"Stormin Mormon" wrote in
:

What would you do with an Obama sign?


Nothing;they aren't my property.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

Jim Yanik wrote:
Nate Nagel wrote in
:

Jim Yanik wrote:
Kurt Ullman wrote in
:

In article ,
Nate Nagel wrote:

Which brings us full circle to my original point. McCain has no
set convictions (say what you will about Bush, he has those - he's
almost always wrong, but at least he has convictions) so it's
impossible for me to vote for him.

But then that would also make it impossible for vote for Obama,
too.

Worse;the convictions Obama HAS already evidenced are those of
communism. If Nate really fears for the Constitution,OBAMA is the one
who will truly tear it apart.The Second Amendment will be the first
to go,followed closely by the First Amendment.

But ol Nate has drunk the Kool-aid.

Um, Obama used to teach Constitutional law.

Who says he got it right??
after all,he will not release any of his papers,thesis,etc.

He may be a Socialist,
but he has to have a better grasp on what the Constitution says and
means than Bush, McCain, et. al.

nate

How DELUDED by hate and BDS you are....


Obama'a words on nominating judges;
"We need somebody who's got the heart, the empathy, to recognize what
it's like to be a young teenage mom. The empathy to understand what it's
like to be poor, or African-American, or gay, or disabled, or old. And
that's the criteria by which I'm going to be selecting my judges."


He clearly believes in legislating from the bench.
Constitutional? I don't believe that.

what Constitution are you referrring to,Nate???

Do you believe in WRITTEN LAW?


your hero Bush doesn't, and that's a demonstrated fact.

If this were the late 1700's he would have been tried and convicted of
treason by now.

nate

--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel

Kurt Ullman wrote in
:

In article ,
"retired54" wrote:

I've heard this before and I'm not getting it.

Has he done something to make gun lovers afraid? I'm sincerely
curious. I have no strong opinions on the 2nd Amendment other than I
think it should be enforced.
s a state legislator in Illinois, Obama supported banning the sale or
transfer of all forms of semi-automatic firearms, increasing state
restrictions on the purchase and possession of firearms.
s state senator, he voted against a 2004 measure that allowed
self-defense as an affirmative defense for those charged with
violating local laws making it otherwise unlawful for such persons to
possess firearms. He also voted against allowing persons who had
obtained domestic violence protective orders to carry handguns for
their protection.


As far as the 1st Amendment I'm sure there are many more right-wing
kooks would like to wiggle around that one.

Nah both sides are more than happy to try to silence those who
disagree.

Obama had his campaigm email supporters to get them to flood talk radio and
TV shows where people were critizing Obama,to deny the opposing opinions to
be aired.He asked the Justice Department to prosecute the NRA for running
ads showing Obama's anti-gun record.He got Missouri officials to use their
official powers to go after people whose opinions he didn't like.Obama
favors bringing back the "Fairness Doctrine".



Obama claimed to "support the Second Amendment",yet didn't sign the Heller
amicus brief as other DemocRATs did.He first said he believed DC was OK to
ban guns,then reversed himself after the USSC ruled in favor of Heller.
--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

Nate Nagel wrote in
:

retired54 wrote:
"Kurt Ullman" wrote in message
..
.
In article
,
"retired54" wrote:

I've heard this before and I'm not getting it.

Has he done something to make gun lovers afraid? I'm sincerely
curious. I have no strong opinions on the 2nd Amendment other than
I think it should be
enforced.
s a state legislator in Illinois, Obama supported banning the sale
or transfer of all forms of semi-automatic firearms, increasing
state restrictions on the purchase and possession of firearms.
s state senator, he voted against a 2004 measure that allowed
self-defense as an affirmative defense for those charged with
violating local laws making it otherwise unlawful for such persons
to possess firearms. He also voted against allowing persons who had
obtained domestic violence protective orders to carry handguns for
their protection.

As far as the 1st Amendment I'm sure there are many more right-wing
kooks would like to wiggle around that one.

Nah both sides are more than happy to try to silence those who
disagree.

Thanks...Do you have any links to credible sources.

Meaning ones that don't disagree with you?

I'd be interested
in hearing the full story and the circumstances.

As far as the 1st amendment goes I'm sure you're right but this
current president has done more damage to the Constitution than
Nixon.

Hardly.

olddog



Including the 1st amendment - "free speech zones" anyone?

nate


DemocRATs/liberals are noted for their "politically correct" speech codes
(that actually suppress free speech)and "hate crime"(thoughtcrime)
legislation.
They are also for the Fairness Doctrine's return.

Liberals are the ones who give "pie attacks" and shout down conservative
speakers and disrupt seminars so they cannot be heard.
Liberals are full of Hate,and frequently show it.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

Nate Nagel wrote in
:

HeyBub wrote:
aemeijers wrote:
No, that is called stupidity. A true patriot, when the folks in
charge make a bonehead move, CALLS them on it, and insists on a
different course of action. The PTB work for us, not the other way
around. The rub comes when it is a situation where there are no good
answers, just choices among varying degrees of bad ones. The US
knocked over the bucket in SWA, so they are sort of obligated to
help clean it up at this point. Saddam was scum, and deserves to
burn in hell. But why exactly was he OUR problem to solve, again?

As the Color Sergeant in "Zulu" said: "Because we're here, lad.
There's no one else. Just us. Now face to the front, mark your target
when he comes. That's a good lad."



But we weren't there. We took ourselves there. The "why" has yet to
be explained to me.

nate


No,it's that you just don't LISTEN when they do tell the public.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

"olddog" wrote in
:


"Kurt Ullman" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"retired54" wrote:



Thanks...Do you have any links to credible sources. I'd be
interested in hearing the full story and the circumstances.

Define credible and which full stories are you interested? The
stuff
on Obama's votes for gun-related issues are from the voting records
of the State Legislature or Senate, depending on where he was voting
on things.

Yeah...you got a point: But by credible I mean not John Stewart and
not Rush Limpbaugh.

I found this

http://www.ontheissues.org/Barack_Obama.htm

...thanks anyway. :-)

olddog



I would look into who finances this site.
MoveOn.org and similar groups have funded several "non-partisan" orgs that
actually are Obama shills.
I note this site does NOT list anything about itself,it's origins,etc.

Even Factcheck.org has been shown to be biased WRT gun rights.


--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

olddog wrote:
"HeyBub" wrote in message
m...
tom wrote:
http://i192.photobucket.com/albums/z...s/image002.jpg

I saw a similar:

"Colored & Dullard"

Oh..You're a racist Cowboy!


