CDRLabs.com

I don't care what most people think. That has no connection with the truth. Most people voted for ronald reagan. They were wrong.

Pundits just speak the party lines. They rarely think for themselves and so I don't put much weight in what they say.

Those string of critisisms don't mean none of those presidents ever did good things. I was just trying to say that I don't have a "my party can do no wrong" attitude. The reason I didn't mention nixon was because he was a republican.

I did read 1441. I even watched the debate about it webcast by the UN on their website. I watch C-Span. So I do know whats going on. If the rest of the american people don't do that thats not good. It dosn't mean that someone's personality is more important than their ideas, it just means that's what people tend to vote on. That they tend to vote on personality is probobly true but it doesn't make personality more important.

Ok more polls about how people approved of bush after 9/11. I'll say it again. Just because most people think something doesn't make them right. Any sitting president during an event like 9/11 would see their approval ratings soar. It is not a reflection on George Bush's leadership skills.

Aghanistan is questionable. I see two reasons we went there, to get revenge, which I see as a bad reason and also the definatly secondary reason, to try and damage the terrorists. I think the second reason is valid, but I don't know that attacking afghanistan accomplished that goal. It may have just helped recruit more people to harm us.

I hate to get drawn into an arguement about the cold war but i guess it must be done. Gorbachev saw that the communist system in his country wasn't working like it should. He saw the need for reforms. Reagan had little roll in that. There was the element of the soviets not being able to keep up with the US in the arms race but that was secondary to gorbachev's desire for reform. Are you sugesting we get into an arms race with the insurgency? If we go in with extreme force all we will do is help the insurgency recruit more people. If we did that it could become another vietnam. I realize it isn't yet and thats why i don't like to compare the two but it could become vietnam with that kind of statagy.

So you are in favor of negative ads from one canidate but not the other? Why not let both have their negative ads and let people decide which they think are true. but to say that bush should be able to have negative ads and kerry shouldn't because you think bush's are more true is absurd. The liberal media is a myth. It may seem somewhat liberal at times with the iraq coverage but its only because Iraq really is falling apart. A school in Iraq being built isn't really news anyway. A soldier getting killed is. I don't think you really want to have the arguement about big donors trying to buy elections. The republicans have been doing it for years with big donations from large multinational corperations trying to buy elections. Both sides do it. I would argue the rebublicans do it more. While fox news constantly praises george bush and what he does, cnn only repeates everything the administration says as fact. If thats left wing bias then i guess they are really biased.

Lets get one thing straight. Howard Dean is not an ultra-liberal. He is a moderate who tried to harness the anti-war movement to get elected. He was a fake and thats all there is to it. As for kerry being the most liberal senator, I would disagree and say that edward kenedy is more liberal but if what you say is true then its a sad day in america. It means we obviously need more liberal senators. I am getting kind of tired of hearing liberal used as an insult. I'm a liberal and I am proud of it. I don't mind terribly john edwards actually, because unlike kerry he actually stands for something and when he talks he talks about the issues and not about how he would be a better leader. Joe Lieberman and Zell Miller on the other hand really don't stand for anything and have similar problems to kerry. The only problem is when they talk about leadership they talk about it more like bush does. I do wish kerry would be more clear about his being a liberal though. I think if he had a clear plan about iraq, even if it was to pull out, he would be doing better in the polls because people would feel like they have an actual alternative to bush.

I'm not one of those who never let florida die. That arguement was already going on so I thought i'd just put my two cents in. I really have moved on and its not what im concerned with anymore.

Sorry just jumped to the conclusion that you only wanted to debate people like aviationwiz. I was wrong. Lets not get into ego. My life's goal is to compelty abolish mine.

leg4li2ed0pe wrote:you just wont debate me will you XXXXX? You are happy to debate aviationwiz but you won't debate me? Wonder why that is? Do you not have any counter arguements against me?

Oh, now I see that you are too afraid to respond. Come on, I have been waiting 4 minutes and 32 seconds, you should have responded by now...using your own illogical drug-crazed line of thinking...or maybe looking at your signature, you are dropping out and getting high right now, and can't read this.

Hey don't be putting down us drug people. We are just searching for the meaning in life like everyone else. See the end of my last post about ego-loss.

XXXXX wrote:See, this is what we republicans have to deal with. Irrational, screaming, crazy kook democrats that are not in touch with reality..

Irrational [Not endowed with reason.]

