USA Politics Thread - *No gun debate*

[walker 0]

Hi All

In Reply to AliMag

The NeoConMen who have taken over control of the US republican party are an entryest group founded in communist the entryest techniques of the bolsheviks, and their Ilk.  

They are against freedom: hence their move to tapping the phones of US citizens without running it past a judge first.

They want to destroy democracy and turn the US into a one party state: hence their involvement in gerrymandering constituencies.

They are against the national security: hence their misuse of and lying about National Security Intelligence.

They want to remove the power of the electors and give it to their own little "elite": hence they are philosophicly sourced in the teachings of Max Shactman http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Shachtman

and Leo Straus http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straussianism

For these they look to for methods of entering a political party and fooling the electors with something called a Straussian text. Essentially it is a form of words that appears to mean one thing to the US electors but means quite another to the NeoConMen. For us simple folks their promises are lies.

The NeoConMen are for big government: hence the increasing cost of US government.

They are not even really a pro Christian group they just fooled them with a straussian text.

I could go for hours about why republicans are now getting rid of the NeoConMen in their party but most of all I am just glad they are; my only fear is that US republicans may have left it too late.

More of them need to ask: "How can you really trust a NeoConMan republican?"

Kind Regards Walker

[Student Pilot 0]

Walker, the answer to your question is, you can't.

Just like you can't trust a NeoConMan Deomocrat, or a NeoConMan Used Car Salesman (a bit redundant, I know), or a NeoConMan anything.

Quote[/b] ]They are against freedom: hence their move to tapping the phones of US citizens without running it past a judge first.

There is no stipulation anywhere that allows wiretapping of American citizens without a court order.  However, TBA has not broken any laws because they have not targetted Americans, but foreigners.  Whether or not an American citizen was involved is irrelavent, because the target was the foreign national.

I read earlier that someone asked why do we have the right to wiretap foreigners?  Because they don't come under the laws of the constitution of the United States; our Bill of Rights doesn't apply to them.  Therefore, it is not against our law to wiretap foreigners.

Quote[/b] ]They want to destroy democracy and turn the US into a one party state: hence their involvement in jerrymandering constituancies.

Don't tell me that the democrats haven't done the same damn thing.  As for destroying democracy, where did you get that?  Who was all for imminent domain?  Who is all for grabbing private property because some fly lives on it?  Who is all for destroying corporations such as Wal-Mart?

If anyone is for destroying democracy and capitalism, it's the democratic party.

-Pilot

[walker 0]

Hi all

And in reply to Student Pilot, AliMag, Avon et al

You keep missing the point. There are no NeoCons in the Democratic party, because the NeoCons went and took over the Republican party.

NeoConMen are NeoConservative Men who in a blinding flash of light stopped being on the extreme left and became neo/new conservatives. Yeh really and if you believe that one I can sell you the Brooklyn bridge too.

The NeoConservatives or NeoCons as they like to call themselves (a rather obvious straussian text that one) are an entryest group who targeted the US republican party because its hierarchical structure makes it easier to take over.

They are rooted in the extreme left unfortunately for the NeoCons the Democratic party is immunised from this kind of group because it believes in openly debating policy internally, the left learned this bitter lesson from the National Socialists and Bolsheviks.

Not so in the republican party which believes in party unity no matter what. You must never stifle internal dissent and debate as the US Republican party still does that is what lets the entryest take over. It is what made the US Republican party the ideal target for an entryest group.

To stifle debate they keep using the phrase your either with us or against us. Another straussian text for saying any one who is against us must be a traitor to the mass of republicans to the elite it means target this group for removal (tell lies about them, say their gay, say their mad, say they are liberals, whatever it takes, expediency is all. Any one remember what John McCain endured; now he is their bitch, willing to do anything they want him to.

Read up on Leo Strauss not just on Wiki but on philosophy sites. Understand how these people work and how they are undermining democracy.

They are nihilists with Bolshevik leanings, who are dedicated to a empire building and using the US for their imperial ambitions. The worst kind of power hungry elite you can imagine: Stalin and his Bolsheviks, Hitler and his national socialists, Robespierre and his Reign of Terror the NeoCons and their fake Iraq war and big brother state all come from these same philosophical roots. Whatever is expedient to gaining maintaining power they will do it.

They use straussian texts that mean one thing to those in the elite and a totally different thing to those they wish to con. For us simple folks their promises are lies.

