well stated cogent points
thanks

"Maxprop" wrote in message
ink.net...

"DSK" wrote in message

Bart Senior wrote:
America is a safer place, liberals are not happy about it.

I am not a liberal,

Really? Could have fooled me and anyone else here.

and one of the reasons I am against President Bush
is that he has made the U.S. far less safe. In fact, I cannot see how
you would claim we are safer.

One example: Qaddaffi surrendered his nukes. His ties to terrorists is a
matter of extensive record. Can you honestly claim he'd have done that if
we hadn't shown the cajones to enter Iraq? Why didn't he make this
surrender during the Clinton admin.?

The gov't is in deep debt and could not
afford another major military operation. The Army is stretched to the
limit, or slightly past, and doesn't have the manpower to conduct any
further major operations anyway. Intel & counter-terrorist efforts are
all centered on Iraq, leaving the rest just hanging in the wind.

The above paragraph was basically true, until your last sentence, which
holds no basis in fact. Just because the media fail to report on ongoing
actions and efforts elsewhere (Afghanistan, USA, Canada, Mexico, for
example) doesn't mean such efforts aren't being made. Have our intel
resources typically reported to the media everything they're doing????
You
rely far too heavily on the left-leaning media for your "gospel."

True conservatives are in favor of a strong national defense. This
includes defense against terrorists. Bush & Cheney manipulated us into a
war so that their buddies (and Cheney himself, I believe) could reap
enormous profits.

Prove this. While it was extremely bad form for Halliburton to even
participate in the post-war contracts, let alone grossly overcharge for
them, you cannot provide one piece of evidence that this was Bush's
original
intent. Speculation at best, and shaky at that. Liberal dogma.

In doing so they have turned world opinion against us,
alienated many former allies,

Like France? Russia? China? Now who's been lacking in historical
accuracy?
I'm wondering who all these new "enemies" will turn to when they need
either
financial or military assistance. I think we both know the answer. It
never ceases to amaze how quickly enmity is discarded when the chips are
down.

and provided motivation for 3 more
generatins of suicide bombers. Not to mention the killing of 10,000
Iraqi civilians... I suppose you believe Sept 11th morally justifies
killing huge numbers of indiscriminate foreigners? Or just Muslims?

Did WWII justify the killing of millions of civilians? War is what it is.
So what is the alternative? If attacked, should we lick our wounds,
appologize to those who attacked us for ****ing them off for whatever
unknown reason, and wait for the next attack? Pacifism never solves
disputes. War does, sadly. History confirms this. That's the human
condition, and it's not likely to change.

He is not tap-dancing at all. Kerry supported the war becaue he was told
that Iraq was an imminent threat to the U.S. He was told that Iraq had
ties to Al-Queda and had helped plan the Sept 11th suicide attacks. He
was told that the war would be short & sweet and that we would not get
involved in "nation building." He was told that the war would cost far,
far less than it has.

Would you have been more approving of Bush if he'd recently said, "Ya
know,
I think this whole Iraq war thing was a bad idea. We're pulling out."
Wouldn't that make him a great leader?!! Everyone makes decisions, good
and/or bad. The one's with spine and integrity stick with them, despite
the
resulting popularity or lack thereof. And let's not forget the political
equation: Kerry would look foolish to support Bush in anything at this
stage of an election year, no?

You are eager to denounce Kerry for being wrong, and don't even mention
the wrong done by those who lied about all the above. That is rather
strange logic.

It is easy for liberals to accuse Bush of lies, while discarding
out-of-hand
that he might have been mislead by faulty intel as well. But that seems
to
be the gold standard for liberals currently.

Blaming someone for believeing lies, and not blaming the liar, is a
very
bad double standard. Can't you come up with anything better?

I think Bart covered it rather well, replete with quotes and such. That
you
disagree doesn't make him wrong--only in dispute with you.

Max

Well stupid, that I agree with.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"gonefishiing" wrote in message
news
well stated cogent points
thanks

"Maxprop" wrote in message
ink.net...

"DSK" wrote in message

Bart Senior wrote:
America is a safer place, liberals are not happy about it.

I am not a liberal,

Really? Could have fooled me and anyone else here.

and one of the reasons I am against President Bush
is that he has made the U.S. far less safe. In fact, I cannot see how
you would claim we are safer.