There is more than reason behind what happened, there is sound proof. I found that the DVD "Unprecedented" really helped show what happened during the 2000 elections in FL, from a non-partisan standpoint. Of course, since it occasionaly disagrees with what you believe it will be "liberal bias" and "french made" as you have refrenced in your latest posts.

Screaming [To utter a long loud piercing cry, as from pain or fear.]

Well, I'm not screaming, nor am I yelling. I'm simply displaying the facts for whoever is reading this thread.

Crazy [Affected with madness; insane.]

Nope, not there either, I am not mad, nor am I insane. Again, I'm displaying the facts.

kook [A person regarded as strange, eccentric, or crazy.]

That can be summed up above what I put down for crazy.

Democrat [A member of the Democratic Party.]

Jackpot! Of all the describing words you said about me, finally one fits! Yes, I am a democrat!

XXXXX wrote:Yes you are. Now that the Florida election has been brought up, you are all having a kaniption fit, blowing gaskets disputing this and that in post after post. I'm sure you are not done yet whining about it.

Again, I am not whining about who is President, we all know that George W. Bush is our president, what is often times debated is just how he got there, which, of course, comes down to Florida, and whether the elections there were ethical, or legal.

XXXXX wrote:As far as I am concerned the vote was done in as ethical and legal of a manner as any vote was done. It is never perfect, and I don't care enough about something 4 years ago to worry about proving anything to the likes of you.

OK, you have the right to believe that it was done ethically and legally, I am not going to, nor would I ever think of attempting to take away that right. Of course, are you saying that since you "don't care enough about something 4 years ago to worry about proving anything to the likes of you." mean that you simply give up? You give up arguing facts, and are now going solely off of what you believe, and not actual evidence?

XXXXX wrote:If you have proof that the voting was not done in an ethical and legal manner, let's see your proof....and giving me jaded quotes from Jesse "Where's my Bitches at?" Jackson, or "Flaming" Al Sharpton are not proof.

As I mentioned above, the DVD I mentioned really goes over it all in a non-partisan way, and you can rent it, or simply do a search on the net for what happened. Also, quotes from Jesse, Jackson, or Al Sharpton? What are you talking about? I never used that as proof...

enough about florida. Its over.

leg4li2ed0pe wrote:I don't care what most people think. That has no connection with the truth. Most people voted for ronald reagan. They were wrong.

Most would say that you were wrong. That is the beauty of our system. Your view is swept aside by the majority.

Pundits just speak the party lines. They rarely think for themselves and so I don't put much weight in what they say.

I agree.

Those string of critisisms don't mean none of those presidents ever did good things. I was just trying to say that I don't have a "my party can do no wrong" attitude. The reason I didn't mention nixon was because he was a republican.

OK, I appreciate you clarifying that. I'll mention Nixon. He was a crook, and should have went to prison. The worst president we have had, despite his other international diplomacy, and intellectual skills.

I did read 1441. I even watched the debate about it webcast by the UN on their website. I watch C-Span. So I do know whats going on. If the rest of the american people don't do that thats not good. It dosn't mean that someone's personality is more important than their ideas, it just means that's what people tend to vote on. That they tend to vote on personality is probobly true but it doesn't make personality more important.

I'm sure that you and I are the only ones on this forum that took the time to read it. What about Kyoto Accords, or the Constitution, or the Declaration of Independence to see how little of it applies to current day America?" Most people blow off about all those things, and Bush's position on Kyoto or Gatt without even knowing what they say.

I guarantee that most Americans don't even read their local paper every day. They may catch the evening news, and not question the liberal bias of CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN which is desparately trying to elect Kerry.

I'm not saying that you are wrong about voting based on issues vs. a person's personality. I'm just saying what the reality is...and why when it comes to Gore and Kerry, they are boring, monotone, depressing, robotic type individuals. Even those in the democratic party know this is true, which is why they hoped that McCain would run as a VP with Kerry, or even that somehow Hillary could jump in and save the day.

Ok more polls about how people approved of bush after 9/11. I'll say it again. Just because most people think something doesn't make them right.

Nor are you the Pope to be able to determine if he was wrong. He was a leader of the people, and was doing what they wanted him to do...based upon those approval ratings. That is his job...to represent the will of the people. It is not his job to find out what some dude promoting legalizing drugs thinks is right, and then do it.

Any sitting president during an event like 9/11 would see their approval ratings soar. It is not a reflection on George Bush's leadership skills.

Not necessarily. If a president got freaked out and launched some nuclear weapons, or went into a depression and didn't comfort and talk to the people, his ratings would not have soared. While I concede that it was easy to get the high ratings, my point is that he did what the people wanted him to do, including making the decision to begin a path of ferreting out the terrorists where they live before they attack us again.

