down to build $1,000,000 on the lots. The gap between rich and poor in the US is growing very fast. The middle class is evaporating. The rich are getting richer and everyone else poorer. The distribution of wealth in the US is starting to look more like that of 3rd world countries, like Nicaragua under Samoza then the prosperous US after WWII.

(T)This is all very true. Human history has shown other civilizations collapse and die. It looks like we're starting on the way towards that. I really hope I'm wrong.

(undfun)I honestly wonder if we're not entering into an era of decline. Usually countries in decline turn to superstition and infighting and start to decay from within. Certainly with the rise of Fundamentalism here, and the rise of hatred between people of different political persuasions we're seeing something like this happening.

(T)I'm starting to wonder if it isn't part of our nature to destroy ourselves when we near overpopulating. Name the poison: Religion, war, fundamentalism, socialism, over-consumption. I don't know if we'll ever be able to rule ourselves in a healthy way. Liberals are taking their issues to far out, conservatives (I'm in this group) take theirs to far. The media, and the rich and our governing bodies tell us as little as possible while trying to keep us happy with pablum. Some of us are waking up to these facts. What can be done about it in a nice, easy way ? NOTHING. Maybe I'm wrong, I hope I am, but I fear I'm not.

(undfun)If the latest polls from this morning are any indication it looks like we might have a Democrat in the Whitehouse next time. I wonder if that will help any.

(T)If the democrat was someone other than who is running, I may have some hope. Thank god our Govt. is structured with checks and balances. Lets hope they continue holding up.

(undfun)And who, in their right mind, would even want that job anyway ? Who ever it is will have a massive mess to start to clean up. It'll take many years.

(T)Forget the mess. Can you imagine who your co-workers would be ? MORE politicians ! That concept absolutely creeps me out. They all hide behind "political correctness" and watered down truth, the end result is nothing of value. We the people are being B.S.ed to death by the elite bureaucrats and the rich elite (Kerry and his ketchup queen wife are in THAT group TOO, which scares me).
Thanes Place

-----
Thane

rearfang Oct 26, 2004 05:19 PM

True enough...But if you notice it is set up so that you have to supply a filing fee before you camn even run for office. That guaretees that Joe average will never hold office (unless he does the bidding of the rich.

Frank
-----
"The luxury of not getting involved departed with the last lifeboat Skipper..."

H+E Stoeckl Oct 26, 2004 05:18 PM

The Iran with Saddam had been a secular nation. As a matter of fact for this reason Saddam had been supported by the U.S. for many years. Saddam curbed the islamic fundamentalists in his country and also Iran.

There is no question that he is a mass-murderer and a felon. But the U.S. policy has not distinguished itself to take such things in consideration so far.

And in my opinion the situation for the western countries regarding to Islamic terrorism altogether took a turn to the worse after the war and due to removing Saddam from power.

Thane Oct 26, 2004 05:29 PM

It's hard to say. Islam has created and perpetuated terrorism against us infidels. They will continue to do so. They would have continued to do so with, or with out this Iraq war. Have we made it worse ?

I think this is a problem that by nature is DEFINITELY going to get worse, before it gets better. What are the answers as to how to handle it (other than eradicate the entire world of everything muslim) ? I don't have them. We just need to know our enemy. You ignore your enemy with dire consequences every, single time.
Thanes Place

-----
Thane

undfun Oct 27, 2004 12:15 AM

Its is true, and it was known, that Saddam despised the muslem fundamentalists. He had nothing to do with them prior to our pre-emptive war. Its too bad that Rumsfeld and Wolf and Cheney didn't understand that. They have made this world much less stable. They blundered. Innocent people will pay the price.

The established military - the spokesperson being Powell, were disrespected. Tommy Franks and the other boots on the ground were dismissed. It was really an incredible act of arrogance by a bunch of intellectuals that had never been on a battlefield in their lives. Kerry wouldn't make that mistake.

There are many more mistakes that we can make - Syria, Iran, North Korea, even Saudi Arabia. We need a Comander in Chief that has some respect for the insights of those who have faced the enemy on the battlefield.

undfun Oct 27, 2004 12:01 AM

Your very misinformed Thane. I assume you get your news from Fox?