I simply report the facts. You might be interested in a post on another
newsgroup:

----
I FOUND A NEGRO IN MY FAMILY TREE !

So I cut him down and put him out by the curb.
----

That's the facts. Only the facts.

I, personally, find that sort of humor - if it can be called humor - well,
let's just say it's unacceptable for public discourse.

Stormin Mormon wrote:
Are Bush Cheney signs useful for anything?

--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
.


"Nate Nagel" wrote in message
...

Do you deny that Bush/Cheney lied us into war or that McCain has
completely reversed his position on many issues since Y2K (or even
more recently, e.g. torture) most of them for the worse, in a clear
attempt to pander to the ignorant Bush core voter bloc?

* I deny that Bush/Cheny lied us into war.
* I do not deny that McCain has reversed his position on some issues,
notably immigration reform. On torture, the situation is somewhat tortured.
McCain, as a victim of torture himself, has been adamant his entire career
in opposing it. What the Democrats are trying to do is use McCains vote
against requiring the CIA to use only those techniques listed in the Army
Field Manual as evidence he's in lock-step with the administration. There's
a good write-up at:
http://www.time.com/time/politics/ar...729891,00.html
* I'd believe McCain took the base's desires into account when he selected
Sarah Palin, not even remotely convinced on the rest. Look, the Republican
party is made up of two elements: Social conservatives and Economic
conservatives.

Social conservatives are locked in to McCain on the issues of abortion, gun
rights, and Supreme Court nominations. The rest is just noise.

Economic conservatives are locked in to McCain on the issues of free trade
and tax cuts (Republicans believe tax cuts can cure cancer and alleviate
bee-bites). The rest is just noise.

In one poll I saw, a slightly higher percentage of Republicans support
McCain than Democrats do Obama. No Republican is going to base his vote
solely on torture, immigration reform, the war, or any of the almost (to
them) insignificant issues.

HeyBub wrote:
Stormin Mormon wrote:
Are Bush Cheney signs useful for anything?

--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
.


"Nate Nagel" wrote in message
...

Do you deny that Bush/Cheney lied us into war or that McCain has
completely reversed his position on many issues since Y2K (or even
more recently, e.g. torture) most of them for the worse, in a clear
attempt to pander to the ignorant Bush core voter bloc?

* I deny that Bush/Cheny lied us into war.
* I do not deny that McCain has reversed his position on some issues,
notably immigration reform. On torture, the situation is somewhat tortured.
McCain, as a victim of torture himself, has been adamant his entire career
in opposing it. What the Democrats are trying to do is use McCains vote
against requiring the CIA to use only those techniques listed in the Army
Field Manual as evidence he's in lock-step with the administration. There's
a good write-up at:
http://www.time.com/time/politics/ar...729891,00.html
* I'd believe McCain took the base's desires into account when he selected
Sarah Palin, not even remotely convinced on the rest. Look, the Republican
party is made up of two elements: Social conservatives and Economic
conservatives.

Social conservatives are locked in to McCain on the issues of abortion, gun
rights, and Supreme Court nominations. The rest is just noise.

Economic conservatives are locked in to McCain on the issues of free trade
and tax cuts (Republicans believe tax cuts can cure cancer and alleviate
bee-bites). The rest is just noise.

In one poll I saw, a slightly higher percentage of Republicans support
McCain than Democrats do Obama. No Republican is going to base his vote
solely on torture, immigration reform, the war, or any of the almost (to
them) insignificant issues.

What about if you're a "weak" economic conservative (that is, in favor
of small government and low taxes, along with small government and
reduced spending, but not necessarily full scale deregulation and aren't
necessarily opposed to progressive income taxes) but are opposed to the
religious right?

And why *wouldn't* someone base their vote on the war, when it is one of
the largest challenges facing us today?

nate


--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel

Nate Nagel wrote:
HeyBub wrote:
aemeijers wrote:
No, that is called stupidity. A true patriot, when the folks in
charge make a bonehead move, CALLS them on it, and insists on a
different course of action. The PTB work for us, not the other way
around. The rub comes when it is a situation where there are no
good answers, just choices among varying degrees of bad ones. The
US knocked over the bucket in SWA, so they are sort of obligated to
help clean it up at this point. Saddam was scum, and deserves to
burn in hell. But why exactly was he OUR problem to solve, again?

As the Color Sergeant in "Zulu" said: "Because we're here, lad.
There's no one else. Just us. Now face to the front, mark your
target when he comes. That's a good lad."



But we weren't there. We took ourselves there. The "why" has yet to
be explained to me.


Because they're there, lad, and there's no one else. Just us.

"Nate Nagel" wrote in message
...
Jim Yanik wrote:
Nate Nagel wrote in
:
Jim Yanik wrote:
Kurt Ullman wrote in
:

In article ,
Nate Nagel wrote:

Which brings us full circle to my original point. McCain has no
set convictions (say what you will about Bush, he has those - he's
almost always wrong, but at least he has convictions) so it's
impossible for me to vote for him.

But then that would also make it impossible for vote for Obama,
too.
Worse;the convictions Obama HAS already evidenced are those of
communism. If Nate really fears for the Constitution,OBAMA is the one
who will truly tear it apart.The Second Amendment will be the first
to go,followed closely by the First Amendment.

But ol Nate has drunk the Kool-aid.

Um, Obama used to teach Constitutional law.

Who says he got it right?? after all,he will not release any of his
papers,thesis,etc.

He may be a Socialist,
but he has to have a better grasp on what the Constitution says and
means than Bush, McCain, et. al.

nate

How DELUDED by hate and BDS you are....


Obama'a words on nominating judges;
"We need somebody who's got the heart, the empathy, to recognize what
it's like to be a young teenage mom. The empathy to understand what it's
like to be poor, or African-American, or gay, or disabled, or old. And
that's the criteria by which I'm going to be selecting my judges."


He clearly believes in legislating from the bench. Constitutional? I
don't believe that.

what Constitution are you referrring to,Nate???

Do you believe in WRITTEN LAW?


your hero Bush doesn't, and that's a demonstrated fact.

If this were the late 1700's he would have been tried and convicted of
treason by now.

nate

--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel

I'd like to see Bush Cheney Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld go to jail for war
crimes.

*******s

olddog

Nate Nagel wrote:

Do you believe in WRITTEN LAW?


your hero Bush doesn't, and that's a demonstrated fact.

If this were the late 1700's he would have been tried and convicted of
treason by now.


