Its official... The world hates us...

[Hammer]

It's all around... take a look...

France... We freed them from the Nazis.... They hate us

Germany... We kept West Germany away from the Communists... they hate us

Kuwait... Iraq come into their small country. Burns their oil wells, destroys their homes, rapes their women. We rescue them... They hate us...

Saudi Arabia... Iraq threatens to take over with massive amounts of Russian armor. We stop them... Saudi Arabia hates us...

South Korea... We are the plug in the dyke holding back the flood of one million starved, brainwashed North Korean regulars... they hate us...

Russia doesn't trust us as far as they could throw us, and Great Britain is only on board because we're their meal ticket.

If it weren't for oil and nukes, which tend to throw radioactive fallout for thousands of miles away from the target, I would say let them all destroy each other.

South Koreans have a problem with us? Fine... pull our troops out, remove the minefield in between North and South Korea, and fly home.... Let them see how TERRIBLE we are then.

Same thing with Kuwait and Saudi Arabia... Don't like us on your Holy soil? Fine... Don't call us when good ol' Saddam makes a house call...

Oh yea, France and Germany... Kiss my Red, White and Blue A$&. Don't ever ask us for ANYTHING anymore... since we're so evil, I guess you don't want our dirty, imperialist American dollars. You guys better pray that no one ever eyes your lands again.... as it won't be us that comes and saves your sorry butts.

I am tired of hearing how evil we are... Sorry, I just don't see it.

Anyone think we have the technology to just blast off from this garbage can called Earth and start over. Hell, I'll even invite the Canadians... we need to take hockey too....

[joe4speed]

I agree... what a waste of lives and money to fight everyones wars. I say let them all kill each other and come running to us only for us to say F U to their faces. Even Somalia wants us back after what happened and we pulled out. I hope we do NOT go back. :mad:
Anyways, I say Screw 'em all. Why do we keep helping those who hate us?

[Eric4Nitrous]

u watch too much cnn.lol nah just j/k. I like Bush and all but he's all gunho about war. He needs to keep his mouth shut and quit getting into other people's affairs.

[Hammer]

He needs to keep his mouth shut and quit getting into other people's affairs.

First off, If we had done that after 1941, the world would be speaking German right now...

Secondly, after 9/11... It's time to take out the trash.
If that makes some folks mad, so be it...

The world is too small to just sit back and watch things happen. You have people that would kill Americans as much as look at them.

If Saddam Hussein didn't want people in his business, he shouldn't have tried to take over an entire region.
When folks say it is about oil, they're right.

SADDAM HUSSEIN wanted it!

Just by the number of cease-fire commitments he has broken, we technically have the authority to go in there and clean house. We're not even getting into the WMD aspect.

And if you don't think that any nuclear\biological weapon made by Iraq\North Korea might somehow find a way inside the continental US, you're living in a dream world.

As I said, the world's just too small to hide behind 2 oceans.

I say its time to protect our own, and that's what I think President Bush is doing.

[LayanRubr]

Personally I think you guys are about right. But then I also try hard to realize the media is feeding us this BS commentary from other nations so I'm like :rolleyes: if any country wants to get real statements across they can talk to our elected leaders instead of Connie Chungs.

[mustangII460]

As I have been to all those places, the worst I one I'd say was france. Froggys just plain suc. One asked me why Americans were so violent? I looked him in the eye and said, "Because we can."

Most of the europe countries are made up of Nancy Boys anyway. Never wanting to fight, but welcome us to do it.

As far as the sand box countries go, they too can kiss my hairy butt! O-Yeah, sorry for the pain and suffering I did years ago, my bad:D jihad that.

[DAN-MAN]

Well after WW1 we tried to go back to neutrality. We couldn't do that because of how much we had interacted with the world. If we try to do that again were going to screw ourselves over. These other countries want our help so bad or want us to be there to protect their butts from the bullies. If we stay, these other guys still get protected and we still get called bad names and everybody still hates us.

I guess in the end we're still the bad guys.

Daniel.

[DAN-MAN]

Originally posted by mustangII460
As I have been to all those places, the worst I one I'd say was france. Froggys just plain suc. One asked me why Americans were so violent? I looked him in the eye and said, "Because we can."

Most of the europe countries are made up of Nancy Boys anyway. Never wanting to fight, but welcome us to do it.

As far as the sand box countries go, they too can kiss my hairy butt! O-Yeah, sorry for the pain and suffering I did years ago, my bad:D jihad that.
Your right on every point. So the french don't like us 'cause were violent? Well screw'em. We're Americans and we can kick anyway's *** we want.

Daniel.

[jj_jonathon]

Originally posted by Hammer
Hell, I'll even invite the Canadians...

...im not quite sure how to take that...

[jj_jonathon]

I say the reason war is starting again is because people are now beginning to forget the last one. WWII is so far in the past that the newer generations never experienced it. So it's "no big deal" and something for the books. All of this is almost always over religion. Gotta love organized religion.

[Dark_5.0]

If we turned our backs for too long before you know it we would be fighting off some foreign country on our own soil.

Its all about Nukes if you let Saddam get a nuke or any other Arab Country they will bomb our *** and wont care if we bomb them back.

Thank God George Bush won the election. I can only imagine how bad Al Gore would of screwed things up already. Bush doesnt take any shlt and I like that.

If you knew your neighbor was building a cannon in his back yard and was going to blow up your house would you try and whoop his @ss before he blew up your house or let him build it and try to talk him out of using it.

No brainer to me,

[Janeofalltrades]

Hmmmmm Survival of the Fittest, Natural Selection, Lack of knowledge of Historical Events, Manifest Destiny...No matter what you call it.. Enjoy what time you have left...Eh?

Maybe unforseen circumstance takes you tonight, or you lay waste due to small pox exposure, bombs, bullet to the head........History shows a long history of war and Manifest Destiny as the basis and foundation of our society.

Unfortunately, this will be a multi-faceted war we are not prepared for. God Bless all my friends who serve in the military and are serving your country. I myself could not do it, so thank you for your service, it is absolutley respected and appreciated.

Enjoy the New Year!
~Jenn~

[Hammer]

My prediction...

January or February, Hussein gets his teeth kicked in...

It will be a quick, deadly campaign for both sides as it goes into an urban warfare scenario in Baghdad.

Saddam will either:
Be killed by one of his own generals (Most likely scenario)
Be killed by a smart weapon or SEAL's bullet...
Escape to Syria never to be heard from again...

The US will be called an evil empire until the North Koreans, pissed off that we haven't "given in" to their demands and imploding in on themselves due to starvation, floods, and political turmoil lash out with a devastating, high casualty invasion of the south. (Possibly including Japan)

They will use nuclear or biological weapons and take the rest of the Korean peninsula. The US will then reconstitute its forces after the first attack and drive them back to the 38th parallel.

Due to North Korea's instability, China will not assist its neighbor this time and helps make a lasting agreement between North and South Korea...

The US will then be hailed as a savior and Iraq will be forgotten. (at least temporarily)

After affects will be the creation of un-inhabitable land in South Korea, a less agressive China, and a re-building period for the US military....

Just my opinion...

[HotRoddin]

Originally posted by mustangII460
One asked me why Americans were so violent?