Thane Oct 27, 2004 11:15 AM

I don't. I rarely watch T.V. Help me out a little. I WANT to be well informed. If you can break it down simply for me, tell me what it is I'm not aware of?
Thanes Place

-----
Thane

Thane Oct 26, 2004 03:48 PM

See, if we had a candidate to run against bush that didn't look like a mortician, would present to us his senate record, and would take a stand on ANYTHING, with out changing views minute by minute, I think he'd have a much better chance. Bush needs to get going on some really simple issues and hasn't. It's the nature of bureaucracies. They do so little, so slowly. I think thats part of the problem these days. People see what useless B.S.ers politicians are, who in their right mind would WANT TO become a politician ?
Thanes Place

-----
Thane

rearfang Oct 26, 2004 05:06 PM

See here's your choice...Herman munster or Alfred E. Newman!

The bottom line again is that we live in a republic not a democracy...

That opens it's own can of worms......

Frank
-----
"The luxury of not getting involved departed with the last lifeboat Skipper..."

Thane Oct 26, 2004 05:12 PM

That was a good one. It's true. Oh god, I can hardly type
-----
Thane

lilroach56 Oct 26, 2004 07:39 PM

politicians at least have a motivation to vote for something (re election) the average joe has the media to tell him what to vote fore.

I still hate politicians BTW.
-----
0.1 "Tremper" looking Albino Leopard gecko (Lex)
0.0.1 tiger crested gecko (peachs)
0.1 Red blood python (Rhianon)
0.0.1 ball pythons (FELIX!!!!!)
2.1 Feral cats that we adopted (Fuzzy, Bear, and Tony)

"scientia est vox"

rearfang Oct 26, 2004 10:19 PM

Sad that you see it that way...

But then a Republic takes away your need to think things thru. After all you elect a blackguard to decide who your leaders are for you and then have the excuse that it's not your fault, because the electoral college put him there, not you and anyway Congress has the choice so it is ultimately their fault.

In a Democracy you vote directly. That means you have no one to blame for an ignorant vote but yourself, and the alternative of making the right choice, only to suffer the foolish votes of others. Either way you still have the right of expression, but in a Democracy you bear the burden of knowledge, or at least responsibilty for the result.

Yes, it's easier to have a Republic....

Frank
-----
"The luxury of not getting involved departed with the last lifeboat Skipper..."

lilroach56 Oct 27, 2004 04:03 PM

those with the most $$$ no matter what will usually always win the elections. Because then the person/s with the most money will be able to supply tons of support to their idea. In a republic the < person with position here > needs to not only listen to the $$$ (face it money is power) but also to the people who will elect him/her because if they do something for $$$ then people might not like that person.

speaking of the electoral college. It isn't really a republic seeing as how the electors are pledged to their party and rarely vote the other way (8 times in the last century or something). IMO it could be made better by equalizeing the difference in the importance of one vote (a vote in wyoming is worth 4x californias). But those in rural and less populated areas will be worth little compared to those in major cities.
-----
0.1 "Tremper" looking Albino Leopard gecko (Lex)
0.0.1 tiger crested gecko (peachs)
0.1 Red blood python (Rhianon)
0.0.1 ball pythons (FELIX!!!!!)
2.1 Feral cats that we adopted (Fuzzy, Bear, and Tony)

"scientia est vox"

rearfang Oct 27, 2004 05:33 PM

If you have taken it...Retake Civics. A Republic is a form of government. What results derive from that are an entirely different issue.

Frank
-----
"The luxury of not getting involved departed with the last lifeboat Skipper..."

lilroach56 Oct 27, 2004 05:55 PM

Takeing civics this year....

That is true that a republic and deomcracy are two different forms of gov't. But no form of gov't and economy has ever fit perfectly in its definition. It makes me wonder how smart we really are if we can't even make the definition of a form of gov't or economy true.
-----
0.1 "Tremper" looking Albino Leopard gecko (Lex)
0.0.1 tiger crested gecko (peachs)
0.1 Red blood python (Rhianon)
0.0.1 ball pythons (FELIX!!!!!)
2.1 Feral cats that we adopted (Fuzzy, Bear, and Tony)

"scientia est vox"

rearfang Oct 27, 2004 05:59 PM

That is the arguement that is often used about Communism. True Communism does not exist in the world. it is only an economic philosophy. What we call Communist is actually Fascist-Communism.