You keep saying that, but you haven't given an example of how Bush has
violated the Constitution.

If you hold, as I suspect, that the treatment of prisoners at Guantanamo is
an example, I suggest you and others who hold similar beliefs are wrong.

The prisoners at Gitmo are not criminals. As such, they are entitled to NONE
of the Constitutional protections afforded by the Constitutions (i.e., "In
all criminal proceedings..."). They are unlawful enemy combatants. Here are
some interesting facts about unlawful enemy combatants:

* They include saboteurs, spys, guerrillas, fifth-columnists, and similar.
* No Geneva convention or protocol has procedures for dealing with them. How
they are handled is completely up to the belligerents involved.
* The president may designate anyone, even you, as an unlawful enemy
combatant and this designation cannot be gainsaid by legislative action or
court intervention.
* Under the normal rules of warfare, UECs may be taken out and summarily
shot.
* Our first UEC was Major Andre, caught behind our lines, wearing our
uniform. George Washington ordered him hanged.

Now many on the left WANT UECs treated as criminals. That is, the folks at
Gitmo, according to many on the left, should get lawyers, speedy trials,
etc. This is like saying cancer victims should be treated as criminals, or
members of a junior high soccer team, or vegetarians. UECs are not criminals
and they don't get treated like criminals.

HeyBub wrote:
Nate Nagel wrote:
Do you believe in WRITTEN LAW?

your hero Bush doesn't, and that's a demonstrated fact.

If this were the late 1700's he would have been tried and convicted of
treason by now.


You keep saying that, but you haven't given an example of how Bush has
violated the Constitution.

If you hold, as I suspect, that the treatment of prisoners at Guantanamo is
an example, I suggest you and others who hold similar beliefs are wrong.

The prisoners at Gitmo are not criminals. As such, they are entitled to NONE
of the Constitutional protections afforded by the Constitutions (i.e., "In
all criminal proceedings..."). They are unlawful enemy combatants. Here are
some interesting facts about unlawful enemy combatants:

* They include saboteurs, spys, guerrillas, fifth-columnists, and similar.
* No Geneva convention or protocol has procedures for dealing with them. How
they are handled is completely up to the belligerents involved.
* The president may designate anyone, even you, as an unlawful enemy
combatant and this designation cannot be gainsaid by legislative action or
court intervention.
* Under the normal rules of warfare, UECs may be taken out and summarily
shot.
* Our first UEC was Major Andre, caught behind our lines, wearing our
uniform. George Washington ordered him hanged.

Now many on the left WANT UECs treated as criminals. That is, the folks at
Gitmo, according to many on the left, should get lawyers, speedy trials,
etc. This is like saying cancer victims should be treated as criminals, or
members of a junior high soccer team, or vegetarians. UECs are not criminals
and they don't get treated like criminals.

By your standards the founding fathers were UECs then. People defending
their own land from oppression (as they see it.)

I also submit warrantless wiretapping and Cheney's "unique"
interpretation of the status of the Vice Presidency as examples of
blatant disregard for the rule of law. The scary thing is that I
suspect it will take years if not decades to discover just what all this
administration has done that we don't know about yet.

nate


--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel

Jim Yanik wrote:

Obama claimed to "support the Second Amendment",yet didn't sign the
Heller amicus brief as other DemocRATs did.He first said he believed
DC was OK to ban guns,then reversed himself after the USSC ruled in
favor of Heller.

I don't think he reversed himself. His position is (paraphrasing) "Local
communities should have a right to tailor laws to fit their own
circumstances."

The plain meaning of his position is that, while the 2nd Amendment provides
a right to keep and bear arms, a city should have a right to restrict - or
even eliminate - guns due to a compelling social need.

As a putative constitutional law expert, he should know that impinging on a
constitutional right carries a high burden. It doesn't matter if the
majority in a city doesn't like Jehovah Witnesses - the city can't ban the
church. While the constitution says the accused should have access to a
lawyer, a state can't prohibit legal representation to child molesters just
because it's a compelling social goal to do whatever's necessary to get them
off the street.

In article ,
Nate Nagel wrote:

By your standards the founding fathers were UECs then.

Not even remotely really because the Geneva Conventions were a
couple hundred years or so from being ratified.

Nate Nagel wrote:
Look,
the Republican party is made up of two elements: Social
conservatives and Economic conservatives.

Social conservatives are locked in to McCain on the issues of
abortion, gun rights, and Supreme Court nominations. The rest is
just noise. Economic conservatives are locked in to McCain on the issues
of free
trade and tax cuts (Republicans believe tax cuts can cure cancer and
alleviate bee-bites). The rest is just noise.


What about if you're a "weak" economic conservative (that is, in favor
of small government and low taxes, along with small government and
reduced spending, but not necessarily full scale deregulation and
aren't necessarily opposed to progressive income taxes) but are
opposed to the religious right?

A "conservative" not opposed to progressive income taxes? A "conservative"
not opposed to deregulation? There is no such critter.

Oh, we admit some regulation is necessary so the economic system can
function, but banning bug-bombs in New York City because some people ignore
the warnings? Banning Halon as a fire suppressant because of a threat to the
Ozone layer? Banning DDT? Emptying mental institutions? Liberal policies
(i.e., most regulations) often fail. And when they fail, they fail
catastrophically; innocent lives are lost, often in great numbers.

Economic conservatives (weak, strong, or otherwise) are indifferent - in the
main - to the agenda of social conservatives.

Conservatives are not opposed to ALL growth in government. We favor, for
example, a larger military, a larger border patrol, and larger prisons. Some
even support chaining miscreants to the wall. Upside down.


And why *wouldn't* someone base their vote on the war, when it is one
of the largest challenges facing us today?



A couple of reasons: Because the war in Iraq should be a non-issue in this
election. It's virtually over. (The left, however, wants a second bite at
the apple by making the war germane. Just like they want a third try at
defeating Bush.)

Another reason is that neither social conservatives nor economic
conservatives have a dog in the fight; they're indifferent to the war.
Almost. Economic conservatives see a down-stream benefit from free trade,
but new markets or cheaper raw materials are almost over the horizon and not
immediately important. Social conservatives see a slim possibility of
bringing Mother Church to the heathens. But neither of these reasons is
compelling.

It's up to us neoconservatives to thread the gap between the two to foster
American hegemony and world domination.