Next time ask em why our "violence" was ok during the two world wars that we spent over there. Then ask em where they'd be right now if not for our "violence" in those two world wars !! Then ask em why it is that even though their whole freekin country is an American grave yard, all they do is whine about us being to "violent" !!!!!!!!!!!!!! **** EM !!!!!!!!!!
What we need to do is what every world leader in history has done. Do whatever is in OUR best interest, period. Not what will cause the least amount of whining among all those who only agree with us when they need us to spill some more blood for them !!!! :mad:
Anybody who thinks all we have to do is sit around in a circle holding hands, and sing "give peace a chance", and the Sadams and Hitlers of the world will lay down their arms and join hands with us is a total fool !!
Jenn you hit the nail right on the head ... survival of the fittest ... simplistic, yeah, but its the law that drives and governs every living creature on this planet. We can learn to live by it or we'll surely die by it.

[Janeofalltrades]

Hammer...

Man you scare me and you are absolutley correct....Scarey...Get out of my head....LOL.....

Sad truth, so knowing the devastaing effects of either or those sceanerios, climatic changes could be catastrophic...Not good...

~Jenn~

Hey Rod,

Sad, but true Friend....It is a natural law that we all live or die by...

~j~

[DAN-MAN]

Hey look at it this way. At least we aren't going to war in the name of God (or Allah).

Dumbasses.

Daniel.

[chuck88]

I know the thread went in a different direction but getting back to France, I have some food for thought. They owe us a boat load of money and if we were to collect it would cripple their econmy and they still hate us.

I think sadam is playing games he will most likley back out at the last minute forcing us to spend all of this money.

Chuck 88GT

[2FastLX]

Little George is just finishing what big George started, and Clinton didn't have the balls to finish. His daddy is still the president and you can bet whenever little George gets in a bind daddy is there to tell him what to do. I like Bush, but I don't think they are taking this hunt for Bin Laden seriously enough for me. With all of the Satellite technology they have I don't see why they haven't found this guy yet. I live about 10 miles from our Nation's stockpile of VX gas. I often wonder what would happen if terrorists decide to hit it with a bomb or something. I say we let those mother $#@#$@% go back down into their caves then we fill the caves with VX and close them off. That would solve 2 problems. We would have a place to dump our VX, and eliminate a terrorist threat. :D

[Mr 5 0]

Originally posted by 2FastLX

Little George is just finishing what big George started, and Clinton didn't have the balls to finish. His daddy is still the president and you can bet whenever little George gets in a bind daddy is there to tell him what to do.

I was enjoying reading this thread until I saw this nonsense. Do you have one shred of evidence that former President Bush tells President George W. Bush 'what to do if he gets in a bind'? That's just negative propaganda that the liberals have tried to get you to buy since G. W. Bush was sworn in as President. The inference being that President Bush ('Little George') is some kind of half-bright frat boy playing at being president while the old men in the back room pull his strings. Do you actually believe that - for a moment - in light of the last 15 months? Really?

George W. Bush has confounded his political enemies at every turn and now has a Republican-dominated House and Senate. His father didn't do that. G.W. Bush did by using his vast popularity to campaign and endorse the Republican candidates - and they won. He's led a successful invasion of Afghanistan, routed the Talban and restored some stability to that county, if not real democracy. Afghans are a lot freer than they were a year ago. His father didn't do that, George W. Bush did.

G.W. Bush has had more successes in the last two years than his father ever did in four, including the Gulf War. Former President G.H.W. Bush is 78, a friend to his son, of course, but he is in no way is telling the 56-year-old President of the United States 'what to do'. That's rubbish and unless you can show some concrete evidence I'm wrong, please don't keep regurgitating that liberal-generated lie here.

We're fortunate to have the man as president and he's done a masterful job, even getting the pacifists at the U.N. to finally see the real and present danger that Iraq poses to peace and stability in the mid-east. That wasn't done by checking with his dad, it was done by Bush and Colin Powell forcing the U.N. peaceniks to face reality and see that the U.N. could actually be a force for peace, if they were willing to fight for it, or at least, let us do it.

I like Bush, too and I hate to see otherwise sensible people parrot the liberal lie that his father and others are pulling his strings in some way. It's manifestly untrue and if the President's assertive and successful actions haven't shown that by now, you're just not paying attention.

[rbatson2]

Good to see you again, Jim. To quote you "they always find thier way back". :D I was waiting to see you post again, heeh.

As far as Sr telling Jr what to do, I don't believe it but I think he does give his son alot guidance. Hell, I look for guidance from my old man when I'm not sure what to do. From what I saw of Jr's interview before the election, he needed alot of guidance. How is it he did not know the different leaders of the world and he was running for leadership of this one. I personally think he has done a good job, anything any of us would do in the situation. I still don't think he's the brightest out there, he's just a good ol' boy doing what has to be done. I don't read politicial propaganda, I'm just going on what I've observed.

Good to see you again,
Rick

[induction]

G.W. Bush has had more successes in the last two years than his father ever did in four, including the Gulf War. Former President G.H.W. Bush is 78, a friend to his son, of course, but he is in no way is telling the 56-year-old President of the United States 'what to do'. That's rubbish and unless you can show some concrete evidence I'm wrong, please don't keep regurgitating that liberal-generated lie here.


G.H.W.Bush( there thats better) can't even remember where the hell his own socks are kept, let alone how to coach his son about leading a country!!

just a thought so Ill go away now....
lol

[Mr 5 0]

Originally posted by rbatson2

Good to see you again, Jim. To quote you "they always find thier way back". I was waiting to see you post again, heeh.

Hey Rick! I've been around from time to time and I lurk a lot but I don't post much here these days.

The George W. Bush (he's not a 'junior) back in the campaign of 2000 is a different man from the President you see now and I believe his actions have shown it. Bush has been able to mobilize the diminished U.S. military into a fighting force again and even if smaller, a lot more technically advanced than during the 1991 Gulf War He single-handedly shamed the U.N. into getting behind our invasion of Iraq and under Bushs' leadership we've managed to put a real crimp into the Al-Queida terrorist network. He got a much-needed tax cut through a Democrat Congress and helped win back the Senate and increase the Republican lead in the House. It wasn't luck, it was leadership. Bush is approved of by a good margin of Americans and admired by many world leaders who now know how to pronounce HIS name.

It's ironic how the media treat Republicans. Back when Ronald Reagan was President, he was very glib and gave great, inspiring speeches. The liberal media said he was just a good actor, reading other people's lines convincingly and that Reagan was 'a puppet' of James Baker and other behind-the-scenes advisors who 'really' ran the White House. Meanwhile, Reagan got the biggest tax-cut in 20 years through the Democrat-led Congress and the economy boomed. The Cold War ended, based primarily on the fact that the Soviet Union couldn't compete with the U.S. when Reagan got the funds approved from Congress to start a space-based missle defense system (SDI) and the Russians had to cut their slave-states loose to keep up. Reagan won re-election in 1984 with a 49-state plurality but because he spoke well, he was a 'puppet'. Right.

Now, fast-forward 20 years: President Bush is slightly inarticulate and less than glib but acheives much in a short time, against all odds. What does the liberal media say now? "He can't be too smart because he doesn't speak well". Right. Sadly, too many otherwise intelligent citizens buy it. Yup, yup, yup.

So, if a Republican President speaks well and is articulate, he's a phoney and just reading lines and if a Republican President doesn't speak as smoothly and isn't articulate, he's dumb. That sum it up? See anything slightly ironic here? I hope so. Meanwhile, every Democrat presidential-wannabe that comes along is praised by the media for being a genius or near-genius, like that weirdo, Al Gore. Almost too smart to be President but willing to stoop down and do us all a favor by using their infinite wisdom to 'help' us. God save us from these 'brilliant' Democrat presidents, like Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter, who screw up almost everything they touch, leaving people like the less-than-glib but very effective George W. Bush to clean up their mess.