One example: Qaddaffi surrendered his nukes. His ties to terrorists is
a
matter of extensive record. Can you honestly claim he'd have done that
if
we hadn't shown the cajones to enter Iraq? Why didn't he make this
surrender during the Clinton admin.?

The gov't is in deep debt and could not
afford another major military operation. The Army is stretched to the
limit, or slightly past, and doesn't have the manpower to conduct any
further major operations anyway. Intel & counter-terrorist efforts are
all centered on Iraq, leaving the rest just hanging in the wind.

The above paragraph was basically true, until your last sentence, which
holds no basis in fact. Just because the media fail to report on
ongoing
actions and efforts elsewhere (Afghanistan, USA, Canada, Mexico, for
example) doesn't mean such efforts aren't being made. Have our intel
resources typically reported to the media everything they're doing????
You
rely far too heavily on the left-leaning media for your "gospel."

True conservatives are in favor of a strong national defense. This
includes defense against terrorists. Bush & Cheney manipulated us into
a
war so that their buddies (and Cheney himself, I believe) could reap
enormous profits.

Prove this. While it was extremely bad form for Halliburton to even
participate in the post-war contracts, let alone grossly overcharge for
them, you cannot provide one piece of evidence that this was Bush's
original
intent. Speculation at best, and shaky at that. Liberal dogma.

In doing so they have turned world opinion against us,
alienated many former allies,

Like France? Russia? China? Now who's been lacking in historical
accuracy?
I'm wondering who all these new "enemies" will turn to when they need
either
financial or military assistance. I think we both know the answer. It
never ceases to amaze how quickly enmity is discarded when the chips are
down.

and provided motivation for 3 more
generatins of suicide bombers. Not to mention the killing of 10,000
Iraqi civilians... I suppose you believe Sept 11th morally justifies
killing huge numbers of indiscriminate foreigners? Or just Muslims?

Did WWII justify the killing of millions of civilians? War is what it
is.
So what is the alternative? If attacked, should we lick our wounds,
appologize to those who attacked us for ****ing them off for whatever
unknown reason, and wait for the next attack? Pacifism never solves
disputes. War does, sadly. History confirms this. That's the human
condition, and it's not likely to change.

He is not tap-dancing at all. Kerry supported the war becaue he was
told
that Iraq was an imminent threat to the U.S. He was told that Iraq had
ties to Al-Queda and had helped plan the Sept 11th suicide attacks. He
was told that the war would be short & sweet and that we would not get
involved in "nation building." He was told that the war would cost
far,
far less than it has.

Would you have been more approving of Bush if he'd recently said, "Ya
know,
I think this whole Iraq war thing was a bad idea. We're pulling out."
Wouldn't that make him a great leader?!! Everyone makes decisions, good
and/or bad. The one's with spine and integrity stick with them, despite
the
resulting popularity or lack thereof. And let's not forget the
political
equation: Kerry would look foolish to support Bush in anything at this
stage of an election year, no?

You are eager to denounce Kerry for being wrong, and don't even
mention
the wrong done by those who lied about all the above. That is rather
strange logic.

It is easy for liberals to accuse Bush of lies, while discarding
out-of-hand
that he might have been mislead by faulty intel as well. But that seems
to
be the gold standard for liberals currently.

Blaming someone for believeing lies, and not blaming the liar, is a
very
bad double standard. Can't you come up with anything better?

I think Bart covered it rather well, replete with quotes and such. That
you
disagree doesn't make him wrong--only in dispute with you.

Max

do the world a favor.................go for a long sail.

I have. Clearly you haven't.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"gonefishiing" wrote in message
...
do the world a favor.................go for a long sail.

gonefishiing wrote

In doing so they have turned world opinion against us,
alienated many former allies,

Like France? Russia? China? Now who's been lacking
in historical accuracy? I'm wondering who all these new
"enemies" will turn to when they need either financial or
military assistance.

France has just turned to the US for more help on the war on AIDS.

We should formally offer them the option of statehood, if they want
a say in our government.

Most nations do not contribute their fair share to solving important
world problems like AIDs and terrorism. They leave the expense
for research, manpower and technology to the US.

These countries say they want our help, but really they want our
money, and they want to decide how and where to spend it. Much
of the money earmarked to help people in need goes instead to
lining the bank accounts of foreign politicians. That must be
minimized.