They tell the the christian right oh we are going to bring about major christian changes then don't deliver. And that the rapture is coming so they need to have the NeoCons in power because they all go to church just like them. Which is a bit odd because more than half of were atheists or from other religions until they saw the church as a stepping stone to power. Why do you think they take up being born again Christians?

They tell real conservatives they are going to reduce big government, then preside of the biggest American government spend in US history covering the country with jobs for the incompetent boys in a display of nepotism that would make the mafia blush.

They say they are pro: freedom, the rule of law and the American constitution then tap the phones of millions of US citizens on the mere mentioning of key phrases that any of us would say in the normal discussion about the Iraq war.

They claim to be for national security yet play fast and loose with National Security Intelligence, manipulating leaks for petty party political purposes; yes even to the point of putting agents in danger by blowing their Identity to cover up their manipulation.

They preside over the biggest gauging of the American tax payer in history with sky high pump prices and a tax debt that the US may never pay off and the republicans bend over and take it up the ass.

Thank god the US republican party is starting wake up to realising it has Reds in the White House bed.

It is why I keep hammering on at this question: "How can you really trust a NeoConMan republican?"

Kind Regards Walker

[EiZei 0]

Whether or not an American citizen was involved is irrelavent, because the target was the foreign national.

I read earlier that someone asked why do we have the right to wiretap foreigners? Because they don't come under the laws of the constitution of the United States; our Bill of Rights doesn't apply to them. Therefore, it is not against our law to wiretap foreigners.

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

So I suppose non-citizens are not people?

The reason why the citizen concept is avoided is because there are lot of occurences in history in which citizenship was refused or taken away from the people in order to oppress or even eliminate them, for example, the jews in nazi Germany were redesignated as "subjects of the state" rather than citizens.

[Student Pilot 0]

EiZei, earlier we read, We the people of the United States of America, in order to make a more perfect union...

Saying, the people, is shorthand for we the people of the United States.

Damn, I have to go, I'll respond to Walker later.

-Pilot

[shinRaiden 0]

The Washington State Quarter design selection web site is back up again after being 'reviewed' to eliminate the 'unfortunate' automated bulk-voting. Instead of merely enableling any IP address anywhere to vote early and often and anonymously, they've 'secured' the voting by adding a client-side cookie. By simply purging the cookie (*@www.governor.wa[1]txt (your mileage will vary)) you can continue to express the true democratic will typified by the Mugabesque elections culture of Washington State.

[EiZei 0]

EiZei, earlier we read, We the people of the United States of America, in order to make a more perfect union...

Saying, the people, is shorthand for we the people of the United States.

Damn, I have to go, I'll respond to Walker later.

-Pilot

To quote the US citizenship and immigration services..

http://uscis.gov/graphics/howdoi/PermRes.htm

Quote[/b] ]

Rights

As a Permanent Resident you have most of the rights of a United States Citizen but there are some exceptions.

Rights

To live permanently in the United States provided you do not commit any actions that would make you removable (deportable) under the immigration law (section 237, Immigration and Nationality Act).

To be employed in the United States at any legal work of your qualification and choosing.

To be protected by all of the laws of the United States, your state of residence and local jurisdictions.

And to quote the supreme court of the united states..

http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct....ZS.html

Quote[/b] ]

118 U.S. 356

Yick Wo v. Hopkins

APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Argued: --- Decided: May 10, 1886

In a suit brought to this court from a State court which involves the constitutionality of ordinances made by a municipal corporation in the State, this court will, when necessary, put its own independent construction upon the ordinances.

A municipal ordinance to regulate the carrying on of public laundries within the limits of the municipality violates the provisions of the Constitution of the United States if it confers upon the municipal authorities arbitrary power, at their own will, and without regard to discretion in the legal sense of the term, to give or withhold consent as to persons or places, without regard to the competency of the persons applying, or the propriety of the place selected, for the carrying on of the business.

An administration of a municipal ordinance for the carrying on of a lawful business within the corporate limits violates the provisions of the Constitution of the United States if it makes arbitrary and unjust discriminations, founded on differences of race between persons otherwise in similar circumstances.

The guarantees of protection contained in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution extend to all persons within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States, without regard to differences of race, of color, or of nationality.