Things are rarely as described.

Frank
-----
"The luxury of not getting involved departed with the last lifeboat Skipper..."

lilroach56 Oct 27, 2004 06:12 PM

What you mean by "fascist communism" is that the economic system is trying to be like communism yet everything else made is trying to support it? (best way i could describe it).

Ideas like communism , capitalism, democracy, and republic will never be achieved in its true form. Communism will never be achieved because those in the gov't will become corrupt (more so than already), capitalism will never be achieved because larger companies will come corrupt (more so than already), democracy will never be achieved due to the large population of people and peoples lack of trust of anothers intelligence, a republic will never be achieved because people want a democracy.
-----
0.1 "Tremper" looking Albino Leopard gecko (Lex)
0.0.1 tiger crested gecko (peachs)
0.1 Red blood python (Rhianon)
0.0.1 ball pythons (FELIX!!!!!)
2.1 Feral cats that we adopted (Fuzzy, Bear, and Tony)

"scientia est vox"

rearfang Oct 27, 2004 09:26 PM

Me thinks you're strting to get the point...

Frank
-----
"The luxury of not getting involved departed with the last lifeboat Skipper..."

rearfang Oct 27, 2004 05:52 PM

Ok....I reread that.

In either form of government the "Politician" will listen to the money.

In a Republic your legislator proposes and votes on the bill. So big money can buy him and easily influence the vote.

In a true Democracy however, the big companies cannot buy the vote unless they pay off every voter. See the thing is, in a true Democracy the legislature can only propose a bill it has to be voted on by all the people.

That is what makes Democracy superior as a system.

Frank
-----
"The luxury of not getting involved departed with the last lifeboat Skipper..."

lilroach56 Oct 27, 2004 06:07 PM

For a big company to "buy" a vote they need to have similar political ideas of the people who elected the politician or else that politician won't get re elected if he goes against the voters will.

But in a democracy (modern day times) the owners of the radio and television stations will tell the people how to vote after being bought out by large corparations. Face it TV ads and radio ads are quite convinceing, even if you know both sides of the "facts". I heard a TV ad (i was in the computer room) the other day that talked about John Kerry and womans rights. It said that he supported abortion and Bush wanted to take that "right" away, the ad stated that (which should in reality hurt Kerry) in such a way it made abortion seem acceptable and kind. Someone in my Civics class also brought a flier in that showed a picture of a baby with the words saying "This baby wants you to vote for George W. Bush" because Kerry voted to kill other babies. Both of those were very convinceing ads. Either one could have made my vote if i was a swing voter.

If we didn't elect people to vote for us on issues then we would be owned by the media yet not get a single benefit from it. If we didn't elect people to vote for us on issues then none of us would ever be able to go to work because we would be voteing.

If we could make a democracy work without rampant (even more so than now) coruption and control by the media i would be all for it. But since we cannot make it work, we need to find a way to better our system of republic.
-----
0.1 "Tremper" looking Albino Leopard gecko (Lex)
0.0.1 tiger crested gecko (peachs)
0.1 Red blood python (Rhianon)
0.0.1 ball pythons (FELIX!!!!!)
2.1 Feral cats that we adopted (Fuzzy, Bear, and Tony)

"scientia est vox"

rearfang Oct 27, 2004 09:23 PM

No...A big company has only to back the politician that has the most appeal and is most willing to be bought. it is the politicians job to make the undesirable palitable to the electorate.

As to Rowe Vs Wade (an issue Bush refused to answer twice in the last debate) Kerry said his personal convictions as a Catholic could not hold sway over his duty to represent the interests of ALL AMERICANS. That is a leader.

As far as the Baby ad. Only those who are too guilble to think would fall for such an emotional slur ad. But then one of our problems is too many people think with their hearts and not their heads. Makes it easy for them to buy into a lie.

As to your statement below. Excuse me but that is nonsense. In this electric age we have the capacity for everyone to vote who has access to a computer. We really do not need people to vote for us. What we need is people who would honestly present the issues so we can vote ourselves. The media allready owns us as we have no way at present to confirm what they tell us.

A representitive should ideally only do that: Represent the issues. Where we went wrong was when we gave them the power to decide as well. A republic is only useful in a society where poor communications make a representitve form of government more efficiant. That time is long past.