As to your original point about economic conservatives being opposed to the
religious right - there is a tension. But those who feel stronger about
economics are willing to put up with the Bible-thumpers because they need
their support. Likewise, the strongly religious can easily accommodate the
one-worlders and corporate masters because free trade doesn't really affect
God. All in all, it's a convenient marriage; loveless, but nevertheless
successful.

Contrast that with the conglomeration of interests in the Democrat party.
Environmentalists are opposed to drilling in ANWAR but the unions are in
favor. Civil rights leaders don't much like women getting preferences and
feminists don't like racial quotas. The Democrats are a family, an often
dysfunctional family.

Nate Nagel wrote:

By your standards the founding fathers were UECs then. People
defending their own land from oppression (as they see it.)

Yep. But it's not my standard. The United States Supreme Court coined the
phrase "unlawful enemy combatant." How to deal with spys and the like
captured on the battlefield has been worked out over thousands of years of
military conflict and belligerents have converged, through countless
trial-and-error methodologies, on the most practical solution. It's called
the Black Flag.


I also submit warrantless wiretapping and Cheney's "unique"
interpretation of the status of the Vice Presidency as examples of
blatant disregard for the rule of law. The scary thing is that I
suspect it will take years if not decades to discover just what all
this administration has done that we don't know about yet.



The first intercepts of enemy electronic communications took place during
the Second War of Independence when both the Union and Confederacy tapped
the opposing side's telegraph lines. In every war since, reading the enemy's
mail, so to speak, has been an accepted and necessary practice.

Not only enemies, but potential enemies. We were working on, and broke,
Japanese codes long before they attacked Pearl Harbor. We had the diplomatic
code cracked by December 7th, 1941. Had we had equal success with the
Japanese naval code, we could have averted disaster.


Warrants are authorized by the 4th Amendment, but the president's authority
to wage war is covered by Article II of the same constitution. The courts
have unanimously said, over the centuries, that the president's war-making
responsibility trumps the 4th Amendment.

As for Cheney, there's an interesting Op-Ed in today's NY Times on the
constitutional role of the Vice President.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/27/op...nk&oref=slogin

Nate Nagel wrote in
:

Jim Yanik wrote:
Nate Nagel wrote in
:

Jim Yanik wrote:
Nate Nagel wrote in
:

HeyBub wrote:
Bob F wrote:
"Jim Yanik" wrote in message
...


Major misconception;
Bush is NOT "doing the same thing over and over".
Bush made a strategic move for the ME with the Iraq war.
IMO,it was/is a good idea.

It WOULD have helped greatly if the DemocRATs had given true
support instead of being divisive and thus giving moral support
to the enemy. But they would rather appease the enemies of the
US,thinking that will buy them respect and good will.How naive.
This has been claimed by the Republicans continuously and has
never been true. The democrats were not devisive. They were
realistic. Going into Iraq was stupid, uncalled for, persued
with lies and distortions, and totally missplanned. So why
should they support it. "Morale support to the ememy"???? This
is laughable.
Why?

"Our country! In her intercourse with foreign nations, may she
always be in the right; but our country, right or wrong."

It's called loyalty.

I'm loyal to my *country* not to that idiot in the White House
Uh,HE AINT RUNNING in THIS election..
McCain, Bush, what's the difference? They're indistinguishable
off-screen.

If you don't know,then perhaps you should not vote;it would be voting
out of ignorance.

Talk about buying into Obama's deception plan....
and all
his evil sidekicks.

"evil sidekicks";
do you mean like Ayers(terrorist,communist),Wright(america-
hater),Rezko(felon),Khalidi,Pflieger,Alinsky(commu nist),et al ???

those are OBAMA'S sidekicks.Obama's a product of the Daley Chicago
political machine,the most corrupt in America.
But Nate is too blinded by BDS to see that.

nate

so you would destroy your country by voting in a communist;Obama.

Or are you voting Libertarian? That's essentially not voting at
all.

I'm voting *against* the party that has been destroying the country
I love for the last eight years.

The DemocRATs??? B-)
nate



You have NO idea of real destruction of America,and the communist
Obama would be the one to begin it.
Starting with the Constitution.
He's already on record as being anti-2nd Amendment,demonstrates a
clear dislike for the First Amendment.

But you are too blind to see that.


Don't even speak about destruction of the Constitution if you are a
Bush supporter. He's done more to destroy the Constitution than every
president preceding him combined. He is, quite literally, the worst
president ever to hold the office.


Hardly.Carter has him beat.

BTW,At least Bush has the sense to nominate judges that go by the
Constitution and not around it.

nate


It seems the Constitution is still present and working.
And we ARE in a time of war.

you ought to read Andrew C McCarthy,a former Federal prosecutor about this
"destruction of the Constitution" nonsense.
He knows more about it than both of us put together.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

Nate Nagel wrote in
:

Jim Yanik wrote:
Nate Nagel wrote in
:

Jim Yanik wrote:
Kurt Ullman wrote in

:

In article ,
Nate Nagel wrote:

Which brings us full circle to my original point. McCain has no
set convictions (say what you will about Bush, he has those -
he's almost always wrong, but at least he has convictions) so
it's impossible for me to vote for him.

But then that would also make it impossible for vote for Obama,
too.

Worse;the convictions Obama HAS already evidenced are those of
communism. If Nate really fears for the Constitution,OBAMA is the
one who will truly tear it apart.The Second Amendment will be the
first to go,followed closely by the First Amendment.

But ol Nate has drunk the Kool-aid.

Um, Obama used to teach Constitutional law.

Who says he got it right??
after all,he will not release any of his papers,thesis,etc.

He may be a Socialist,
but he has to have a better grasp on what the Constitution says and
means than Bush, McCain, et. al.

nate

How DELUDED by hate and BDS you are....


Obama'a words on nominating judges;
"We need somebody who's got the heart, the empathy, to recognize
what it's like to be a young teenage mom. The empathy to understand
what it's like to be poor, or African-American, or gay, or disabled,
or old. And that's the criteria by which I'm going to be selecting
my judges."


He clearly believes in legislating from the bench.
Constitutional? I don't believe that.

what Constitution are you referrring to,Nate???

Do you believe in WRITTEN LAW?


your hero Bush doesn't, and that's a demonstrated fact.

then HOW could you vote for Obama?
He has publicly stated he will nominate judges who judge based on their
feelings,public opinion,and not the Constitution.
your voting for Obama would be irrational.

If this were the late 1700's he would have been tried and convicted of
treason by now.

nate


Except the USSC has ruled on Presidential powers during conflicts.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

Nate Nagel wrote in
:

HeyBub wrote:
Stormin Mormon wrote:
Are Bush Cheney signs useful for anything?