Not a personal flame, Rick. I'm just using yoir comments as a platform to rant here. Thanks for reading it.

[mustangII460]

George Sr. throws like a girl.

[rbatson2]

Jim, I don't listen to the media and there are many others like me. You sound like a loyal listener of Rush Limbaugh(I hate that arrogant SOB, I can't even listen to him). Ok, lets not bring Carter into this arguement, ok?? LOL! Reagan was a great president, as I remember and if he needed some guidance.. hell, we all need guidance from time to time. He was an actor and a great president, as far as I can remember. He had backbone and I wish he could have lasted longer. Clinton was a womanizer and all round laid back mofo. Bush had some backbone but not enough. I don't think I know a person that thought we shouldn't have taken care of Suddam when all that crap was going down. Alot has happened since Bush Jr. came to office(around here its junior if he is named after his father). I think the tax cut was great and I really appreciated it! I think what George W. Bush did with the UN was something anyone of us could have done. Look, Iraq didn't live up the the agreement from 91 and if I was president I wouldn't be looking for the UN's approvement. The US is a machine and to think that the president makes it what it is.. makes no sense to me. Its a force to be reckoned with, no matter who is in command. I'm reminded of a statement from the movie Blackhawk Down, "Noone asks to be a hero, it just happens". I think that is what happened with Bush and also with Guliano(however you spell it). This country is a machine, we have it good and are the leaders. I don't think we should force our beliefs on others, but we do. I think we should let them sort it out and if we didn't keep backing Isreal, NY would have never been attacked to start with. Not only that but I believe Isreal would have already settled this problem long ago. As it stands, I'm with 2Fastlx, smoke them mothers out(Damn good idea).

[rbatson2]

Originally posted by Mr 5 0

Bush has been able to mobilize the diminished U.S. military into a fighting force again and even if smaller, a lot more technically advanced than during the 1991 Gulf War

Diminished?? I'm sorry, I don't follow you . More technically advanced? I hope the hell we are, that was 11-12 yrs ago!

No flame on you either Jim, we just won't agree.. one of the reasons I always stepped aside from the political discussions on this board.

[ultraflo]

I hate to see otherwise sensible people parrot the liberal lie...

I dislike seeing otherwise sensible people such as yourself, Jim, parrot the right-wing ultra-conservative jibberish just as much as I really hate to see individuals, as well as groups, parrot the liberal media. I would consider myself right of center, but judging by some of your comments, you stand just a bit further to the right than I, sir.

He single-handedly shamed the U.N. into getting behind our invasion of Iraq

I highly doubt 'W' accomplishes much, if any, of the Republican agena "single-handedly" Jim... ;)

Meanwhile, every Democrat presidential-wannabe that comes along is praised by the media for being a genius or near-genius, like that weirdo, Al Gore.

You mean that guy that invented the internet? LOL! :D

[Mr 5 0]

Rick:

Yeah, we disagree, to put it politely.

Your contention that the United States government is a 'machine' and that 'anyone' can 'run it' is just not credible. Jimmy Carter 'ran it' into the ground. Reagan brought it back up again, militarily and economically. Clinton ran it back down again and made the Oval Office a bordello in the process, demeaning his office. The President matters and to find someone that believes he doesn't is just, well, incredible to behold. How do you get to that kind of thinking?

'Anyone' could have gotten the U.N. to act against Iraq? Really? Do you really believe that? The U.N. sat around for eleven long years and issued toothless resolution after resolution condemning Iraq for weapons violations (against the treaty he signed in 1991 after losing the Gulf war) and they did nothing. Neither did Clinton, for that matter. Finally, President Bush stood up in the United Nations and challenged them to act on their words, and they did, finally, supporting military action against Iraq for weapons violations. To attempt to diminish President Bush as if he did what 'anyone' could do is simply not valid. If 'anyone' could have done it, why didn't they? It's leadership, plain and simple, Rick. Something Clinton knew nothing about.

The only reason the U.S. is going the U.N.-approval route is because the Democrats insisted on it before they would give the approval for the money Bush needs to mount this kind of military engagement. Bush did what he had to do, and I think it was unnecessary too, from a military standpoint but it was politically necessary and Bush is a good politician.

To clarify: The U.S. military is smaller (diminished in manpower) than it was in 1991, at the time of the Gulf War but much more technically advanced, granted.

We are not 'imposing our beliefs' on anyone, that's simply a carnard some folks fall back on when they misunderstand what's happening in geopolitics. Iraq will not be a democracy, neither will Afghanistan. They simply will cease to be a threat to U.S. interests in the region. Israel cannot initate a nuclear war and won't. Nuking them may sound like a simple solution but it's really just frustration talking. Radioactive particles travel and nuking anyone is not a realistic option for any sane leadership, which precludes Iraq and North Korea, our next big problem.

Finally, you can forget the Rush Limbaugh comparisions. I was a conservative Republican long before Limbaugh ever came to popularity. Limbaugh simply echos what many, many people think about political issues. The mistaken idea that somehow he magically brainwashes millions is just liberal media nonsense on stilts. I like Rush but I sometimes disagree with him and certainly don't need a radio talker to give me my opinions. I am quite capable of forming political opinions on my own, thanks, just like you. Unfortunately, ours seem to differ but hey, that's America.

[rbatson2]

Originally posted by Mr 5 0
eleven long years and issued toothless resolution after resolution condemning Iraq for weapons violations (against the treaty he signed in 1991 after losing the Gulf war) and they did [u]nothing[]/u]. Neither did Clinton, for that matter. Finally, President Bush stood up in the United Nations and challenged them to act on their words, and they did, finally, supporting military action against Iraq for weapons violations. To attempt to diminish President Bush as if he did what 'anyone' could do is simply not valid. If 'anyone' could have done it, why didn't they? It's leadership, plain and simple, Rick. Something Clinton knew nothing about.

[/B]

Jim, if New York wasn't attacked.. Bush Jr's 4 yrs would have been he same as Clinton's, minus the sex.:)

[Mr 5 0]

Rick:

Your contentions are over-simplistic, at best. We disagree. I'll leave it at that and let any interested readers of this thread decide where the truth lies.

[rbatson2]

Jim, I won't argue that you are more intelligent than I am.. you're better with words than I am as well. Maybe just more politically educated than I. It is very simple though.. had NY been attacked while Clinton was in office he would have been forced to take action. I honestly don't see George W. Bush as the savior of all and I honestly don't think it would take much to show the UN the problem... yes, I think I could have done that. I really don't think George is all that smart but I do believe he has backbone, which is what we need right now. I don't understand what is so difficult about it.

[Mr 5 0]

Originally posted by ultraflo

I dislike seeing otherwise sensible people such as yourself, Jim, parrot the right-wing ultra-conservative jibberish just as much as I really hate to see individuals, as well as groups, parrot the liberal media. I would consider myself right of center, but judging by some of your comments, you stand just a bit further to the right than I, sir.

I dislike seeing otherwise sensible people attempt to condemn both liberals and conservatives as a group, call sensible policy 'gibberish' and then assume that's somehow a reasoned position to take when in fact, it's a cheesy cop-out. Define Ultra-conservative gibberish, please and be precise; don't evade the question with some aloof blanket dismissal of conservative core beliefs. I'm quite interested to see what you have to offer here, as you made the charge. Now, back it up. Define Ultra-conservative gibberish and refute what I stated, with logic, facts and reason, not sheer emotion or bumper-sticker slogans. Go ahead, I can take it, I promise. If you don't choose to do this then please don't post sweeping and inaccurate generalizations about conservative positions without being prepared to defend what you so easily condemn. Fair enough?