This new pre-emptive doctrine is something that I totally agree with, given that these Islamic terrorists have stated clearly that they are dedicated to the destruction of the West, and have performed repeated attacks before and after 9/11. Think of how to deal with the Klingons...and you'll begin to see the error of your ways of pacificsm.

While pacificsm is noble, and great....while Ghandi and Martin Luther King are some of my personal heroes, there are also times if someone is charging at you and your family to use force to destroy them. While the example is not precisely the same as Afganistan and Iraq, they were both bastions and havens for these suicidal fanatics.

Aghanistan is questionable. I see two reasons we went there, to get revenge, which I see as a bad reason and also the definatly secondary reason, to try and damage the terrorists. I think the second reason is valid, but I don't know that attacking afghanistan accomplished that goal. It may have just helped recruit more people to harm us.

There is no road map to follow in a situation like this....but most Americans are not willing to sit back and hope like the French that the terrorists will just behave themselves. If you think they will attack again, you have two choices. 1) Attack them first or 2) Pick up the pieces from the 2nd attack. If the next attack is in your city, I predict your opinion will change. They have stated publicly on their Islamic websites that they intend on killing 4-5 million Americans this summer.

I hate to get drawn into an arguement about the cold war but i guess it must be done. Gorbachev saw that the communist system in his country wasn't working like it should. He saw the need for reforms. Reagan had little roll in that.

You need to spend some time read what Gorby has actually said, rather than what you think he said or thought. He gives Reagan full credit for standing head to head, and forcing them to match our outrageous defense expenditures. After they did it for a number of years, and realized that Reagan was not going to back down, they realized this was not going to work. Yes, they were also having financial problems, but if they thought they would win over Reagan, that would not have resulted in the ending of the Soviet Union.

In addition, Reagan allowed Gorby to save face and did a lot to reach out and develop a friendship with him that has Gorby speaking very highly of him even this week during his funeral. Gorby himself, gives Reagan the credit for the end of the Soviet Union, the subsequent treaties, financial support, destruction of the Berlin wall, and embracing many of the eastern european countries. For God's sake we are friends with the likes of Poland, Ukraine, Uzbakestan, Russia, etc. etc.

Look at N. Korea as an example. They are completely poor, yet they do not back down militarily because they think they are winning their standoff with S. Korea, and the USA. This type of warrior Klingon personality does not back down because someone is passive or nice to them.

There was the element of the soviets not being able to keep up with the US in the arms race but that was secondary to gorbachev's desire for reform.

You are wrong. Gorby sought US help for reforms that were brought about by the fact that their economy was not a part of the world's economy, and by astronomical amounts of money spent on their military. Again, read what Gorby says about Reagan before you assume something that you want to believe.

Are you sugesting we get into an arms race with the insurgency? If we go in with extreme force all we will do is help the insurgency recruit more people. If we did that it could become another vietnam. I realize it isn't yet and thats why i don't like to compare the two but it could become vietnam with that kind of statagy.

No, I'm not suggesting that. You have different strategies with different situations. Bush has not done that with Iran or N. Korea. Why do you assume that is his intention now?

None of your other Vietnam or fueling the insurgency recruiting will happen if we make the Iraqi's stable and happy with their new situation. We will be viewed highly, as we are by the Kuwaitis. Once Arab/Persian nations see that we are not there to steal their oil, and are willing to die for their freedom as we did in WW-II for the Euro-Liberals, the tide will begin to turn. We also need to make sure the Palestineans are taken care of, and stop putting up with the one sided, selfish Israelis.

So you are in favor of negative ads from one canidate but not the other?

I didn't say that. I said that the network media is 70-80% liberal by their own admission, and do not give a fair play to either Bush or the Republicans in general. The Repubicans are painted as only favoring the rich, and raising enormous amounts of campaign funds. But nothing is said by the liberal media about George Soros giving tens of millions in an attempt to buy the election. Nothing is said about the enormous amount of union/labor contributions to the democrats in untracked categories of campaign contributions.

Given those realities, the Republicans need to buy their media exposure to counter balance it. The most effective response for the money is to do the type of negative ads, which also are ringing true because Kerry is the most liberal US Senator, trying to flip-flop his way back to the middle. Everyone knows he is doing that, and the ad's just crystalize it. It is him doing that type of false positioning which will lead to his defeat.

Why not let both have their negative ads and let people decide which they think are true. but to say that bush should be able to have negative ads and kerry shouldn't because you think bush's are more true is absurd.