Those subjects of the Emperor of China who have the right to temporarily or permanently reside within the United States, are entitled to enjoy the protection guaranteed by the Constitution and afforded by the laws.

http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct....ZS.html

Quote[/b] ]

457 U.S. 202

Plyler v. Doe

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 80-1538 Argued: December 1, 1981 --- Decided: June 15, 1982 [*]

Held: A Texas statute which withholds from local school districts any state funds for the education of children who were not "legally admitted" into the United States, and which authorizes local school districts to deny enrollment to such children, violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Pp. 210-230.

(a) The illegal aliens who are plaintiffs in these cases challenging the statute may claim the benefit of the Equal Protection Clause, which provides that no State shall "deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." Whatever his status under the immigration laws, an alien is a "person" in any ordinary sense of that term. This Court's prior cases recognizing that illegal aliens are "persons" protected by the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, which Clauses do not include the phrase "within its jurisdiction," cannot be distinguished on the asserted ground that persons who have entered the country illegally are not "within the jurisdiction" of a State even if they are present within its boundaries and subject to its laws. Nor do the logic and history of the Fourteenth Amendment support such a construction. Instead, use of the phrase "within its jurisdiction" confirms the understanding that the Fourteenth Amendment's protection extends to anyone, citizen or stranger, who is subject to the laws of a State, and reaches into every corner of a State's territory. Pp. 210-216.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts....vol=410

Quote[/b] ]

U.S. Supreme Court

TORAO TAKAHASHI V. FISH AND GAME COMMISSION , 334 U.S. 410 (1948)

334 U.S. 410

TORAO TAKAHASHI

v.

FISH AND GAME COMMISSION et al.

No. 533.

Argued April 21, 22, 1948.

Decided June 7, 1948.

[ Torao Takahashi v. Fish and Game Commission 334 U.S. 410 (1948) ] [334 U.S. 410 , 411]  

Messrs. Dean G. Acheson, of Washington, D.C., and A. L. Wirin, of Los Angeles, Cal., for petitioner.

Mr. Ralph Winfield Scott, of San Francisco, Cal., for respondents.

[334 U.S. 410 , 412]  

Mr. Justice BLACK delivered the opinion of the Court.

The respondent, Torao Takahashi, born in Japan, came to this country and became a resident of California in 1907. Federal laws, based on distinctions of 'color and race,' Hidemitsu Toyota v. United States, 268 U.S. 402, 411 , 412, 565, 566, have permitted Japanese and certain other nonwhite racial groups to enter and reside in the country, but have made them ineligible for United States citizenship. 1 The question presented is whether California can, consistently with the Federal Constitution and laws passed pursuant to it, use this federally created racial ineligibility for citizenship as a basis for barring Takahashi from earning his living as a commercial fisherman in the ocean waters off the coast of California. [334 U.S. 410 , 413]   Prior to 1943 California issued commercial fishing licenses to all qualified persons without regard to alienage or ineligibility to citizenship. From 1915 to 1942 Takahashi, under annual commercial fishing licenses issued by the State, fished in ocean waters off the California coast, apparently both within and without the three-mile coastal belt, and brought his fresh fish ashore for sale. In 1942, while this country was at war with Japan, Takahashi and other California residents of Japanese ancestry were evacuated from the State under military orders. See Korematsu v. United States, 323 U.S. 214 . In 1943, during the period of war and evacuation, an amendment to the California Fish and Game Code was adopted prohibiting issuance of a license to any 'alien Japanese.' Cal.Stats. 1943, ch. 1100. In 1945, the state code was again amended by striking the 1943 provision for fear that it might be 'declared unconstitutional' because directed only 'against alien Japanese';2 the new amendment banned issuance of licenses to any 'person ineligible to citizenship,' which classification included Japanese. Cal.Stats. 1945, ch. 181.3 Because of this state [334 U.S. 410 , 414]   provision barring issuance of commercial fishing licenses to persons ineligible for citizenship underf ederal law, Takahashi, who met all other state requirements, was denied a license by the California Fish and Game Commission upon his return to California in 1945.

Takahashi brought this action for mandamus in the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, California, to compel the Commission to issue a license to him. That court granted the petition for mandamus. It held that lawful alien inhabitants of California, despite their ineligibility to citizenship, were entitled to engage in the vocation of commercial fishing on the high seas beyond the three-mile belt on the same terms as other lawful state inhabitants, and that the California code provision denying them this right violated the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The State Supreme Court, three judges dissenting, reversed, holding that California had a proprietary interest in fish in the ocean waters within 3 miles of the shore, and that this interest justified the State in barring all aliens in general and aliens ineligible to citizenship in particular from catching fish within or without the threemile coastal belt and bringing them to California for commercial purposes. 30 Cal.2d 719, 185 P.2d 805, 808.4 To review this question [334 U.S. 410 , 415]   of importance in the fields of federal-state relationships and of constitutionally protected individual equality and liberty, we granted certiorari.