Oh, and don't call me 'Sir'- it makes me feel old.

I highly doubt 'W' accomplishes much, if any, of the Republican agena "single-handedly" Jim...

Never said he did. I said George W. Bush has forced the U.N. to adopt an aggressive policy (backed by the U.S. military) against Iraq. Colin Powell helped but President Bush stood at the podium of the U.N. General Assembly and challenged the body to live up to it's charter. Bush did that, alone. He also convinced the Congress - not his friends by a long shot - to back him. Bush IS the Republican agenda. he sets it for the most part. Don't you get that? New to politics? I hope not.

The President is the head of the government and the head of his party. He is the front man and the leader. Does a General win the war by himself? No, his men do but he gets a lot of the glory. Same with a President. When the economy falters, Bush gets the blame for that, too. if we run into a snag in Iraq, who gets blamed? President Bush. It cuts both ways. Like it or not, as Bill Clinton was the leader of the U.S. from 1993-2001, George W. Bush is our leader now and he is doing a helluva job, which annoys and frustrates some people to no end. I love it.

[bri32zz]

Unless another country does things to us, I say let's ignore them. We should put all that money into helping all of these children who are starving or abused. Being a father for the past 13 yrs I have a soft spot for kids. I do believe we should get Bin Laden and have a public stoning of course. Let the other countries handle their own problems and let us focus on the good ole USA.

[Mr 5 0]

Originally posted by bri32zz

Unless another country does things to us, I say let's ignore them. We should put all that money into helping all of these children who are starving or abused. Being a father for the past 13 yrs I have a soft spot for kids. I do believe we should get Bin Laden and have a public stoning of course. Let the other countries handle their own problems and let us focus on the good ole USA.

That's called 'Isolationism' and it doesn't work. It didn't work at all in keeping us out of World War 2 (we tried it, then) and it certainly won't work now, in 2003. The idea that we can act like a turtle, pull our heads in our shell and everyone will simply go away is touching but naive and not possible as we are the the world's only superpower. America has worldwide interests and the big pond doesn't protect us any more in this age of instant communication and missles that can travel 6,000 miles in a matter of minutes.

America does feed tens of thousands of children around the world thru both government and private charities. We just don't brag about it. Our new enemy, North korea, gets most of it's foodstuffs from the U.S. Ironic, isn't it? We feed them and they want to nuke us. So much for the liberal theory that if the U.S. just acts nice other mean countries won't bother us. Only in liberal fantasies. Our power is our strength and while America is the most generous nation on earth in real terms, we are also the most powerful and must exercise that power wisely but effectively at times. Now is one of those times.

[bri32zz]

Originally posted by Mr 5 0
Originally posted by bri32zz

[i]

That's called 'Isolationism' and it doesn't work. It didn't work at all in keeping us out of World War 2 (we tried it, then) and it certainly won't work now, in 2003. The idea that we can act like a turtle, pull our heads in our shell and everyone will simply go away is touching but naive and not possible as we are the the world's only superpower. America has worldwide interests and the big pond doesn't protect us any more in this age of instant communication and missles that can travel 6,000 miles in a matter of minutes.

America does feed tens of thousands of children around the world thru both government and private charities. We just don't brag about it. Our new enemy, North korea, gets most of it's foodstuffs from the U.S. Ironic, isn't it? We feed them and they want to nuke us. So much for the liberal theory that if the U.S. just acts nice other mean countries won't bother us. Only in liberal fantasies. Our power is our strength and while America is the most generous nation on earth in real terms, we are also the most powerful and must exercise that power wisely but effectively at times. Now is one of those times.



I did leave out some thoughts. If we are in any relative danger we need to act out. I am not too much up to speed on modern polotics but I am entitled to my opinion in what I think could work in my own head. But MR 5.0 you are probaly correct in evry aspect of the situation. I like to dream of a peace liberated World. Be good my friend.

[2FastLX]

I have no idea what a liberal is, or a right wing for that matter. I've always assumed a guy is either gay or straight, which I am married and very much straight. I am also an American through and through. I didn't mean to start a political arguement. I was just merely stating that I feel the Jr. is being influenced by his father. If you were President you would to. Don't tell me you wouldn't. I personally feel both of them have done a good job as our President. I just think with the technology we have it's becoming more of a Political battle than a "Go out and KILL that mother" battle.

[rbatson2]

Originally posted by Mr 5 0
Our power is our strength and while America is the most generous nation on earth in real terms, we are also the most powerful and must exercise that power wisely but effectively at times. Now is one of those times. [/B]

Well, atleast we agree on something.

[ultraflo]

Originally posted by Mr 5 0
The George W. Bush (he's not a 'junior) back in the campaign of 2000 is a different man from the President you see now and I believe his actions have shown it. Bush has been able to mobilize the diminished U.S. military into a fighting force again and even if smaller, a lot more technically advanced than during the 1991 Gulf War He single-handedly shamed the U.N. into getting behind our invasion of Iraq and under Bushs' leadership we've managed to put a real crimp into the Al-Queida terrorist network. He got a much-needed tax cut through a Democrat Congress and helped win back the Senate and increase the Republican lead in the House. It wasn't luck, it was leadership. Bush is approved of by a good margin of Americans and admired by many world leaders who now know how to pronounce HIS name.
[/B]

ultraflo:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I highly doubt 'W' accomplishes much, if any, of the Republican agena "single-handedly" Jim...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Originally posted by Mr 5 0
Never said he did.

Are you sure? :) The above "single-handedly" remark is the only one I felt compelled to refute, as you say. I agree with the majority of points you've made.

Ultra-conservative: one that is too conservative.
gibberish: Highly technical or esoteric language.

Ultra-conservative gibberish: one that is too conservative while using highly technical or esoteric language.

I have nothing else to contribute Jim, as I lack the capacity and the initiative to hold an intelligent, logical, coherent debate with you. I will however, throw my $.02 in whenever I see fit, just as you do. Fair enough? I hope so...

[Janeofalltrades]

Keep this up fellas and we won't have to worry about enemies...Fellas..We live a country that allows a plentitude of opinions...You all are respected for yours; however, this kind of discussion will not have either side change fundamentally 100s of years of development into different philosophical political views.

With that said, we need to be a UNITED nation to get through our conflicts with the fewest amount of casualties...

So, everyone is respected for your individual opinion, this is what our nation is founded on, you are entitled to think what you want and discuss it openly, but if I was the enemy reading some of this stuff I'd just sit back and have a beer. You fellas will do each other in, in no time... LOL

TRUCE.... We have ladies and gentlemen being deployed to fullfil a duty not many of us would like to have. We sit here and enjoy our cars and houses and children, arguing goverment structure and opinion while people are going to die. For you, to say what you like....

Humble yourselves.... ~Jenn~

:D ;)

[ultraflo]

Jenn, you make some very good assertions. For the record, I voted for and support The Honorable President Bush; and, I respect and admire Mr 5 0's contributions/comments.

That being said, I grow tired of each of the extreme sides of the political spectrum's continuous finger-pointing and shift-of-blame. Which is an over-simplistic explanation of how I feel, at best.