There is nothing stopping the democrats from running however many negative or positive type of ads as they see fit. The problem they have is that Bush does not flip flop, and on many important issues, Kerry and Bush are not far apart, so they have not yet been able to find an effective negative ad.

So like aviation's signature on this forum, they snipe at his military service and dental records in the reserve, or having been in a fraternity, or being from a wealthy family.....never mind who Kerry is married to, and the fact that Kerry has 5 mansions, a private jet, and a fleet of SUV and other vehicles that are not representative of what he preaches.

The liberal media is a myth. It may seem somewhat liberal at times with the iraq coverage but its only because Iraq really is falling apart. A school in Iraq being built isn't really news anyway. A soldier getting killed is.

Then you are brainwashed. It does not seem that way....it is that way. Here are a few links for your perusal. Wake up and smell the coffee dude.

CBS News Article

The Weekly Standard

You can do a google search of "Liberal Media Poll" and find your own evidence...hopefully you will realize your errors. As far as Iraq, if you watch Fox News, which all of the military will now only watch while in Iraq, you see every day both good and bad news. You see the happy children, the schools, the women involved, the improvement of their economy and infrastructure, the positive developments in the government over the last few weeks, the surrender of the militias, the unanimous approval of the UN resolution, the dedication of our soldiers, etc. etc. etc. etc.

On the liberal CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, MSNBC you see daily counts of dead soldiers, and as much bad news as they can find. You see the absolute certainty that the situation is getting worse, that there are no Iraqi leaders to even be able to think about turning sovereignty over to, you see the supposedly innocent civililians killed in various attacks, you see the recent desert attack portrayed as an innocent wedding party, rather than the images of weapons caches, maps, cash, foreign passports, and other convincing evidence that it was a way station for incoming terrorists. I could go on and on, but you need to find out for yourself.

I don't think you really want to have the arguement about big donors trying to buy elections. The republicans have been doing it for years with big donations from large multinational corperations trying to buy elections. Both sides do it. I would argue the rebublicans do it more. While fox news constantly praises george bush and what he does, cnn only repeates everything the administration says as fact. If thats left wing bias then i guess they are really biased.

I agree that large corporations tend to give money to republicans, and labor unions, lawyers, and other interest groups give primarily to the democrats. However how this gets portrayed is unilaterally that the republicans are bad, and the democrats are good, and hardly have any money coming in. I will tell you this for a fact. There has never been a republican single individual with billions of dollars stating that he will use his entire fortune to unseat a US President, and George Soros has already given over $20 million towards this cause (ie. through the ultra liberal moveon.org).

Do you think the liberal press would cover this blatant abuse since he is a democrat? Nope. If he was giving it to the republicans, they would be all over the size and odor of his sh*t every night, and on 60 minutes every other week.

Lets get one thing straight. Howard Dean is not an ultra-liberal. He is a moderate who tried to harness the anti-war movement to get elected.

No, you are grossly mis-informed. He is an ultra liberal, that even his own democratic party realized was too far left to get elected. His voting and VT governor record are clearly indicative of this fact. You need to read more facts before you make claims.

He was a fake and thats all there is to it. As for kerry being the most liberal senator, I would disagree and say that edward kenedy is more liberal but if what you say is true then its a sad day in america. It means we obviously need more liberal senators. I am getting kind of tired of hearing liberal used as an insult. I'm a liberal and I am proud of it. I don't mind terribly john edwards actually, because unlike kerry he actually stands for something and when he talks he talks about the issues and not about how he would be a better leader. Joe Lieberman and Zell Miller on the other hand really don't stand for anything and have similar problems to kerry. The only problem is when they talk about leadership they talk about it more like bush does. I do wish kerry would be more clear about his being a liberal though. I think if he had a clear plan about iraq, even if it was to pull out, he would be doing better in the polls because people would feel like they have an actual alternative to bush.

All you have to do is use google to find the studies of Kerry's voting record to see that he is clearly more liberal than Kennedy. It is something the democrats are trying to keep hidden, but the republican attack ads, and shows like Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and Fox News stories are exposing him. Thank God Fox news is now the number one news program, and has more viewers than CNN and MSNBC combined in ratings.

I admire your honesty, and willingness to stand up as a liberal. There's nothing wrong with that. You are entitled to your opinions in this free country. The problem you have is that liberals do not have a consensus to get what you want. My suggestion at picking democrats that are middle, is so you could get back some power...and then begin a movement towards some liberal positions. The country is not supportive or ready for real liberals like Kerry or Dean...however they pretend not to be. So you start with an electable candidate like Clinton, and try to move more to your liberal views while they have the football.