Frank
-----
"The luxury of not getting involved departed with the last lifeboat Skipper..."

lilroach56 Oct 28, 2004 02:29 PM

"No...A big company has only to back the politician that has the most appeal and is most willing to be bought. it is the politicians job to make the undesirable palitable to the electorate." Yes but the politician's main goal is to become re elected for many years in a row (therefore gaining more power). If the big company who is trying to buy out the politician wants something totally different than what the voters he/she represents wants then the politician will not be re elected. If he/she does do something other than he/she promised to do then he/she has a less chance of being re elected. The politicians won't be bought out by a company that will hurt their re election chances (any politician who does, should not be a reprenstative of the people who elected him/her).

"As to Rowe Vs Wade (an issue Bush refused to answer twice in the last debate) Kerry said his personal convictions as a Catholic could not hold sway over his duty to represent the interests of ALL AMERICANS." Kerry being against abortion is a pot full of ****. He is not a Catholic seeing as how he is pro-abortion. If he did what he thought was best in the interests of "all americans" then he would think about the 1 milllion babies (which are murdered every year) who do not have any say in whether they live or die. Why doesn't kerry think about them? he has very few catholic beliefs (as do a majority of the kennedy's) and when he calls himself a catholic he insults what i believe in and every single catechist that taught him.

"As far as the Baby ad. Only those who are too guilble to think would fall for such an emotional slur ad. But then one of our problems is too many people think with their hearts and not their heads. Makes it easy for them to buy into a lie." The part about "this baby wants you to vote for George W. Bush" is full of crap. But the facts it has about abortion on the back aren't. The picture of a baby when combined with facts about Kerry voteing to murder millions of them make a very convinceing ad. The ad wasn't a lie, it lied about one thing in the ad but no one would vote for George Bush just because a baby told them to. Even if there was no picture of a baby on the ad it would still be pro-bush due to Kerrys disgusting lack of respect for human life.

"As to your statement below. Excuse me but that is nonsense. In this electric age we have the capacity for everyone to vote who has access to a computer. We really do not need people to vote for us. What we need is people who would honestly present the issues so we can vote ourselves. The media already owns us as we have no way at present to confirm what they tell us." Would you rather have a true democracy (you vote for EVERY issue) and not have any income because you would spend a majority of your day voteing and decideing on how to vote? we need trusted representatives who we think best represent our ideals and will do what we think is best for us.

"A representitive should ideally only do that: Represent the issues. Where we went wrong was when we gave them the power to decide as well. A republic is only useful in a society where poor communications make a representitve form of government more efficiant. That time is long past." a democracy is only usefull in a society of very few people. Even IF every single person in the USA had a computer and could vote on everything it would be impractical to have that. Every single person couldn't be presented with all the facts and lobbyists would have little say.
-----
0.1 "Tremper" looking Albino Leopard gecko (Lex)
0.0.1 tiger crested gecko (peachs)
0.1 Red blood python (Rhianon)
0.0.1 ball pythons (FELIX!!!!!)
2.1 Feral cats that we adopted (Fuzzy, Bear, and Tony)

"scientia est vox"

rearfang Oct 28, 2004 05:48 PM

I will no longer answer this thread but will continue above. Please if you want me to answer please keep your comments seperate from what I post so i can see what you are writing.

Frank
-----
"The luxury of not getting involved departed with the last lifeboat Skipper..."

undfun Oct 26, 2004 11:51 PM

Thane,

Why should we work to come up with reasonable counter claims when you've put forth no supported claims?

Just curious...

undfun Oct 26, 2004 11:58 PM

I wonder why, with a republican president and a republican congress, and 4 years in total control, there has been almost nothing done to close our borders to illegal immigrants? How many illegals came across the border in the last 4 years? How many were actually fundamentalists terrorists? We don't know! Why?

Because Bush knows that the dirt poor illegals feed the big money corporations that back his campaign. Period. He has done NOTHING to seriously close the borders. We have done more to close Iraq's borders to terrorists than we have our own.

Thane Oct 27, 2004 11:07 AM

I wonder why, with a republican president and a republican congress, and 4 years in total control, there has been almost nothing done to close our borders to illegal immigrants? How many illegals came across the border in the last 4 years? How many were actually fundamentalists terrorists? We don't know! Why?