I think it is clear by now that any legimate (and possibly illegimate) immigrant residing inside the United States and it's territories is covered by the rights granted in the bill of rights. The main difference between a citizen and a resident is the right to remain in the country and the right to decide it's rulers.

[sputnik monroe 102]

Hmmm...

Quote[/b] ]Hi All

In Reply to AliMag

The NeoConMen who have taken over control of the US republican party are an entryest group founded in communist the entryest techniques of the bolsheviks, and their Ilk.  

They are against freedom: hence their move to tapping the phones of US citizens without running it past a judge first.

They want to destroy democracy and turn the US into a one party state: hence their involvement in gerrymandering constituencies.

They are against the national security: hence their misuse of and lying about National Security Intelligence.

They want to remove the power of the electors and give it to their own little "elite": hence they are philosophicly sourced in the teachings of Max Shactman http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Shachtman

and Leo Straus http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straussianism

For these they look to for methods of entering a political party and fooling the electors with something called a Straussian text. Essentially it is a form of words that appears to mean one thing to the US electors but means quite another to the NeoConMen. For us simple folks their promises are lies.

The NeoConMen are for big government: hence the increasing cost of US government.

They are not even really a pro Christian group they just fooled them with a straussian text.

I could go for hours about why republicans are now getting rid of the NeoConMen in their party but most of all I am just glad they are; my only fear is that US republicans may have left it too late.

More of them need to ask: "How can you really trust a NeoConMan republican?"

Kind Regards Walker

 I suppose I'll go over this point by point.

Quote[/b] ]They are against freedom

 So are all politicians.

Quote[/b] ]They want to destroy democracy and turn the US into a one party state

 

 That is the dream of every politician.

Quote[/b] ]They are against the national security

 

 Some of them are some and some of them are not. As for the ones against national security they usally aren't outright against it, just indifferent.

Quote[/b] ]They want to remove the power of the electors and give it to their own little "elite": hence they are philosophicly sourced in the teachings of Max Shactman http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Shachtman

and Leo Straus http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straussianism

For these they look to for methods of entering a political party and fooling the electors with something called a Straussian text. Essentially it is a form of words that appears to mean one thing to the US electors but means quite another to the NeoConMen. For us simple folks their promises are lies.

 

 That in a nutshell is the method and motives of all politicians.

Quote[/b] ]The NeoConMen are for big government:

 

 So are all politicians.

Quote[/b] ]They are not even really a pro Christian group they just fooled them with a straussian text.

 

 Once again that is what all politicians do. They claim they are just like you and say what you want to hear.

Quote[/b] ]"How can you really trust a NeoConMan republican?"

 The same way you can "really trust a neosocialist democrat" or "really trust X" (where X is any other party you can think of.)

 Wake up and smell the coffee Walker.

[Student Pilot 0]

EiZei, you make a good point, and I have to clarify my statements. My statements were based on the assumption that the foreigners being wiretapped were outside of the US.

IIRC, all of these wiretappings of foreign nationals were done outside of the United States. As such, no laws were broken, nor were any rights trampled.

-Pilot

[EiZei 0]

IIRC, all of these wiretappings of foreign nationals were done outside of the United States.  As such, no laws were broken, nor were any rights trampled.

-Pilot

Nope, the NSA had all the powers they could have to wiretap foreigners outside the United States. The whole point is that the TBA decided to extend their wiretapping powers by issuing a secret executive order in 2002 authorizing warrantless wiretapping inside the united states therefore circumventing the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance act and the fourth amendment.

[Student Pilot 0]

But once again, all non-warrant wiretapping is being done to international phone calls.

Quote[/b] ]The agency, they said, still seeks warrants to monitor entirely domestic communications.

Quote[/b] ]Administration officials are confident that existing safeguards are sufficient to protect the privacy and civil liberties of Americans, the officials say. In some cases, they said, the Justice Department eventually seeks warrants if it wants to expand the eavesdropping to include communications confined within the United States.

Even if these officials were wiretapping the American end of the line, they can claim that they were wiretapping the foreign part of the line and no one would be able to prove otherwise.  It all comes down to, do you trust them or do you not.