Your current democratic strategy of attacking, bashing, no ideas, depressing, monotone, rigid candidates is not working. Nor is electing flaming plastic faced rabid attack dogs like Nancy Pelosi to lead your party.

I'm not one of those who never let florida die. That arguement was already going on so I thought i'd just put my two cents in. I really have moved on and its not what im concerned with anymore.

I salute your intelligence.

Sorry just jumped to the conclusion that you only wanted to debate people like aviationwiz. I was wrong. Lets not get into ego. My life's goal is to compelty abolish mine.

OK, I admire you for that goal. Making the posts with as much detail and links as I do takes time....as did this last one....but it's all grist for the mill as Ram Das once said.

leg4li2ed0pe wrote:Hey don't be putting down us drug people. We are just searching for the meaning in life like everyone else. See the end of my last post about ego-loss.

I've done my share of magic mushrooms. Peace on that issue.

leg4li2ed0pe wrote:enough about florida. Its over.

See, I told you. They cannot let it go. They represent why their party is out of power as a Tri-Fecta in all departments. They keep dwelling on the past, and complain and bitch about the current president who will be re-elected. Then they will rant and rave and scream even more....but they still won't have what they want.

Now, Mr. Aviation (btw, as a sincere side note....what do you fly?), you now have gone to the extreme of looking up my various adjectives, and buying a DVD to show you how you must be right....but you have not provided one shred of proof to back up your allegation that the election was illegal, nor is there any court decisions to support your fantasy, except the U.S. Supreme Court which put the election in the hands of the rightful winner.

I gave you links.....I gave you the liberal newspaper mediated recount results showing that Bush did win again, a fourth time. You give nothing but more Kerry hot air. Maybe you could do a flip-flop for our additional entertainment.

I assume if you have gone to the trouble of buying a DVD to backup your Kooky conspiracy theories, that you must have some sort of evidence on this DVD? I am sure it is non-Partisan. Let me guess, Michael Moore filmed and produced it. Where are the Links? Where's your Proof? Show me the Money! Keep living in the Florida Orange groves. That will get your man elected! LMAO!

Or do you just prefer doing what Democrats love to do.....sit back and Bush Bash, snipe, complain, whine, feel sorry for yourself, and hope that one day your political views will once again be supported by a majority of the people?

OK, bedtime for bonzo. Fire away you liberal demos! Maybe I'll check back tomorrow. I do give you VERY HIGH marks for civility, leg4li2ed0pe, and for expressing your views straight up.

Now you need to move towards building a foundation for some of the things you say. For example, why should someone support the legalization of drugs....Pot is not that controversial anymore....I mean the good ones like Shrooms! OMG...I loved those f*ckers when I was in college....been a long time.

I'm tired, so I'll respond to a few points, and go to bed.

XXXXX wrote:

leg4li2ed0pe wrote:I don't care what most people think. That has no connection with the truth. Most people voted for ronald reagan. They were wrong.

Most would say that you were wrong. That is the beauty of our system. Your view is swept aside by the majority.

The true beauty of our system is that the minority has a chance to stand up for itself, the majority is not always correct, although a lot of people often consider majority and correct to be the same.

XXXXX wrote:I guarantee that most Americans don't even read their local paper every day. They may catch the evening news, and not question the liberal bias of CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN which is desparately trying to elect Kerry.

I'm sure they don't either, but you seem to mention every news station except FOX as "liberal bias" do you not admit that FOX is "conservative bias"? Of the stations listed, I'd have to say that CNN is the least biased, and you'll see more of what I mean in thier crossfire program. CNN does a very good job of presenting the news as it is, I have yet to see another station or company do that.

So you are in favor of negative ads from one canidate but not the other?

XXXXX wrote:I didn't say that. I said that the network media is 70-80% liberal by their own admission, and do not give a fair play to either Bush or the Republicans in general. The Repubicans are painted as only favoring the rich, and raising enormous amounts of campaign funds. But nothing is said by the liberal media about George Soros giving tens of millions in an attempt to buy the election. Nothing is said about the enormous amount of union/labor contributions to the democrats in untracked categories of campaign contributions.