Whoever foots the bill should run the show. If foreign nations
don't like it, they are free to pay for whatever they want to do.

Financial leverage is the most powerful leverage. The US should
halt foreign aid and trade to nations that do not treat us with respect.
If we are not liked, we should vote with our feet and go elsewhere.

We should make it plain that if our generous good-will is unrewarded,
it will stop. If our citizens whether they be tourists, missionaries, or
businessmen are killed on foreign soil, and the criminals that commit
these crimes are not punished, foreign aid and trade will stop immediately.
We should be clear we expect foreign nations to guarantee property
rights, human rights, and just laws for everyone.

Finally, if our position is clear, as a last resort, the threat of war will
produces results, and prevent wars--only if the threat is real not an
empty one posed by well meaning, but misguided liberals. This has
been shown recently by Lybia's about face on terrorism.

If we did these things, world opinion would change, country by
country, starting with foreign leaders who set the tone in their home
countries.

Except, we don't run the show. We have abdicated our authority
by invading a country because of a lie. Oh, and now you think
AIDS is high on the right-wing agenda??? Has Rush been a bad
boy (besides being a drug addict)?

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Bart Senior" wrote in message
news
gonefishiing wrote

In doing so they have turned world opinion against us,
alienated many former allies,

Like France? Russia? China? Now who's been lacking
in historical accuracy? I'm wondering who all these new
"enemies" will turn to when they need either financial or
military assistance.

France has just turned to the US for more help on the war on AIDS.

We should formally offer them the option of statehood, if they want
a say in our government.

Most nations do not contribute their fair share to solving important
world problems like AIDs and terrorism. They leave the expense
for research, manpower and technology to the US.

These countries say they want our help, but really they want our
money, and they want to decide how and where to spend it. Much
of the money earmarked to help people in need goes instead to
lining the bank accounts of foreign politicians. That must be
minimized.

Whoever foots the bill should run the show. If foreign nations
don't like it, they are free to pay for whatever they want to do.

Financial leverage is the most powerful leverage. The US should
halt foreign aid and trade to nations that do not treat us with respect.
If we are not liked, we should vote with our feet and go elsewhere.

We should make it plain that if our generous good-will is unrewarded,
it will stop. If our citizens whether they be tourists, missionaries, or
businessmen are killed on foreign soil, and the criminals that commit
these crimes are not punished, foreign aid and trade will stop
immediately.
We should be clear we expect foreign nations to guarantee property
rights, human rights, and just laws for everyone.

Finally, if our position is clear, as a last resort, the threat of war
will
produces results, and prevent wars--only if the threat is real not an
empty one posed by well meaning, but misguided liberals. This has
been shown recently by Lybia's about face on terrorism.

If we did these things, world opinion would change, country by
country, starting with foreign leaders who set the tone in their home
countries.

The evidence shows Bush did not lie. That is mearly what
you'd like to think based on the liberal party programming
in their attempt to oust President Bush. The liberals have
nothing substantial, and so must make things up.

You presume and judge the man guilty, when no court would
sentence him. If he was guilty, the issue would be in court.

Extremist liberals will try to impeach President Bush after
Kerry has lost the election, even though there is no evidence
that President Bush lied, but because they have been brainwashed
into believing it. That too will fail, however the goal of smearing
an honest man will leave a taint of decay and corruption on the
Democratic Party.

The truth is extremist liberals ignore every fact that stands in
the way. al Queda was in Iraq--the report stated only they was
no documented evidence they were actively working with Saddam.
Iraq did support terrorism. Read the report not just the few
excerpts that are mis-quoted. al Queda was(is) in Iraq, France,
Germany, Spain, Jordan, Indonesia, as well as Florida, New
Jersey and New York.

Until last week Kerry supported the war. What changed in
the last week, except more documentation showing the Bush
administration did not try to force it's agenda on the intelligence
community? France, Russia, England, and many other countries
have acknowledged that Iraq supported terrorism, and was
seeking nuclear weapons. It was well known. Read it, it's in print.
Saddam rewarded the families of terrorists with pensions and
homes. He actively supported terrorism. We can logically
conclude he did have contact with al Queda, even though there
has been no proof.