[HotRoddin]

Originally posted by bri32zz
Unless another country does things to us, I say let's ignore them.
I gotta tell ya bri32zz, that attitude baffles me completely. Sadam is a brutal dictator. The man releases poison gas on his own people. Gases whole villages full of women and children. Has palaces with almost obscene opulence spread all over his country while huge numbers of his people go hungry. He tortures and executes people in mass, including his own family members, then watches video tapes of it for pleasure. Oh and lets not forget he despises Americans because we stand in the way of him gaining ever more power and wealth. Add to all that, if we lift the sanctions he'll have billions of dollars in oil revenues to spend on weapons that can incenerate everything in milliseconds (if you're lucky), or put you on the ground within 20 seconds, shaking, drooling, unable to breathe, dead within minutes. Diseases that cause slow agonizing death over weeks, especially in the the old and sick and the young. Many of these weapons he already has, the rest he's trying desperately to aquire. It's scary as hell when civilized nations have these weapons, but in the hands of a power hungry dictator it's worse than scary, its terrifying !
Sadam is a Hitler a Stalin a Pol Pot ... a man with out compassion or conscience. I see nothing historical or otherwise to support the idea that if we turn our backs and ignore him, he'll just fade away ?

While i'm ranting, let me put my 2 cents worth in on another subject. Debate .... debate is not a bad thing ! Our founding fathers wrote the constitution after days and days of intense almost fist swinging debate. It forces you to confront other points of view. It forces compromise to extreme positions. It forces you to think about the issues. What if our founding fathers would have sat back in a chair sippin whiskey and said "Hell, write what ever you want in that thing, i don't want to get involved, and i don't want to get in an argument." Debate is a good thing ! Perhaps this forum isn't the place for it but we need to take the time to debate right now. The free flow of differing ideas is what has made this country what it is. ;) :D In plain talk, stirrin up a little sh** once in awhile is a good thing. IMHO ;)

[0h n0 5.0]

personally if the rest of the world bitches an moans about us gettin in their business, maybe we should let them deal witht their own problems for awhile..
wait, :rolleyes: we did that an they still came runnin back...:mad:
jessess christ where would you pussy french or dutch be if we hadn't saved yer whiney asses in WW2!!
honest to god... i get sick an tired of people bein hipocrites :mad:mad:.. maybe we should jus do it like the Roman empire an we take over a reigon, we rule you whiners like kings.. ya want to abstain when things are good, but as soon as the weather gets a lil rough.. its waaa!!! America Help US!!!

*btw i'm don't actually advocate any of this, its just one of my crazy thoughts i have about foreign diplomacy

[Mr 5 0]

Originally posted by Janeofalltrades

Keep this up fellas and we won't have to worry about enemies...Fellas..We live a country that allows a plentitude of opinions...You all are respected for yours; however, this kind of discussion will not have either side change fundamentally 100s of years of development into different philosophical political views.

You're confusing debate with pointless argument and flaming. People who fundamentally agree can differ on specifics and debate finer points of an issue. Your willingness to end all discussion as if it was somehow harmful is not going to achieve whatever it is you hope it will, and Jenn, this is a general discussion board.

This is what we do here. I know, I've used this messageboard for almost six years and I've had many, many similar debates and guess what? The nation didn't fall and no one died as a result of those sometimes contentious discusssions. I typed a lot, too.

With that said, we need to be a UNITED nation to get through our conflicts with the fewest amount of casualties...

Stating the obvious but it needs repeating.

So, everyone is respected for your individual opinion, this is what our nation is founded on, you are entitled to think what you want and discuss it openly, but if I was the enemy reading some of this stuff I'd just sit back and have a beer. You fellas will do each other in, in no time... LOL

Nonsense. You're making the error of equating discussion and some disagreement on specifics as a lack of national unity and that's simply not the case. "The enemy" is still the enemy, no matter our individual opinions on the President or other specifics. Get that straight and don't be so concerned when people disagee. That's human nature.

TRUCE.... We have ladies and gentlemen being deployed to fullfil a duty not many of us would like to have. We sit here and enjoy our cars and houses and children, arguing goverment structure and opinion while people are going to die. For you, to say what you like....

Humble yourselves.... ~Jenn~

So, we cannot argue 'government structure and opinion' here because the world is a dangerous place? Then where can we do it, Jenn? My friend, you need to either ignore political discussions on this board or get used to the idea that people disagree and understand that debate is illuminating and healthy, not dangerous or unseemly. Because our military is about to go to war does not mean all political discussions must cease, here or elsewhere. That's the antithesis of our First Amendment right and using the bravery of our military does not make a very good argument for eliminating political discussion.

Unless the moderator chooses to lock the thread, and why that should happen is beyond me, I will continue to both post and debate and counter whatever I feel is wrong when I see it. I think you mean well Jenn but this board doesn't need a nanny and as adults, we all know how to behave. Thanks anyway.

[Dark_5.0]

I am shocked to see all of the Clinton Leg Humpers.

He was an embarrassment to the country when he was in office. He entire presidency was consumed by scandal.

The whole thing was a big 8 year long joke. Bill Clinton is a man that ducked the draft because he is a coward in every since of the word. He publicly proclaims to hate the military and it showed. He cut military funding back year by year.

The man was and still is a huge national security risk. He was in bed with China from day one. They financed his compaign for president, and then he put a Chinese intern to work in our Nuclear weapons department. The intern stole all of our nuclear missle designs and put China ten years ahead of where they would have been with there nuclear missle program.

Any of you ever read Al Gores book. He believes that all countries should posess weapons of mass destruction because that would bring an end to all war. Funny how everything ties together.

Even now Clinton is a security risk, just a week ago he was on TV fueling the Korean conflict fire saying that he had plans to bomb N. Korea while he was president. Gee I bet that tid bit of info really helped the neggotiations.
_______________________________________

To me George Bush is like a breath of fresh air. He tells it like it is, admits to his mistakes and commands respect as the leader of the free world.

JMO,

[Mr 5 0]

Originally posted by ultraflo

I have nothing else to contribute Jim, as I lack the capacity and the initiative to hold an intelligent, logical, coherent debate with you. I will however, throw my $.02 in whenever I see fit, just as you do. Fair enough? I hope so...

Yes, it's certainly 'fair enough' but understand that when you characterize mine - or anyone else's - comments as 'Ultra-Conservtive Gibberish' that's an insult of it's own and you had better be ready to defend that characterization with more than a dictionary definition.

I'm more than willing, as you should know, to discuss conservtive political philosophy with you or anyone else on a civil basis but name-calling and cheesy bumper-sticker slogans like 'regurgitating Ultra-Conservative gibberish' annoy me because they assume I have no real intellectual basis for my political positions and am simply spouting nonsense when in fact, I've spent many years and devoted much thought to forming my political philosophy. I certainly don't get it from radio shows, as is often charged by those who get their opinions from the liberal media or whatever some ultra-liberal college prof taught them. If you wish to debate, don't fall into the trap of using hot-button phrases (as you did) or buzz-words that mean nothing and consider that an argument. It isn't. We all use certain hot-button phrases in political discussions but to let a few cryptic phrases serve as an entire response is akin to simply throwing a rock at a tank. It may make you feel good but the tank driver doesn't even notice you. In short: that kind of 'style' is not effective.