That sure is what it sounded like what you stated earlier, as legalizedopehead pointed out earlier. Go on and watch CNN or MSNBC some nights, they absolutely praise the Bush Tax Cuts on how it helps all Americans, and they praise the Bush Administration at times, at other times, they will speak out against the Bush administration. As per "buying an election" I'm sorry, but the Republicans, and particularly Bush have become the kings at that over time. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that it doesn't or didn't happen in my own party, but just look at one company, Enron, we all know the story, in 2000 alone, they gave $2.5 mil. to political campaigns, of which 71% went to Republicans, and the remaining 29% went to Democrats.

Those stats are from OpenSecrets

XXXXX wrote:The most effective response for the money is to do the type of negative ads, which also are ringing true because Kerry is the most liberal US Senator, trying to flip-flop his way back to the middle. Everyone knows he is doing that, and the ad's just crystalize it. It is him doing that type of false positioning which will lead to his defeat.

So basically, as legalizedopehead said it before, it seems you think it's OK for Bush to put out negative ad's, but not Kerry.

Why not let both have their negative ads and let people decide which they think are true. but to say that bush should be able to have negative ads and kerry shouldn't because you think bush's are more true is absurd.

XXXXX wrote:There is nothing stopping the democrats from running however many negative or positive type of ads as they see fit. The problem they have is that Bush does not flip flop, and on many important issues, Kerry and Bush are not far apart, so they have not yet been able to find an effective negative ad.

Bush doesn't flip flop? OK:

A. BUSH PROMISES TO FORCE OPEC TO LOWER PRICES
B. ...BUSH REFUSES TO LOBBY OPEC LEADERS

A. BUSH PLEDGES TO ISSUE REGULATIONS BASED ON SCIENCE
B. ...BUSH ADMINISTRATION REGULATIONS IGNORE SCIENCE

A. BUSH OPPOSES THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
B. ...BUSH SUPPORTS THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

A. BUSH SAYS WE FOUND THE WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION...
B. ...BUSH SAYS WE HAVEN'T FOUND WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION

A. BUSH WANTS OSAMA DEAD OR ALIVE...
B. ...BUSH DOESN'T CARE ABOUT OSAMA

And the list goes on, and on, and on, American Progress

XXXXX wrote:never mind who Kerry is married to, and the fact that Kerry has 5 mansions, a private jet, and a fleet of SUV and other vehicles that are not representative of what he preaches.

The current holdings of Teresa Heinz Kerry in Heinz company is a mere 4% of company stock, Heinz Statement

Also, the jet which he is using for the campaign now is a chartered plane, more can be read on a thread here at our very own CDRLabs:
http://www.cdrlabs.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=16466

It also goes into financials a bit down, and the fact that he is spending $7,000 per hour less than he previously was.

Alright, I'm off to bed soon.

leg4li2ed0pe wrote:enough about florida. Its over.

XXXXX wrote:See, I told you. They cannot let it go.

It appears you are the one that isn't letting FL go...

XXXXX wrote:They keep dwelling on the past, and complain and bitch about the current president who will be re-elected. Then they will rant and rave and scream even more....but they still won't have what they want.

George W. Bush is our president, OK, we all know that, no one's going to argue that, no one can change that, look, I strongly disagree with the guy on most, if not all issues, but he is the president.

XXXXX wrote:Now, Mr. Aviation (btw, as a sincere side note....what do you fly?), you now have gone to the extreme of looking up my various adjectives, and buying a DVD to show you how you must be right....but you have not provided one shred of proof to back up your allegation that the election was illegal, nor is there any court decisions to support your fantasy, except the U.S. Supreme Court which put the election in the hands of the rightful winner.

I don't fly anything, but I would be very interested in being a pilot as my career later on, I closely follow civil aviation. I didn't buy a DVD to proove I was right, I happened to have recently rented the movie last week.

XXXXX wrote:I assume if you have gone to the trouble of buying a DVD to backup your Kooky conspiracy theories, that you must have some sort of evidence on this DVD? I am sure it is non-Partisan. Let me guess, Michael Moore filmed and produced it. Where are the Links? Where's your Proof? Show me the Money! Keep living in the Florida Orange groves. That will get your man elected! LMAO!

The DVD is titled "Unprecedented" and you can find it on Amazon by the ASIN, B000096I8G. I rented it from netflix myself. It is filmed by Joan Sekler, and Richard Ray Perez.

As I said, I'm not living the Florida Orange Groves, you are the one who can't seem to put Florida down.

XXXXX wrote:Or do you just prefer doing what Democrats love to do.....sit back and Bush Bash, snipe, complain, whine, feel sorry for yourself, and hope that one day your political views will once again be supported by a majority of the people?