However, while I do agree with what is happening, I will say that Bush is walking on a thin line.

-Pilot

[EiZei 0]

But once again, all non-warrant wiretapping is being done to international phone calls.

I think that is rather irrevelant since the other end's privacy and therefore rights are violated nonetheless. The only difference is that there is one less person being mistreated.

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

the first list of Guantanamo prisoners was published. I dont have much time to comment on the related article yet but I will do so later, just so you can have a look!

click on the link

[EiZei 0]

the first list of Guantanamo prisoners was published. I dont have much time to comment on the related article yet but I will do so later, just so you can have a look!

click on the link

Interesting.. there seems to be even twice as more chinese people than iraqis on that list.

[-MP-OFP-CRICON 0]

How many Americans on that list?

[EiZei 0]

CRICON @ April 21 2006,07:51)]How many Americans on that list?

Obviously none due to legal reasons.

And why the hell can't that list be in text format? Would be much more easier to look up people/nationalities.. damn reporters.

EDIT:

This is just comedy gold:

http://online.wsj.com/public....tff_top

Quote[/b] ]

New U.S. Post Aims to Guard Public's Privacy

By ANNE MARIE SQUEO

April 20, 2006; Page B1

As the son of a U.S. aid worker stationed in Guatemala during the 1970s civil war, Alex Joel recalls being unable to tell the good guys from the bad as both armed soldiers and civilians alike would order his family out of their car to search it.

Those first-hand brushes with totalitarianism, says Mr. Joel, have led him to take the rights of individuals very seriously. Given that he was recently named as the first civil-liberties protection officer for the U.S. Office of the Director of National Intelligence, such talk is reassuring to privacy advocates.

Mr. Joel's appointment to his new role, in fact, is one of several steps the Bush administration is taking to soothe concerns about civil liberties. Under siege for compromising privacy rights, most recently because of a National Security Agency program to monitor communications between people in the U.S. and overseas terrorist suspects, the administration is creating several privacy-related posts at government agencies.

One more comfy useless goverment post, yay!

[deanosbeano 0]

is this a hoax ? my god i didnt think it would be possible in this age of high security

here

[HotShot 0]

No it's a hoax, but a very good one!

[walker 0]

Hi all

When I posed the question "How can you really trust a NeoConMan republican?"

I did not expect so many Republicans to agree but I am happy to see the US Republican party begininning the process of removing the NeoConMen from their party and from power.

With even the most avid of republicans on this forum agreeing that TBA can not be trusted.

I inevitably come to the next question:

"With the untrustworthy NeoConMan entryist group in control of the US Republican, how can any one feel safe to vote republican?"

I refer you to this article.

Quote[/b] ]Bush's Thousand Days

By Arthur Schlesinger Jr.

Monday, April 24, 2006; Page A17

The Hundred Days is indelibly associated with Franklin D. Roosevelt, and the Thousand Days with John F. Kennedy. But as of this week, a thousand days remain of President Bush's last term -- days filled with ominous preparations for and dark rumors of a preventive war against Iran.

The issue of preventive war as a presidential prerogative is hardly new. In February 1848 Rep. Abraham Lincoln explained his opposition to the Mexican War: "Allow the President to invade a neighboring nation, whenever he shall deem it necessary to repel an invasion and you allow him to do so whenever he may choose to say he deems it necessary for such purpose -- and you allow him to make war at pleasure [emphasis added]. . . . If, today, he should choose to say he thinks it necessary to invade Canada to prevent the British from invading us, how could you stop him? You may say to him, 'I see no probability of the British invading us'; but he will say to you, 'Be silent; I see it, if you don't.' "

This is precisely how George W. Bush sees his presidential prerogative: Be silent; I see it, if you don't. However, both Presidents Harry S. Truman and Dwight D. Eisenhower, veterans of the First World War, explicitly ruled out preventive war against Joseph Stalin's attempt to dominate Europe. And in the Cuban missile crisis of October 1962, President Kennedy, himself a hero of the Second World War, rejected the recommendations of the Joint Chiefs of Staff for a preventive strike against the Soviet Union in Cuba...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn....14.html

Follow link to read the full article

My fear like many others in the US and the rest of the world is that we have a president in charge of the button, who is a dry drunk, with rumours of a cocain habit, and who believes god will come down and sweep him off to heaven in some grand old "Rapture" if there is an apoclypse and that that may tempt him to to use nukes.