As for Bush 'single-handedly' getting things accomplishe;: It works like this: If the president doesn't propose and/or approve a major government policy, it doesn't happen. This applies to all presidents, whatever party or political bent, liberal or conservative. If George W. Bush hadn't initially decided to go after Saddam Hussein and didn't (for political reasons) stand up in the U.N. General Assembly podium and ask the assembled diplomats if they wanted the U.N. to live up to it's charter or become totally irrelevant (Bush's words) the U.S. would never have gotten U.N. cooperation, with 100% approval of the U.N. Security Council, including France, to go into Iraq. Because he's the President of the United States, Bush could do this and because Bush had the will to do it, we are soon to invade Iraq and get rid of Saddam. Clinton had eight years and could have done the exact same thing, but he didn't. Bush did. That's leadership - and only a U.S. president has that kind of power but he has to also have the will to use it.

Colin Powell can't do it (without Bush's approval). Only the president. George W. Bush had the will and used his power in the United Nations to gain that approval for inspections and military intervention if and when the inspections warrant it, which they will. That's the definition of 'single-handedly' in this instance. Bush did what only he could do, and it worked.

Same with tax cuts, whatever. Congress can kill it but it never gets started without the president deciding to do whatever 'it' may be. Thus, President Bush 'single-handedly' got U.N. approval for our move on Iraq. Of course many other people were involved but President Bush had to demand the U.N. live up to it's own resolutions, and it finally did, 11 years later. Bush brought that about, sinfgle-handedly. Yes, Bush IS the Republican agenda - for the same reason. Republicans like me can 'want' many things from government (or less things in some cases, such as taxes) but unless President Bush is behind it and fights for it, it usually doesn't happen.

Thanks for the compliments, by the way, but in the future, try to think about not using bumper-sticker slogans when addressing serious issues and don't let emotion overcome reason and logic. You'll do fine with me every time.

[Hammer]

Any of you ever read Al Gores book. He believes that all countries should posess weapons of mass destruction because that would bring an end to all war.

That is about the most idiotic thing I've ever heard.
People would fight with sticks and stones if they want to fight.... Guns don't kill people, Nukes don't kill people... PEOPLE kill people.
(Boy, How many times have I said that anyway...)

According to his thinking, the best thing to do after 9/11 would be to give Osama a few ICBMs.
Then he wouldn't feel "threatened" :rolleyes:

And to think this talking side-show was one step away from the Presidency.... it scares the livin' bejeezus out of me.

[Eric4Nitrous]

who gives a rat's ***?? as long as they don't take my car i don't give a **** what happens. Let's all have a beer and forget about this ****.

[ultraflo]

Originally posted by Mr 5 0
Thanks for the compliments, by the way, but in the future, try to think about not using bumper-sticker slogans when addressing serious issues and don't let emotion overcome reason and logic. You'll do fine with me every time.

Jim, I appreciate the clarification with regards to the 'single-handedly' remark... now, define 'ultra-liberal' ;)


FWIW, I feel that Bill, Hillary, and Al are the worst 'thing' to happen to this country. I would be nice if they'd just disappear, but that is a long shot. I laugh when I hear people talk about how much Bush, and the Republican party, has destroyed our economy with tax breaks, among other actions, when it should be obvious that the Democrats have 'raped and pillaged' the economy over the past eight years... which is stating the obvious to some of you. ;)

It would be nice to "forget about this ****," but when it affects ones well-being and financial security, it is very difficult to disregard.

-Ryan

[Janeofalltrades]

Mr 5.0 Wrote "Jenn but this board doesn't need a nanny and as adults, we all know how to behave. Thanks anyway."

ROFLMAO.....K....

Websters Definition of nanny

n 1: a woman who is the custodian of children [syn: nursemaid, nurse] 2: female goat [syn: nanny-goat, she-goat]

So am I the woman who is custodian of children or a female goat?....

Discussion and exposition are totally different. A discussion leads to an open exhange of ideas where a persons opinion may be changed. The act of expounding or of laying open the sense or meaning of an author, or a passage; explanation; interpretation; the sense put upon a passage; a law, or the like, by an interpreter; hence, a work containing explanations or interpretations; a commentary.

And again, all this can be tied into the theory of Manifest Destiny. Whatever else you want to call it and "discuss" about it is up to you......

Have fun... :D ~J~

BTW... I guess I'll crack open that beer and enjoying you fellas "discuss" this until your all blue in the face. LOL

[HotRoddin]

Originally posted by Eric4Nitrous
who gives a rat's ***?? as long as they don't take my car i don't give a **** what happens. Let's all have a beer and forget about this ****.


................................... Deep breaths Rod ..................................
.................................................. .......deep breaths .................
I really hope your joking Eric ??? We're talking about things that could melt your mother into her shoes right in front of your eyes. Not a Sat afternoon movie on DVD Eric ... for real dude ... for reeeeeeal.
A bag of radioactive waste dredged up from some old reactor somewhere duct taped to another bag of explosives. Then detonated couple thousand feet up in a nice breeze, somewhere close to Eric's home town, and poof your hands are swollen so badly your skin is splitting like an over ripe watermelon .... no way to open that beer ? Even if you managed to get that beer open Eric, you'd be way to busy trying to dig that huge swollen tongue out of the way enough to get another breath, to even think about taking a sip of that beer.
One of the lessons i learned in a silly little war long ago and far away is, the ones paying no attention to things going on around them, are always the first to go !
I personally would not be the least bit surprised that there are several of those bags of radioactive waste, or anthrax spores, or viles of Small Pox virus, already here. Maybe only a mile or two up the road from you !
What i'm trying to say, albeit in a very graphic way is ... you better give a rat's A** !!

[mustangII460]

I think I'll get drunk tonight.

[Janeofalltrades]

.ROD WROTE: ".................................................. ......deep breaths .................I really hope your joking Eric ??? We're talking about things that could melt your mother into her shoes right in front of your eyes. Not a Sat afternoon movie on DVD Eric ... for real dude ... for reeeeeeal.
A bag of radioactive waste dredged up from some old reactor somewhere duct taped to another bag of explosives. Then detonated couple thousand feet up in a nice breeze, somewhere close to Eric's home town, and poof your hands are swollen so badly your skin is splitting like an over ripe watermelon .... no way to open that beer ? Even if you managed to get that beer open Eric, you'd be way to busy trying to dig that huge swollen tongue out of the way enough to get another breath, to even think about taking a sip of that beer.
One of the lessons i learned in a silly little war long ago and far away is, the ones paying no attention to things going on around them, are always the first to go !
I personally would not be the least bit surprised that there are several of those bags of radioactive waste, or anthrax spores, or viles of Small Pox virus, already here. Maybe only a mile or two up the road from you !
What i'm trying to say, albeit in a very graphic way is ... you better give a rat's A** !!....."

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Oh Man!..that right there is why I love you guys....HOLY CRAP..I was laughing so hard. And not because of the lightness of the subject, but your delivery, Rod, deserves a comedy routine in your name.

As bad as I may have came across...This is my point to the discussions we are having.....I personally care very much about the historical significance of the conflicts we have been in. Most of us can agree that what we have not learned from our history, we are doomed to repeat. Unfortunately, time and new generations lose respect for the significance of the historical precedents set during war/conflicts and how they affect our future.

I am scared of the situation with North Korea more than the issue with Iraq. However, burning oil fields, nuclear detonations/exposure and biological weapons would create repercussions in life, economic stability and have environmental impacts to where it would affect every one of our lives.

I can only hope and pray that this will not play out, but if history is on track to pinpoint the future... We have arrived, Hammer's New Year's "predictions" will come true, but unfortunately, he won't be able to collect his fame because his face will be melting off!..... LOL :confused:

Love,

Jenn :(

[Mr 5 0]

Originally posted by ultraflo

Jim, I appreciate the clarification with regards to the 'single-handedly' remark... now, define 'ultra-liberal'

Sure. Senator Edward "Teddy' Kennedy and quite a few other Senators, like Carl Levin and Patrick Lehey pretty well sum it up. Look at what they vote for and against and you'll see ultra-liberialism writ large. Sadly, they get re-elected by large margins and are actually respected in the Senate.