This is one of the issues I have against bush. Him and every stinker president before him.

Because Bush knows that the dirt poor illegals feed the big money corporations that back his campaign. Period. He has done NOTHING to seriously close the borders. We have done more to close Iraq's borders to terrorists than we have our own.

It is completely idiotic that we continue allowing this. In the long run, allowing this to continue will drag our economy FURTHER down. I've had intelligent people tell me that allowing illegals into our country to continue, is a GOOD thing. That simply shows VERY short sightedness. I just wish we had someone running against shrub that I could vote for.
Thanes Place

-----
Thane

rearfang Oct 27, 2004 01:53 PM

You do...Long after the smoke settles on this election you have but one thing to remember. You either voted for a known evil and allowed it to continue...or you took a chance and tried someone else on the hope that he was better.

At least this Kerry can pronounce "Nuclear Weapons".

That's your choice.

Frank
-----
"The luxury of not getting involved departed with the last lifeboat Skipper..."

Thane Oct 27, 2004 03:30 PM

Too funny. Now, I believe it's Nucular weapons we have NOW. They're much less (or was it more ?) dangerous than those nuclear ones

I can't fault him for that though. I know if I went up on T.V. in front of the nation, I'd get thrown off in short order by the P.C. idiots in the media because I wouldn't mince words and would likely use some foul language at times for emphasis and when I felt impassioned about a subject. And "Oh boy, we can't have you offending someone now." This is one of the reasons we have such milktoast ninnies running. Maybe they AREN'T milktoast ninnies, but the requirement to edit their speech of ANY passion or feeling sure makes 'em look that way. Our media feeds us what THEY want us to see, HOW they want us to see it. Is it any wonder were a country divided ? United we stand, divided we fall ? If Mr. mortician would just release his senate records (not sure why he doesn't), maybe I could find some reasons to vote (or NOT vote) for him.
-----
Thane

rearfang Oct 27, 2004 03:38 PM

Do you really want to get me started on Political Correctness? All our media is so devoid of passion because they might offend somebody with the truth it stinks!

The only thing I do like about Bush is that his feelings are close to the surface...But that is not an asset in a President. Cooler heads make fewer mistakes...

Frank
-----
"The luxury of not getting involved departed with the last lifeboat Skipper..."

Thane Oct 27, 2004 04:17 PM

Do you really want to get me started on Political Correctness? All our media is so devoid of passion because they might offend somebody with the truth it stinks!

(t)Exactly. I see we're actually agreeing on some of the major issues. If you are anywhere NEARLY as unhappy about PC #*6%5&6 as I am. Please, RANT, yell and holler. I'm with you. If everyone bottles up how they feel so much, what results ? I think we're seeing some of the results beginning. It may not be pretty.

The only thing I do like about Bush is that his feelings are close to the surface...But that is not an asset in a President. Cooler heads make fewer mistakes...

(t)Yes, but remember, he can't make a major decisions with out support of OTHERS in the govt.
-----
Thane

rearfang Oct 27, 2004 05:37 PM

He can't make decisions without the support of others? No..that's too easy (lol)(lol)(lol)(lol)!

I think we do agree on a lot...My problem is I find myself having voted for a ^#&^%^#^%liberal because I totaly do not trust the conservative President with our future.

Frank
-----
"The luxury of not getting involved departed with the last lifeboat Skipper..."

Thane Oct 27, 2004 06:02 PM

He can't make decisions without the support of others? No..that's too easy (lol)(lol)(lol)(lol)!

He is the one who's shoulders the responsibility falls on if he made a poor decision. The senate has to vote for and support certain actions too. A president can't one day wake up and say "I want to nuke Cuba." and make a call and do it. The system of checks and balances.

I think we do agree on a lot...My problem is I find myself having voted for a ^#&^%^#^%liberal because I totaly do not trust the conservative President with our future.

Well, at least I know what (in general) shrub will do. There's no telling with kerry. I'll admit it, a little fear of the unknown here. But, fer cryin' out loud, lurch certainly could have defined himself better than he has. That and his scary, rich wife creature. This years election just seriously stinks and I'll be glad when it's over. Maybe we'll get some decent people running someday. Doubt it but I can hope.
-----
Thane

Site Tools