Bush Bash, funny, as President Bush has become the king of bashing, and negative ads. Not sure where your coming on the feeling sorry for yourself shit, as I sure as hell do not. Also, as an American citizen, I have every damned right to complain about my government, no matter who is in charge.

That is the beauty of our system. Your view is swept aside by the majority.

Alexis de Tocqueville would disagree with you. He wrote extensivly on how the "tyranny of the majority" could become a huge problem in a democracy. He would say that is not beauty in our system but flaw.

Nor are you the Pope to be able to determine if he was wrong. He was a leader of the people, and was doing what they wanted him to do...based upon those approval ratings. That is his job...to represent the will of the people. It is not his job to find out what some dude promoting legalizing drugs thinks is right, and then do it.

George Bush's obligation is to do what is right, not what most people think is right. When it comes time for him to be re-elected, if most people argee that what he did was right, he gets re-elected. Thats how a representitive democracy works. That's why presidents shouldn't base policy on polls. Now I am saying in my opinion he was wrong. As Henry David Thorough would say each person has a responsiblily to push for what they personally see as right. When we get to much into worrying about the polls and the majority we get into a mob psycology and make bad decisions.

This new pre-emptive doctrine is something that I totally agree with, given that these Islamic terrorists have stated clearly that they are dedicated to the destruction of the West, and have performed repeated attacks before and after 9/11. Think of how to deal with the Klingons...and you'll begin to see the error of your ways of pacificsm.

Well let me start off by saying i've never seen an episode of star trek in my life, so I know nothing about klingons. I think you oversimplify the intentions of the terrorists. The terrorists are didicated to destroying the west only while the west is trying to force themselves on the world in which the terrorists live. They want US bases out of saudi arabia. They want the us to stop covertly supporting oppresive dictators. They want the us to stop supporting israel at the expense of palistinian civilians. What we must do to significantly decrease terrorism is to do these things. Get out of saudi arabia. Stop supporting the saudi royal family. Get out of iraq. get out of afghanistan as soon as possible. Tell israel that they won't be getting any more weapons from us if they don't pull out fully from the west bank and gaza strip. These steps would help a great degree more than any military action we could take. On north korea our relations with them were getting better before bush came in and decided to call them part of the axis of evil. This scared them into starting up their nuclear program (which, interestingly enough was technically legal under our 1994 agreement with them as it used a different procedure than before).

the network media is 70-80% liberal by their own admission

Both those links you gave me point to the same article. It is an article from the weekly standard, which by the way by its own admission has a conservative bias ironically enough. CBS news just reprinted it. So no it does not surprise me that a source like that would say those things.

As far as Iraq, if you watch Fox News, which all of the military will now only watch while in Iraq, you see every day both good and bad news. You see the happy children, the schools, the women involved, the improvement of their economy and infrastructure, the positive developments in the government over the last few weeks, the surrender of the militias, the unanimous approval of the UN resolution, the dedication of our soldiers, etc. etc. etc. etc.

This quote is somewhat telling. You will note that you said fox news shows both the good and the bad, "fair and balanced" you might say, but then you only list good things. This is very similar to fox news it self.

No, you are grossly mis-informed. He is an ultra liberal, that even his own democratic party realized was too far left to get elected. His voting and VT governor record are clearly indicative of this fact. You need to read more facts before you make claims.

I'd like to see this voting record you speak of. Howard dean has no voting record that I know of. He never held an office in which he voted. I will say this however. Howard Dean was known in his state for being a moderate. He was so moderate in fact that there was a thriving progressive party their and as we talked about earlier, this is a sign of liberals not being happy with a moderate.

All you have to do is use google to find the studies of Kerry's voting record to see that he is clearly more liberal than Kennedy. It is something the democrats are trying to keep hidden, but the republican attack ads, and shows like Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and Fox News stories are exposing him.

I do think liberals sould stop hiding and stand up for what they really believe. Whether kerry was ever that liberal is another question as he voted for the war, etc, but i'll even give you that he is and i would have no problem with it if he would stand up and say what he really believes. However, I don't think a serious person should be getting their news from Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity or any of those kinds of people just as I don't thing anyone should get their news from air america. Those stations and people are for people who want to confirm what they already believe, not be open to new information, just like you said about aviationwiz.

real liberals like Kerry or Dean

Again, as a liberal these people do not really represent my views, and im definatly an extreme liberal. The people that are the real liberals are denis kucinich, or howard zinn, or noam chomsky, or even Ralph Nader, if he didn't have such a big god damn ego.

as Ram Das once said.

ok you quoted Ram Das, your definatly not the extremist I thought you were. You have your own mind. The mushrooms go to proving that too. That and of course your openness to debate.

leg4li2ed0pe wrote:However, I don't think a serious person should be getting their news from Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity or any of those kinds of people just as I don't thing anyone should get their news from air america. Those stations and people are for people who want to confirm what they already believe, not be open to new information, just like you said about aviationwiz.