[Eric4Nitrous]

well i look at it like this. If it's gonna happen, it'll happen. no sense getting all worried about it. Besides if it attacks my neighborhood, it just might get my neighbor across the street that i can't stand. :D

[Mr 5 0]

Originally posted by Janeofalltrades

Websters Definition of nanny....

You can be as literal as you want Jenn but we all know what the term nanny and discussion means in the context in which I used them. No need to run to the dictionary for help. Just consider the context and you'll better understand meanings. It's easy, really.

And again, all this can be tied into the theory of Manifest Destiny. Whatever else you want to call it and "discuss" about it is up to you.

That's a tad incoherent, Jenn. Manifest Destiny was a phrase used by leaders and politicians in the 1840s to explain continental expansion by the United States. It does not apply to anything happening now with Iraq or North Korea so I fail to see the point of your use of the phrase or how the United States blocking aggression and possession of nuclear weapons by unstable dictators relates to this phrase. Manifest Destiny simply doesn't apply here in any way.

Anyway, thanks for your input and yes, what we discuss and debate certainly is up to the users of the board along with the consent of the moderator. You may join in or not, as you please. I simply contend that the very discussion and debate is crucial to a better understanding of the vital issues confronting us, as a nation and a people. I also attempt to enlighten, when possible. You apparently prefer to quote the dictionary. So be it.

[Janeofalltrades]

Mr 5 0, Yes, Sir.

With all due respect, I do quote factual documentation, including dictionaries, sometines in an effort to be funny and sometimes to try to make a point.

I will make this one final thought and then, regardless of your response, sir, I am finished. I accept your opinion and appreciate it. You are a very intelligent man that I would enjoy having a quality discussion with. I try to remain open to all ideas and enjoy listening to all yours. When they are articulated in a coherent manner. Mr. 5.0 you do this very well... :) My mind has been changed in the past.

However, in accepting and understanding the theory of Manifiest Destiny, you have to understand the significance of the metamorphasis that this idea has taken over the years.

I would like to quote Mr. Bush's inaugral speech. January 20, 2001. Link provided:

http://odur.let.rug.nl/~usa/P/gwb43/speeches/gwbush1.htm

Friend, this is the absolute doctrin of manifest destiny. Used today in a "Brave New World". It is Mr. Bush who stipulated his intent in his speech and it is his sworn mission to ensure he does not fail. God Bless him and good luck. Although I was not a fan or Mr. Bush when he took office, I can say today that I am surprised by his aptitude to adequately do his job, and grateful that he is doing his job in a competant manner, considering the situations he has been handed.

I believe that Manifest Destiny has no end. It is perpetual and everlasting. Without Manifest Destiny the world would be flat and the earth would be the center of the solar system. Expansion is inevitable and without limit. Yes, land is a finite commodity...on earth; therefore, we must protect it and ensure that some psyco does not ruin it. We are linked by an environment and an evergrowing global economy. The doctrin of Manifest Destiny, all though fundamentally the same today, had to develop along with the changing world. In 1840s we used guns and knives, today we use outrageous technological vehicles of destruction and death.

Thanks for the discussion and Good Luck.

Jenn

[Mr 5 0]

Originally posted by Janeofalltrades

Mr 5 0, Yes, Sir.

I wish people would stop calling me 'Sir'. I feel like some old guy with a white beard, which I'm not by a long shot.

With all due respect, I do quote factual documentation, including dictionaries, sometines in an effort to be funny and sometimes to try to make a point.

Jenn, thanks for the 'due respect' but quoting the dictionary isn't very funny and you apparently missed the point of my use of the terms nanny and discussion entirely, but never mind. Too late now.

I will make this one final thought and then, regardless of your response, sir, I am finished.

There's that 'sir' stuff again. I feel like we're in the 1890's having tea or something - but I digress. Your last post. Final thought. Got it.

I accept your opinion and appreciate it. You are a very intelligent man that I would enjoy having a quality discussion with. I try to remain open to all ideas and enjoy listening to all yours. When they are articulated in a coherent manner. Mr. 5.0 you do this very well... :) My mind has been changed in the past.

Well Jenn, this is going much better than I expected. Didn't realize you read my stuff, what little there is these days, but please: continue.

However, in accepting and understanding the theory of Manifiest Destiny, you have to understand the significance of the metamorphasis that this idea has taken over the years.

I would like to quote Mr. Bush's inaugral speech. January 20, 2001.

I'm familiar with President Bush's inaugural speech and a re-reading of it (thanks for the link) showed me that he looked forward to a better future for America, building on the past and rooted in civility and inclusion. The President mentioned our history: where we came from and how we got here but I see nothing that reflects the Manifest Destiny sentiment you allude to.

Friend, this is the absolute doctrin of manifest destiny. Used today in a "Brave New World". It is Mr. Bush who stipulated his intent in his speech and it is his sworn mission to ensure he does not fail. God Bless him and good luck. Although I was not a fan or Mr. Bush when he took office, I can say today that I am surprised by his aptitude to adequately do his job, and grateful that he is doing his job in a competant manner, considering the situations he has been handed.

I believe that Manifest Destiny has no end. It is perpetual and everlasting. Without Manifest Destiny the world would be flat and the earth would be the center of the solar system. Expansion is inevitable and without limit. Yes, land is a finite commodity...on earth; therefore, we must protect it and ensure that some psyco does not ruin it. We are linked by an environment and an evergrowing global economy. The doctrin of Manifest Destiny, all though fundamentally the same today, had to develop along with the changing world. In 1840s we used guns and knives, today we use outrageous technological vehicles of destruction and death.

Well now. I don't know who you're quoting here but I see Manifest Destiny being used as a catch-phrase, not a doctrine or a government policy. The United States is the world leader and has been since the end of World War 2. Old news. We certainly have a duty to lead responsibly and we're doing so in ridding the world of terrorism and attempting to relieve dictators like Saddam Huessin of his WMD. You can call it 'Manifest Destiny' if you care to but it's really a misnomer and somewhat misleading, in my opinion. The one you said you appreciated and accept.

Thanks for the discussion and Good Luck.

Jenn

That's it? Well, I don't quite see what this all has to do with my original message to you but O.K. Jenn, thanks for your comments, too, and while I don't believe much in luck, I accept your wishes and send them back to you.

[rbatson2]

Originally posted by Mr 5 0
There's that 'sir' stuff again. I feel like we're in the 1890's having tea or something

Exactly how old are you?? LOL!! Just kidding Jim.:) I agree, we are all adults here and I don't see anyone getting too terribly upset. We just have a differing opinion, no big deal.. welcome to the USA. Most of us have known each other for many many years and I don't see a little opinion changing the fact that we are still friends.