By the way, I think AIDS is high on the liberal agenda, because
there is lots of money to be made by the liberals like Clinton who
want to steal from that huge pile of money. Charities should be
run by people who work for free as volunteers--not greedy
people who want to line their own pockets while pretending to
be righteous.

I'd support a liberal or anyone else, to manage worldwide war
on AIDS--as long as they were doing it for humanitarian reasons,
not financial reasons. I support the reasoning that abstinence,
education, and condoms are the best ways to limit the spread of
AIDS. I also support government spending in this area. If you
feel strongly about AIDS, I urge you to go to developing nations
and help educate those in need--back up your liberal ideals. Walk
the walk, don't just talk the talk. Do something.

The principles of conservatism are basically, summarized in this:
Give a man a fish and you feed him today. Teach a man to fish,
you feed him forever.

Conservatives want to develop effective solutions. Extremist
liberals want to throw money at every problem and make the
middle class pay for it. Taxes are very high and the value of
money is lower than ever due to inflation. I think the middle class
deserves value for their money, and a choice in how much is spent
and where. We certainly don't want our tax dollars supporting liars
and a cheats like the Clintons. We also do not accept the strong
arm tactics used by liberals who don't practice what they preach,
like John Kerry and his wife who are extremely wealthy and pay
no taxes.

If you, the Clintons, or Kerry think the money needs to be spent,
why don't you all dig into your own pockets first. Prove you are
a humanitarian and you'll have my respect. Until then, I'll remain
convinced you are another mindless drone following the party
line without thinking or analyzing anything objectively.

Jonathan Ganz wrote

Except, we don't run the show. We have abdicated our authority
by invading a country because of a lie. Oh, and now you think
AIDS is high on the right-wing agenda???

"Bart Senior" wrote
gonefishiing wrote

In doing so they have turned world opinion against us,
alienated many former allies,

Like France? Russia? China? Now who's been lacking
in historical accuracy? I'm wondering who all these new
"enemies" will turn to when they need either financial or
military assistance.

France has just turned to the US for more help on the war on AIDS.

We should formally offer them the option of statehood, if they want
a say in our government.

Most nations do not contribute their fair share to solving important
world problems like AIDs and terrorism. They leave the expense
for research, manpower and technology to the US.

These countries say they want our help, but really they want our
money, and they want to decide how and where to spend it. Much
of the money earmarked to help people in need goes instead to
lining the bank accounts of foreign politicians. That must be
minimized.

He lied or was too stupid to see when he was being
duped. Either way, I don't want him as president.
Clinton lied about a blow job. For that he was
impeached and found not guilty. Bush is guilty of
allowing 1000s to die because of either something
he didn't do (like listen to the people who knew
9/11 was imminent) or did do (go to war for no good
reason).

I would love to see him impeached, but it'll never happen.

Bush and Chumpy are no friends of regular Americans.
They deserve to lose by a landslide, but will probably
only lose by a hair.

It sounds to me like you're the one who's been brainwashed.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Bart Senior" wrote in message
et...
The evidence shows Bush did not lie. That is mearly what
you'd like to think based on the liberal party programming
in their attempt to oust President Bush. The liberals have
nothing substantial, and so must make things up.

You presume and judge the man guilty, when no court would
sentence him. If he was guilty, the issue would be in court.

Extremist liberals will try to impeach President Bush after
Kerry has lost the election, even though there is no evidence
that President Bush lied, but because they have been brainwashed
into believing it. That too will fail, however the goal of smearing
an honest man will leave a taint of decay and corruption on the
Democratic Party.

The truth is extremist liberals ignore every fact that stands in
the way. al Queda was in Iraq--the report stated only they was
no documented evidence they were actively working with Saddam.
Iraq did support terrorism. Read the report not just the few
excerpts that are mis-quoted. al Queda was(is) in Iraq, France,
Germany, Spain, Jordan, Indonesia, as well as Florida, New
Jersey and New York.

Until last week Kerry supported the war. What changed in
the last week, except more documentation showing the Bush
administration did not try to force it's agenda on the intelligence
community? France, Russia, England, and many other countries
have acknowledged that Iraq supported terrorism, and was
seeking nuclear weapons. It was well known. Read it, it's in print.
Saddam rewarded the families of terrorists with pensions and
homes. He actively supported terrorism. We can logically
conclude he did have contact with al Queda, even though there
has been no proof.