--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
.


"Nate Nagel" wrote in message
...

Do you deny that Bush/Cheney lied us into war or that McCain has
completely reversed his position on many issues since Y2K (or even
more recently, e.g. torture) most of them for the worse, in a clear
attempt to pander to the ignorant Bush core voter bloc?

* I deny that Bush/Cheny lied us into war.
* I do not deny that McCain has reversed his position on some issues,
notably immigration reform. On torture, the situation is somewhat
tortured. McCain, as a victim of torture himself, has been adamant
his entire career in opposing it. What the Democrats are trying to do
is use McCains vote against requiring the CIA to use only those
techniques listed in the Army Field Manual as evidence he's in
lock-step with the administration. There's a good write-up at:
http://www.time.com/time/politics/ar...729891,00.html
* I'd believe McCain took the base's desires into account when he
selected Sarah Palin, not even remotely convinced on the rest. Look,
the Republican party is made up of two elements: Social conservatives
and Economic conservatives.

Social conservatives are locked in to McCain on the issues of
abortion, gun rights, and Supreme Court nominations. The rest is just
noise.

Economic conservatives are locked in to McCain on the issues of free
trade and tax cuts (Republicans believe tax cuts can cure cancer and
alleviate bee-bites). The rest is just noise.

In one poll I saw, a slightly higher percentage of Republicans
support McCain than Democrats do Obama. No Republican is going to
base his vote solely on torture, immigration reform, the war, or any
of the almost (to them) insignificant issues.

What about if you're a "weak" economic conservative (that is, in favor
of small government and low taxes, along with small government and
reduced spending, but not necessarily full scale deregulation and
aren't necessarily opposed to progressive income taxes) but are
opposed to the religious right?

And why *wouldn't* someone base their vote on the war, when it is one
of the largest challenges facing us today?

It might help if they had an ACCURATE idea of what the war was about and
it's real state at the present.
Nate has based his on inaccuracy and media propaganda.(that explains a
lot..)


nate



Nate,who do you believe is going to enlarge government the LEAST?
Obama already has advanced plans to greatly enlarge the government and to
usurp the Constitution.

you -say- you are a "conservative",but all your points demonstrate you are
a Liberal.


--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

Nate Nagel wrote in
:

HeyBub wrote:
Nate Nagel wrote:
Do you believe in WRITTEN LAW?

your hero Bush doesn't, and that's a demonstrated fact.

If this were the late 1700's he would have been tried and convicted
of treason by now.


You keep saying that, but you haven't given an example of how Bush
has violated the Constitution.

If you hold, as I suspect, that the treatment of prisoners at
Guantanamo is an example, I suggest you and others who hold similar
beliefs are wrong.

The prisoners at Gitmo are not criminals. As such, they are entitled
to NONE of the Constitutional protections afforded by the
Constitutions (i.e., "In all criminal proceedings..."). They are
unlawful enemy combatants. Here are some interesting facts about
unlawful enemy combatants:

* They include saboteurs, spys, guerrillas, fifth-columnists, and
similar. * No Geneva convention or protocol has procedures for
dealing with them. How they are handled is completely up to the
belligerents involved. * The president may designate anyone, even
you, as an unlawful enemy combatant and this designation cannot be
gainsaid by legislative action or court intervention.
* Under the normal rules of warfare, UECs may be taken out and
summarily shot.
* Our first UEC was Major Andre, caught behind our lines, wearing our
uniform. George Washington ordered him hanged.

Now many on the left WANT UECs treated as criminals. That is, the
folks at Gitmo, according to many on the left, should get lawyers,
speedy trials, etc. This is like saying cancer victims should be
treated as criminals, or members of a junior high soccer team, or
vegetarians. UECs are not criminals and they don't get treated like
criminals.

By your standards the founding fathers were UECs then. People
defending their own land from oppression (as they see it.)

it all depends on who wins and gets to write the history.

you keep bringing out this "moral equivalence" nonsense.


I also submit warrantless wiretapping and Cheney's "unique"
interpretation of the status of the Vice Presidency as examples of
blatant disregard for the rule of law.

and you would be wrong.


The scary thing is that I
suspect it will take years if not decades to discover just what all
this administration has done that we don't know about yet.

nate





--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

Kurt Ullman wrote in news:kurtullman-
:

In article ,
Nate Nagel wrote:

By your standards the founding fathers were UECs then.

Not even remotely really because the Geneva Conventions were a
couple hundred years or so from being ratified.


regardless,if they had been caught by the British,they would have been
hanged as traitors.(as they were British citizens revolting against their
own gov't)

They risked everything to secure liberty for us.Bless them.

al-qaida and similar terrorists are NOT protecting their own countries.
Many of them are foreigners from elsewhere.
They are advancing their religion by force.

heck,Nate cannot even comprehend OBLs own statements on why they are at war
with the West.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

Jim Yanik wrote in
:

Nate Nagel wrote in
:

Jim Yanik wrote:
Nate Nagel wrote in
:

Jim Yanik wrote:
Kurt Ullman wrote in

:

In article ,
Nate Nagel wrote:

Which brings us full circle to my original point. McCain has no
set convictions (say what you will about Bush, he has those -
he's almost always wrong, but at least he has convictions) so
it's impossible for me to vote for him.

But then that would also make it impossible for vote for Obama,
too.

Worse;the convictions Obama HAS already evidenced are those of
communism. If Nate really fears for the Constitution,OBAMA is the
one who will truly tear it apart.The Second Amendment will be the
first to go,followed closely by the First Amendment.

But ol Nate has drunk the Kool-aid.

Um, Obama used to teach Constitutional law.

Who says he got it right??
after all,he will not release any of his papers,thesis,etc.

He may be a Socialist,
but he has to have a better grasp on what the Constitution says and
means than Bush, McCain, et. al.

nate

How DELUDED by hate and BDS you are....


Obama'a words on nominating judges;
"We need somebody who's got the heart, the empathy, to recognize
what it's like to be a young teenage mom. The empathy to understand
what it's like to be poor, or African-American, or gay, or disabled,
or old. And that's the criteria by which I'm going to be selecting
my judges."


He clearly believes in legislating from the bench.
Constitutional? I don't believe that.

what Constitution are you referrring to,Nate???

Do you believe in WRITTEN LAW?


your hero Bush doesn't, and that's a demonstrated fact.

then HOW could you vote for Obama?
He has publicly stated he will nominate judges who judge based on their
feelings,public opinion,and not the Constitution.
your voting for Obama would be irrational.