I must admit, I was pulling your chain a bit the other night, Jim. I've never been in a political discussion with you but I've read a few and I knew what would push your buttons... heeh.:)

No way do I believe the Presidency is to be taken lightly. I don't think Bush(jr) was really ready for the office but he had good guidance. Cheney was alot of help, I'm sure, as was his father. His father being in his late 70s doesn't discredit him in the least, in my eyes. My grandpa was handing me great advice right up to his dying day(a week before his 84th birthday)... * sigh*:(

If you want to 'discuss' something... let's discuss this tax break thing that Bush wants to push through. I know you spend alot of time researching and thinking about this sort of thing and I personally have a few unresolved issues with it. I enjoy the tax breaks and refunds, don't get me wrong but... how is that supposed to stimulated the economy? It seems to me that there needs to be more jobs to accomplish this feat. The free trade agreement that handed alot of our jobs over to the mexicians, people that don't even pay tax in this country.. I think that should be dealt with. Companies moving thier facilities to other countries to save on labor cost and then bringing the product back here for a greater profit. Seems to me that if there were a greater import tax some of these companies would quit contracting out 'our' work.

Bush's latest plan is to give us a tax break but Daschle says, upon further investigation, that a person making $1 million a year will see a return of $24,000 extra while someone making $30-40k will notice a big $76... Who is getting the benifit here?? I know I said I don't listen to political propaganda but... where do you get your info from Jim?

In times like these its real easy to get sidetracked by the war at hand. Easy to change the subject, if you know what I mean. I'm lucky enough to have a secure job but I see my brothers falling around me.. Repo houses going up on the market and folks that can't find a job to pay the rent. Is a tax break and extended unemployment the answer? I don't think so.

Your friend(no matter the differences of opinion),
Rick

[Mr 5 0]

Originally posted by rbatson2

Most of us have known each other for many many years and I don't see a little opinion changing the fact that we are still friends.

Of course it won't, Rick. I understand that everyone won't concur with me on every issue and the fact that they don't doesn't make them my enemy or cause me to get hostile, assuming that the person who differs remains civil, as you have. That's the key: disagreement without antagonism.

I must admit, I was pulling your chain a bit the other night, Jim. I've never been in a political discussion with you but I've read a few and I knew what would push your buttons... heeh.:)

Was it good for you, too? :)

No way do I believe the Presidency is to be taken lightly. I don't think Bush (jr) was really ready for the office but he had good guidance. Cheney was alot of help, I'm sure, as was his father. His father being in his late 70s doesn't discredit him in the least, in my eyes. My grandpa was handing me great advice right up to his dying day(a week before his 84th birthday).

Frankly, I don't believe anyone is ever truly 'ready' to be president. Bill Clinton was 46, a Governor of a small, poor state and had zero foreign policy experience when he took office in January, 1993. At least President Bush has the good executive sense to surround himself with people who know more than he does on specific areas, such as foreign policy. He isn't afraid to admit he doesn't know everything about everything and I believe that humility is a part of his appeal to average Americans.

If you want to 'discuss' something... let's discuss this tax break thing that Bush wants to push through. I know you spend alot of time researching and thinking about this sort of thing and I personally have a few unresolved issues with it. I enjoy the tax breaks and refunds, don't get me wrong but... how is that supposed to stimulated the economy?

The simple answer is that when government takes more money out of your paycheck you have less to spend and that - multiplied by a few hundred million paychecks - puts less money into the economy, which hurts everyone. When your taxes are cut back, you keep more of what you earn, you have more money to spend and this eventually puts more money into the general economy which helps everyone. When you and I have more cash to spend (because of our taxes being lower) we tend to either save it (giving banks more money to lend for new homes and cars, etc) or we simply buy stuff, making more work for those who make stuff.

It seems to me that there needs to be more jobs to accomplish this feat. The free trade agreement that handed alot of our jobs over to the mexicians, people that don't even pay tax in this country.. I think that should be dealt with. Companies moving thier facilities to other countries to save on labor cost and then bringing the product back here for a greater profit. Seems to me that if there were a greater import tax some of these companies would quit contracting out 'our' work.

Creating jobs isn't that simple, Rick. Free Trade does take away some jobs but the majority of those jobs are low-level, not highly skilled, and with our high minimum wages (compared to other countries) and tons of restrictions on everything from parking spaces for the handicapped to enviromental controls, it's way cheaper for comanies to move outside the U.S. Unions (with high wages) and other factors also drive up prices on American-made goods. We all want that nice new TV or DVD player for $150. but we get it for that price mostly because it cost a lot less to manufacture outside of the U.S. Made-in-U.S.A. is a great concept but so many factors have made manufacturing here expensive and thus, uncompetitive for plant owners who have to compete with companies outside the U.S. that can sell their goods much cheaper. It isn't - as the anti-capitalist liberals always say - all about 'greed'. It's also about survival for American companies.

Bush's latest plan is to give us a tax break but Daschle says, upon further investigation, that a person making $1 million a year will see a return of $24,000 extra while someone making $30-40k will notice a big $76... Who is getting the benifit here?? I know I said I don't listen to political propaganda but... where do you get your info from Jim?

Apparently not where you get yours. The Bush economic plan has not been made public as yet. Daschle and the Democrats are simply playing politics and making wild assumptions in order to make Bushs' plan look 'unfair' before he even reveals it, thus putting Bush on the defensive right off the bat. It's a political trick.

Rick, understand this if nothing else. The top 50% of wage earners pay 96% of the income taxes in this country so they will always (and rightfully) get the biggest benefit when taxes are cut. That's a progressive tax system for you. As you earn more, you pay more in taxes. When taxes are cut accross the board, as they should be, you get a bigger benefit in that you'll now pay less taxes (than a lower-income taxpayer) because you're in a much higher bracket. No mystery. Rich people have been demonized for so long by the Democrats as they try, again, to play the class-envy card and make a across-the-board tax cut seem somehow 'unfair' when wealthy people benefit, as if the wealthy didn't already pay the lions share of all income taxes. Daschle is blowing smoke to hide the fact that cutting taxes is good for the economy, period. He tries to make it appear that if a citizen already paying very high taxes gets a break, it's somehow wrong. Why? The wealthy are the ones who own the companies and help create jobs. When they have more to spend (due to less taxes) it's good for the economy.

In times like these its real easy to get sidetracked by the war at hand. Easy to change the subject, if you know what I mean. I'm lucky enough to have a secure job but I see my brothers falling around me.. Repo houses going up on the market and folks that can't find a job to pay the rent. Is a tax break and extended unemployment the answer? I don't think so.

Is having more money in your paycheck every week going to help? I think so. Unemployment benefits are a band-aid and I have no problem with them being extended but that won't solve anything, granted. It's political. No one is really distracted by the War on Terrorism or Iraq as the Democrats pound Bush on the economy every day and the media help them. Fortunately, the public doesn't blame President Bush for the weak economy, and they are correct. He didn't cause it. The point is that the President doesn't control the economy, whether it's Bush, Clinton or anyone else. He can cut taxes which always helps the economy and do other things to help business - which the Democrats always try to paint as somehow evil. Who do they think supplies all the 'good jobs' they claim to want...not government, but 'business'. Cutting corporate taxes isn't evil, it's a way to help stimulate the economy.

All I can say Rick is that I don't have time to refute every Democrat politician's lies and distortions here but just don't believe everything you see and hear from any politician, especially on the major networks who are 100% liberal in their outlook and show it, every night. Belive me whan I tell you that paying less taxes is always a good thing, whether it's you, me or Bill Gates. Don't fall victim to the liberal's class-envy game. It's bogus.

[tireburner163]

Originally posted by Janeofalltrades
.

Oh Man!..that right there is why I love you guys....HOLY CRAP..I was laughing so hard. And not because of the lightness of the subject, but your delivery, Rod, deserves a comedy routine in your name.

HAHAHA....people dieing a slow and painful death....haha:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Wake up, Hot Roddin was being serious