Excuse me? I've said it before, and I'll say it again, I listened to AirAmerica once, and that was it, I absolutely hated it, it was nothing new. Liberal Talk Shows, Conservative Talk Shows, it all sucks to me!

well good but I wasn't really saying you listened to it...

Now you need to move towards building a foundation for some of the things you say. For example, why should someone support the legalization of drugs....Pot is not that controversial anymore....I mean the good ones like Shrooms! OMG...I loved those f*ckers when I was in college....been a long time.

Pot is so obvious I won't go much into it. Basically its reletivly harmless, at least alot less harmful than alcohol, and its stupid to have it be illegal. The bigger issue is the legalization of all of the major drugs. American drug policy has failed. The drug war is a never ending war. When you make something illegal you drive it underground and you can't tax it or regulate it. And an industry like the drug industry is certainly one that requires some regulation, but when there is prohibition its completly deregulated. People that are addicted to smack need treatment not to be locked up for years in prisons overcrowded by drug offenders. This applies to all the harder drugs. People addicted to these should be allowed to go to their doctor and say, "im addicted" and then be given their supply and an environment in which they can try to recover. This was tried a little during the carter administration but was then undone. As for lighter drugs like shrooms, LSD, Payote, etc. These should be completly legalized without restriction. Anybody should be able to walk into a gas station and buy a sheet of blotter acid, or go to a cart on the street (like in the UK) and buy a bag of shrooms. The world would be much happier.

i have been reading this topic with much interest.

but i feel compelled to respond on a couple of remarks.

XXXXX wrote:We also need to make sure the Palestineans are taken care of, and stop putting up with the one sided, selfish Israelis.

whould you care to explain that?
"selfish" Israelis ?

leg4li2ed0pe wrote:The terrorists are didicated to destroying the west only while the west is trying to force themselves on the world in which the terrorists live.

you are mistaken.

my only comments are I am glad to hear Reagan is gone. Feel free to be offended but it was he who started the war on drugs,the union breakups,86 machine gun laws and a few other things that I very much disliked him for.

Jesus, this is still going on? Its good to see that XXXXX has finally mixed in discussion with his "omg, if you disagree with Bush you are a liberal democratic lunatic." If you aren't with us, you're against us? Nice.

You need to spend some time read what Gorby has actually said, rather than what you think he said or thought.

I got much of what I said from an interview with him. Coincidentally an article was printed today by the globe and mail about this very topic.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/TPStory/LAC/20040610/COMARTIN10/TPComment/TopStories

whould you care to explain that?
"selfish" Israelis ?

Both the Israelis and the palistinians are selfish. The thing is neither one realizes whats good for both of them. Peace. The really selfish person in the whole thing is sharon. He doesn't want peace because if their was peace he wouldn't get elected. He plays the terrorism card just as bush does, and just as bush doesn't want want the "war on terrrorism" to end, neither does sharon. it isn't in either leaders interest. This is not to say some palistinians aren't selfish as well. Those that will not live with a two state solution are just as selfish. I think on both sides the majority of the people are ready for peace. It is their governments that are the problem.

you are mistaken [about the terrorists].

Why do you think they hate us then? Do you think its because they are jealous? That arguement is something used by people that don't understand the situation at all. Its not like they hate us just for the hell of it.

He doesn't want peace because if their was peace he wouldn't get elected.

Is that true? Is it fair to say that the only, or main reason Israelis vote for Sharon is his policy with regards the Israel-Palestine dispute? Serious question.

I think thats mostly why a hardliner like him got elected, because of the intifada. He's fairly corrupt and has some serious problems with other issues. I don't see him getting elected without a war.

It's a grave allegation, and one I had not considered before. If your analysis is true, and Sharon really is keeping the war stoked for his own personal ends, that really is a tragedy for the good people of Israel.

leg4li2ed0pe wrote:

you are mistaken [about the terrorists].

Why do you think they hate us then? Do you think its because they are jealous? That arguement is something used by people that don't understand the situation at all. Its not like they hate us just for the hell of it.

once again, you are mistaken.
apparently you don't understand what "fanatic" means.

Yes, I understand that you think I am mistaken. I want to know why you think that. I want to know what your theory about why they hate us is.