If this were the late 1700's he would have been tried and convicted of
treason by now.

nate


Except the USSC has ruled on Presidential powers during conflicts.


Nate,have you seen that YouTube video of Obama talking about his
redistribution of wealth scheme? It's from 2001.

this describes the text of it.
http://tinyurl.com/6kcaja

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

Jim Yanik wrote:
Nate Nagel wrote in
:

HeyBub wrote:
Stormin Mormon wrote:
Are Bush Cheney signs useful for anything?

--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
.


"Nate Nagel" wrote in message
...

Do you deny that Bush/Cheney lied us into war or that McCain has
completely reversed his position on many issues since Y2K (or even
more recently, e.g. torture) most of them for the worse, in a clear
attempt to pander to the ignorant Bush core voter bloc?
* I deny that Bush/Cheny lied us into war.
* I do not deny that McCain has reversed his position on some issues,
notably immigration reform. On torture, the situation is somewhat
tortured. McCain, as a victim of torture himself, has been adamant
his entire career in opposing it. What the Democrats are trying to do
is use McCains vote against requiring the CIA to use only those
techniques listed in the Army Field Manual as evidence he's in
lock-step with the administration. There's a good write-up at:
http://www.time.com/time/politics/ar...729891,00.html
* I'd believe McCain took the base's desires into account when he
selected Sarah Palin, not even remotely convinced on the rest. Look,
the Republican party is made up of two elements: Social conservatives
and Economic conservatives.

Social conservatives are locked in to McCain on the issues of
abortion, gun rights, and Supreme Court nominations. The rest is just
noise.

Economic conservatives are locked in to McCain on the issues of free
trade and tax cuts (Republicans believe tax cuts can cure cancer and
alleviate bee-bites). The rest is just noise.

In one poll I saw, a slightly higher percentage of Republicans
support McCain than Democrats do Obama. No Republican is going to
base his vote solely on torture, immigration reform, the war, or any
of the almost (to them) insignificant issues.
What about if you're a "weak" economic conservative (that is, in favor
of small government and low taxes, along with small government and
reduced spending, but not necessarily full scale deregulation and
aren't necessarily opposed to progressive income taxes) but are
opposed to the religious right?

And why *wouldn't* someone base their vote on the war, when it is one
of the largest challenges facing us today?

It might help if they had an ACCURATE idea of what the war was about and
it's real state at the present.
Nate has based his on inaccuracy and media propaganda.(that explains a
lot..)

nate



Nate,who do you believe is going to enlarge government the LEAST?
Obama already has advanced plans to greatly enlarge the government and to
usurp the Constitution.

you -say- you are a "conservative",but all your points demonstrate you are
a Liberal.



Based on the last two administrations, I believe the democrats would
actually expand government less than another republican administration.

nate

--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel

Nate Nagel wrote in
:

Jim Yanik wrote:
Nate Nagel wrote in
:

HeyBub wrote:
Stormin Mormon wrote:
Are Bush Cheney signs useful for anything?

--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
.


"Nate Nagel" wrote in message
...

Do you deny that Bush/Cheney lied us into war or that McCain has
completely reversed his position on many issues since Y2K (or even
more recently, e.g. torture) most of them for the worse, in a
clear attempt to pander to the ignorant Bush core voter bloc?
* I deny that Bush/Cheny lied us into war.
* I do not deny that McCain has reversed his position on some
issues, notably immigration reform. On torture, the situation is
somewhat tortured. McCain, as a victim of torture himself, has been
adamant his entire career in opposing it. What the Democrats are
trying to do is use McCains vote against requiring the CIA to use
only those techniques listed in the Army Field Manual as evidence
he's in lock-step with the administration. There's a good write-up
at:
http://www.time.com/time/politics/ar...729891,00.html
* I'd believe McCain took the base's desires into account when he
selected Sarah Palin, not even remotely convinced on the rest.
Look, the Republican party is made up of two elements: Social
conservatives and Economic conservatives.

Social conservatives are locked in to McCain on the issues of
abortion, gun rights, and Supreme Court nominations. The rest is
just noise.

Economic conservatives are locked in to McCain on the issues of
free trade and tax cuts (Republicans believe tax cuts can cure
cancer and alleviate bee-bites). The rest is just noise.

In one poll I saw, a slightly higher percentage of Republicans
support McCain than Democrats do Obama. No Republican is going to
base his vote solely on torture, immigration reform, the war, or
any of the almost (to them) insignificant issues.
What about if you're a "weak" economic conservative (that is, in
favor of small government and low taxes, along with small government
and reduced spending, but not necessarily full scale deregulation
and aren't necessarily opposed to progressive income taxes) but are
opposed to the religious right?

And why *wouldn't* someone base their vote on the war, when it is
one of the largest challenges facing us today?

It might help if they had an ACCURATE idea of what the war was about
and it's real state at the present.
Nate has based his on inaccuracy and media propaganda.(that explains
a lot..)

nate



Nate,who do you believe is going to enlarge government the LEAST?
Obama already has advanced plans to greatly enlarge the government
and to usurp the Constitution.

you -say- you are a "conservative",but all your points demonstrate
you are a Liberal.



Based on the last two administrations, I believe the democrats would
actually expand government less than another republican
administration.

Like they have in the past?
Obama and the Chicago political machine shows otherwise.

nate


Based on WHAT?
you've already been shown to have formed opinion on incorrect
beliefs.("Bush lied"..)

let's see;Obama's civilian National Security Force(Brown Shirts),a National
Healthcare System,expanded IRS....and somebody has to hand out all those
checks Obama wants to send everyone.


Barack Obama, in 2001:


You know, if you look at the victories and failures of the civil-rights
movement, and its litigation strategy in the court, I think where it
succeeded was to vest formal rights in previously dispossessed peoples. So
that I would now have the right to vote, I would now be able to sit at a
lunch counter and order and as long as I could pay for it, I’d be okay, but
the Supreme Court never entered into the issues of redistribution of
wealth, and sort of more basic issues of political and economic justice in
this society.

And uh, to that extent, as radical as I think people tried to characterize
the Warren Court, it wasn’t that radical. It didn’t break free from the
essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the
Constitution — at least as it’s been interpreted, and Warren Court
interpreted it in the same way, that generally the Constitution is a
charter of negative liberties: [It] says what the states can’t do to you,
says what the federal government can’t do to you, but it doesn’t say what
the federal government or the state government must do on your behalf.

