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.