By the way, I think AIDS is high on the liberal agenda, because
there is lots of money to be made by the liberals like Clinton who
want to steal from that huge pile of money. Charities should be
run by people who work for free as volunteers--not greedy
people who want to line their own pockets while pretending to
be righteous.

I'd support a liberal or anyone else, to manage worldwide war
on AIDS--as long as they were doing it for humanitarian reasons,
not financial reasons. I support the reasoning that abstinence,
education, and condoms are the best ways to limit the spread of
AIDS. I also support government spending in this area. If you
feel strongly about AIDS, I urge you to go to developing nations
and help educate those in need--back up your liberal ideals. Walk
the walk, don't just talk the talk. Do something.

The principles of conservatism are basically, summarized in this:
Give a man a fish and you feed him today. Teach a man to fish,
you feed him forever.

Conservatives want to develop effective solutions. Extremist
liberals want to throw money at every problem and make the
middle class pay for it. Taxes are very high and the value of
money is lower than ever due to inflation. I think the middle class
deserves value for their money, and a choice in how much is spent
and where. We certainly don't want our tax dollars supporting liars
and a cheats like the Clintons. We also do not accept the strong
arm tactics used by liberals who don't practice what they preach,
like John Kerry and his wife who are extremely wealthy and pay
no taxes.

If you, the Clintons, or Kerry think the money needs to be spent,
why don't you all dig into your own pockets first. Prove you are
a humanitarian and you'll have my respect. Until then, I'll remain
convinced you are another mindless drone following the party
line without thinking or analyzing anything objectively.

Jonathan Ganz wrote

Except, we don't run the show. We have abdicated our authority
by invading a country because of a lie. Oh, and now you think
AIDS is high on the right-wing agenda???

"Bart Senior" wrote
gonefishiing wrote

In doing so they have turned world opinion against us,
alienated many former allies,

Like France? Russia? China? Now who's been lacking
in historical accuracy? I'm wondering who all these new
"enemies" will turn to when they need either financial or
military assistance.

France has just turned to the US for more help on the war on AIDS.

We should formally offer them the option of statehood, if they want
a say in our government.

Most nations do not contribute their fair share to solving important
world problems like AIDs and terrorism. They leave the expense
for research, manpower and technology to the US.

These countries say they want our help, but really they want our
money, and they want to decide how and where to spend it. Much
of the money earmarked to help people in need goes instead to
lining the bank accounts of foreign politicians. That must be
minimized.

there you go again

"Regular Americans"!!!
what the hell does that mean?

tell us, please: what do regular americans look like?
the image of baby ganz's on autopilot just crossed my mind.
amusing..........but i am much too busy to entertain you or your silly
thoughts much longer.

do us all a favor:
try, really really hard----just try to say something that
stands on its own merit without involving the imaginary supporters that
surround you and outside the vacuum you choose to locate yourself in.
(in otherwords: rational thought)

not only do you need an education in civility, you need one to understand
the constitution, and perhaps a lesson in the nature of discourse.

thanks again Jon as you have given me the oppurtunity to clearly state
you are a political idiot.

no question about it.

and you sail!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
still incredibly funny.

How about this... you are no regular American.

I think you're a useless, spineless, morally and socially
morbund hunk of turd, who for sure doesn't sail and
certainly doesn't think.

Regular Americans think. They have common sense.

Do us all a favor and leave now before you get beat
up too badly here. There's no shame in preventing a
fight you can't win.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"gonefishiing" wrote in message
...
there you go again

"Regular Americans"!!!
what the hell does that mean?

tell us, please: what do regular americans look like?
the image of baby ganz's on autopilot just crossed my mind.
amusing..........but i am much too busy to entertain you or your silly
thoughts much longer.

do us all a favor:
try, really really hard----just try to say something that
stands on its own merit without involving the imaginary supporters that
surround you and outside the vacuum you choose to locate yourself in.
(in otherwords: rational thought)

not only do you need an education in civility, you need one to understand
the constitution, and perhaps a lesson in the nature of discourse.

thanks again Jon as you have given me the oppurtunity to clearly state
you are a political idiot.

no question about it.

and you sail!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
still incredibly funny.