And that hasn’t shifted, and one of the, I think, the tragedies of the
civil-rights movement was because the civil-rights movement became so
court-focused, uh, I think that there was a tendency to lose track of the
political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are
able to put together the actual coalitions of power through which you bring
about redistributive change. And in some ways we still suffer from that.

You know, I’m not optimistic about bringing about major redistributive
change through the courts. The institution just isn’t structured that way.
[snip] You start getting into all sorts of separation of powers issues, you
know, in terms of the court monitoring or engaging in a process that
essentially is administrative and takes a lot of time. You know, the court
is just not very good at it, and politically, it’s just very hard to
legitimize opinions from the court in that regard.



and Nate believes Obama is not going to trash the Constitution....and is
for smaller government.

Nate;this **** should scare the crap out of you,
if you aren't a socialist/communist/America-hater.

did you read this yet?
http://tinyurl.com/6kcaja

it goes into great detail explaining this Obama statement.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

Jim Yanik wrote:
Nate Nagel wrote in
:

Jim Yanik wrote:
Nate Nagel wrote in
:

HeyBub wrote:
Stormin Mormon wrote:
Are Bush Cheney signs useful for anything?

--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
.


"Nate Nagel" wrote in message
...

Do you deny that Bush/Cheney lied us into war or that McCain has
completely reversed his position on many issues since Y2K (or even
more recently, e.g. torture) most of them for the worse, in a
clear attempt to pander to the ignorant Bush core voter bloc?
* I deny that Bush/Cheny lied us into war.
* I do not deny that McCain has reversed his position on some
issues, notably immigration reform. On torture, the situation is
somewhat tortured. McCain, as a victim of torture himself, has been
adamant his entire career in opposing it. What the Democrats are
trying to do is use McCains vote against requiring the CIA to use
only those techniques listed in the Army Field Manual as evidence
he's in lock-step with the administration. There's a good write-up
at:
http://www.time.com/time/politics/ar...729891,00.html
* I'd believe McCain took the base's desires into account when he
selected Sarah Palin, not even remotely convinced on the rest.
Look, the Republican party is made up of two elements: Social
conservatives and Economic conservatives.

Social conservatives are locked in to McCain on the issues of
abortion, gun rights, and Supreme Court nominations. The rest is
just noise.

Economic conservatives are locked in to McCain on the issues of
free trade and tax cuts (Republicans believe tax cuts can cure
cancer and alleviate bee-bites). The rest is just noise.

In one poll I saw, a slightly higher percentage of Republicans
support McCain than Democrats do Obama. No Republican is going to
base his vote solely on torture, immigration reform, the war, or
any of the almost (to them) insignificant issues.
What about if you're a "weak" economic conservative (that is, in
favor of small government and low taxes, along with small government
and reduced spending, but not necessarily full scale deregulation
and aren't necessarily opposed to progressive income taxes) but are
opposed to the religious right?

And why *wouldn't* someone base their vote on the war, when it is
one of the largest challenges facing us today?
It might help if they had an ACCURATE idea of what the war was about
and it's real state at the present.
Nate has based his on inaccuracy and media propaganda.(that explains
a lot..)

nate


Nate,who do you believe is going to enlarge government the LEAST?
Obama already has advanced plans to greatly enlarge the government
and to usurp the Constitution.

you -say- you are a "conservative",but all your points demonstrate
you are a Liberal.


Based on the last two administrations, I believe the democrats would
actually expand government less than another republican
administration.

Like they have in the past?
Obama and the Chicago political machine shows otherwise.
nate


Based on WHAT?
you've already been shown to have formed opinion on incorrect
beliefs.("Bush lied"..)

Bush did lie. If you can't accept that there's no point in discussing
anything with you, as no evidence that can be presented can convince you
that the One True Shrub is anything but infallible. It is so obvious,
so incontrovertible that Bush (and Cheney etc. etc. etc.) are liars and
regularly push the law to its limits and sometimes beyond that it is
impossible to have rational discussion with anyone who holds otherwise.

nate

nate

--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel

Can you reuse liberal think, like political signs?

--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..


"Jim Yanik" wrote in message
...
Nate Nagel wrote in
:

typical Liberal "thinking".


Gawd, you're a moron. Do you ever have any thoughts? Do they hurt?

nate


Ah,now we get into ad hominem attacks.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

After the election, can you take the wire out of his supporters, and use
them for something?

--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..


"Jim Yanik" wrote in message
...

Obama had his campaigm email supporters to get them to flood talk radio and
TV shows where people were critizing Obama,to deny the opposing opinions to
be aired.He asked the Justice Department to prosecute the NRA for running
ads showing Obama's anti-gun record.He got Missouri officials to use their
official powers to go after people whose opinions he didn't like.Obama
favors bringing back the "Fairness Doctrine".

In article ,
Nate Nagel wrote:


Bush did lie. If you can't accept that there's no point in discussing
anything with you, as no evidence that can be presented can convince you
that the One True Shrub is anything but infallible. It is so obvious,
so incontrovertible that Bush (and Cheney etc. etc. etc.) are liars and
regularly push the law to its limits and sometimes beyond that it is
impossible to have rational discussion with anyone who holds otherwise.

Yet you have not even pretended to put out an incident or two to back
up your decision. What is obvious and incontrovertible is that you are
doing exactly the same thing you are accusing the Bushsters of doing.

"Stormin Mormon" wrote in
:

Can you reuse liberal think, like political signs?


"think" should be in quotes when prefaced by liberal.
They really don't think,they just "feel".

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

Nate Nagel wrote in
:

Jim Yanik wrote:

you've already been shown to have formed opinion on incorrect
beliefs.("Bush lied"..)

Bush did lie. If you can't accept that there's no point in discussing
anything with you, as no evidence that can be presented can convince you
that the One True Shrub is anything but infallible. It is so obvious,
so incontrovertible that Bush (and Cheney etc. etc. etc.) are liars and
regularly push the law to its limits and sometimes beyond that it is
impossible to have rational discussion with anyone who holds otherwise.

nate

nate


well,it's now clear you don't know the meaning of "lie",either.

Hard to have a "rational discussion" with someone if they don't know the
meaning of words.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

I guess, maybe you can donate it. Others can reuse it.
Posted from the Free Home Improvement Forum at http://www.spicyhome.com

Nate Nagel wrote in
:

Jim Yanik wrote:


you've already been shown to have formed opinion on incorrect
beliefs.("Bush lied"..)

Bush did lie. If you can't accept that there's no point in discussing
anything with you, as no evidence that can be presented can convince you
that the One True Shrub is anything but infallible. It is so obvious,
so incontrovertible that Bush (and Cheney etc. etc. etc.) are liars and
regularly push the law to its limits and sometimes beyond that it is
impossible to have rational discussion with anyone who holds otherwise.

nate

nate


http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/...bout_iraq.html

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

"HeyBub" wrote in message
...
Bob F wrote:

************************************************** ************

But you have really enjoyed the give-away-to-the-rich actions of the
republicans since Reagan? Why shouldn't the people who benefit far
more from our system pay their part?
Without the working class, they'd have nothing.

I agree that those who USE more government services should pay more. The rich
don't send their kids to public schools, use food stamps, appear at the county
hospital, end up in jail (as a rule), and so on.

The rich DO drive on public roads (or their driver does) and a few other
things, so they should pay SOME taxes.

The benefits they receive by living in our society include far more than the
simplistic ones you suggest. Their lifestyle displays this clearly.

"HeyBub" wrote in message
...
Bob F wrote:
"Jim Yanik" wrote in message
...



Major misconception;
Bush is NOT "doing the same thing over and over".
Bush made a strategic move for the ME with the Iraq war.
IMO,it was/is a good idea.

It WOULD have helped greatly if the DemocRATs had given true support
instead of being divisive and thus giving moral support to the enemy.
But they would rather appease the enemies of the US,thinking that
will buy them respect and good will.How naive.


This has been claimed by the Republicans continuously and has never
been true. The democrats were not devisive. They were realistic.
Going into Iraq was stupid, uncalled for, persued with lies and
distortions, and totally missplanned. So why should they support it.
"Morale support to the ememy"???? This is laughable.

Why?

"Our country! In her intercourse with foreign nations, may she always be in
the right; but our country, right or wrong."

It's called loyalty.

When your country does something wrong, it's wrong. Unless you are a Republican.

"Jim Yanik" wrote in message
...
Nate Nagel wrote in
:

HeyBub wrote:
Bob F wrote:
"Jim Yanik" wrote in message
...


Major misconception;
Bush is NOT "doing the same thing over and over".
Bush made a strategic move for the ME with the Iraq war.
IMO,it was/is a good idea.

It WOULD have helped greatly if the DemocRATs had given true
support instead of being divisive and thus giving moral support to
the enemy. But they would rather appease the enemies of the
US,thinking that will buy them respect and good will.How naive.

This has been claimed by the Republicans continuously and has never
been true. The democrats were not devisive. They were realistic.
Going into Iraq was stupid, uncalled for, persued with lies and
distortions, and totally missplanned. So why should they support it.
"Morale support to the ememy"???? This is laughable.

Why?

"Our country! In her intercourse with foreign nations, may she always
be in the right; but our country, right or wrong."

It's called loyalty.


I'm loyal to my *country* not to that idiot in the White House

Uh,HE AINT RUNNING in THIS election..

and all
his evil sidekicks.

nate


so you would destroy your country by voting in a communist;Obama.


Anyone using the Communist arguement has already lost the arguement.

You are living in the distant past.

"HeyBub" wrote in message
...
Bob F wrote:

Are we talking about the same people? Seriously. Sometimes I feel
like I'm living in this weird backwards parallel universe when I read
some of these posts.

************************************************** ***88

Pretty amazing, isn't it. I guess we'll soon see who the public
believes.

I think we're seeing it already as the investor class computes the future of a
probable Obama administration.

Amazing. It is all because Obama is getting elected, not because of the obcene
rupublican policies and lack of regulation that collapsed the economy? It is
crazy the way republicans can blame anythig that happens on the democrats. It
seems like republicans can make no mistakes at all. LOL!

"HeyBub" wrote in message
m...
Bob F wrote:

Sure. Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Feith. Actually, anybody who
claims to be a neoconservative.

I guess it depends on your definition of success. In my definition,
foreigners don't get a vote and success depends entirely on what's
in the best interests of the United States. I am indifferent in the
extreme whether the French have their feelings hurt or the Minoans
are miffed. I measure success by how many enemies of this great
republic, their wives, children, and goats die a horrible death
(preceded, if possible, by piteous lamentations), not the readings
on some imaginary "Love Meter." To paraphrase Admiral Halsey: "Kill
terrorists. Kill terrorists.
Kill more terrorists!"

But, being fair, I can see how to those who value - nay, depend - on
the approbation of others will have a different metric (to use a
Rumsfeld word) in measuring "success."


Unfortunately, we are creating way more terrorists than we are
killing by our actions.
People get mad when the are invaded, occupied, and killed by the
hundreds of thousands.

They'll get over it.

There's a wonder republican christian attitude.


As for creating more terrorists than we've killed, where are they?

Please let us know so we can go kill them.

They are the ones we killed. There were virtually no terrorists in Iraq before
we invaded.

"Jim Yanik" wrote in message
...

Unfortunately, we are creating way more terrorists than we are
killing by our actions.
People get mad when the are invaded, occupied, and killed by the
hundreds of thousands.

except the ones killing them by the "100's of thousands" were their so-
called Islamic "friends".

Because we destroyed all structure that kept them in line.
And replaced it with nothing.

Many Iraqi's have now realized that and have switched sides.
Too bad the hateful DemocRATs will not recognize it.

Why do they want us out then. They have made that clear.


Iraqis celebrated when Saddam was deposed.Maybe you missed the video on TV
news?

Yeah. I saw the video of them toppleing the statue. Then I found out that it was
staged by the military.

Bob F wrote:
I think we're seeing it already as the investor class computes the
future of a probable Obama administration.

Amazing. It is all because Obama is getting elected, not because of
the obcene rupublican policies and lack of regulation that collapsed
the economy? It is crazy the way republicans can blame anythig that
happens on the democrats. It seems like republicans can make no
mistakes at all. LOL!

Let's get up-to-date, Slick. It was the PRESENCE of regulations that caused
the current collapse. Specifically the Community Redevelopment Act
"enhancements" in 1995 that mandated banks provide low (or no) interest
loans to people who were simply unqualified.

The Republicans have tried, most recently in 2005, to impose oversight on
Mae and Mac but were rebuffed by the Democrats. Actually, John McCain was a
co-sponsor of the the '95 bill to scrutinize both Mae & Mac.

To paraphrase Al Gore, "Everything that should not be regulated was, and
everything that was not regulated should have been."