Beyond the fact of using nukes on a non nuclear nation, and being seen to attack another islamic country making it three in a row, there is risk the fallout will spread over either Pakistan or worse Mecca. I think either would spell the end of Musharef in Pakistan thus giving Bin Laden and Al Qaeda Pakistans's Nukes.

Say goodby to to Israel and the Middle east soon after and expect nukes in London, New York, Washington and all points west not long after. World War III any one?

It is a frightening scenario and one which is far to close to happening.

None of this would have been a risk if TBA had not started the Iraq war. Something we all now agree was a stupid wastes of human life, money and western political capital.

So we must come back to the question:

"With the untrustworthy NeoConMan entryist group in control of the US Republican, how can any one feel safe to vote republican?"

Kind Regards Walker

[Student Pilot 0]

Quote[/b] ]With even the most avid of republicans on this forum agreeing that TBA can not be trusted.

I'm curious, who?

Quote[/b] ]I did not expect so many Republicans to agree but I am happy to see the US Republican party begininning the process of removing the NeoConMen from their party and from power.

John McCain is still in power

Walker, your questions are obviously biased against conservative republicans.  Do you honestly expect us to answer them?

-Pilot

[EiZei 0]

Beyond the fact of using nukes on a non nuclear nation, and being seen to attack another islamic country making it three in a row, there is risk the fallout will spread over either Pakistan or worse Mecca. I think either would spell the end of Musharef in Pakistan thus giving Bin Laden and Al Qaeda Pakistans's Nukes.

I really doubt any significant amounts of fallout would be released by couple of tactical nukes with low payloads. And as for Musharraf.. he might just take the Hama approach to the fundamentalists if things got really out of hand.

Quote[/b] ]

Say goodby to to Israel and the Middle east soon after and expect nukes in London, New York, Washington and all points west not long after. World War III any one?

I think the point is not to let them have nukes in the first place.

[walker 0]

Hi all

In reply to Student Pilot

Quote[/b] ]With even the most avid of republicans on this forum agreeing that TBA can not be trusted.

I'm curious, who?

Everyone that said you cannot trust any politician. Clearly by definition they think the NeoConMen of TBA are untrustworthy.

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]I did not expect so many Republicans to agree but I am happy to see the US Republican party begininning the process of removing the NeoConMen from their party and from power.

John McCain is still in power

Walker, your questions are obviously biased against conservative republicans.

No I am biased against the NeoConMen entryist group becaus they are a threat to freedom. That is why most conservatives in the US republican party hate the NeoConMen and want them out. It is why the US republican party is currently trying to purge them from the the party. That is what the current battle dividing the US republican party is about. My only fear as I have stated is that the real conservatives of the US republican party may have left it too late.

Quote[/b] ]

Do you honestly expect us to answer them?

-Pilot

Yes I would expect any right speaking person who favours debate and free speach to answer it.

Of course if you are afraid of the question, you will not answer it.

Never the less here is the question again for all people who are still considering voting republican the question:

"With the untrustworthy NeoConMan entryist group in control of the US Republican, how can any one feel safe to vote republican?"

Kind Regards Walker

[Garcia 0]

Beyond the fact of using nukes on a non nuclear nation, and being seen to attack another islamic country making it three in a row, there is risk the fallout will spread over either Pakistan or worse Mecca. I think either would spell the end of Musharef in Pakistan thus giving Bin Laden and Al Qaeda Pakistans's Nukes.

I really doubt any significant amounts of fallout would be released by couple of tactical nukes with low payloads. And as for Musharraf.. he might just take the Hama approach to the fundamentalists if things got really out of hand.

Quote[/b] ]

Say goodby to to Israel and the Middle east soon after and expect nukes in London, New York, Washington and all points west not long after. World War III any one?

I think the point is not to let them have nukes in the first place.

Honestly I'm more afraid of USA using nukes than Iran. Iran won't last long if they use a nuke. Iran won't be able to get shitloads of nukes without nations knowing. USA already got shitloads of nukes. USA is the biggest military power in the world. They are the only country atm that can do what they want (already showed that when attacking Iraq against the will of most other nations). Bush already said he wants to use nukes on Iran (and besides, who trusts a guy that says Darwins theories is BS and that god told him to attack Afghanistan and Iraq). Iran wouldn't use nukes anyway. I doubt anyone of the ppl in charge in Iran wants their country to be eliminated, which would happen if they started throwing nukes around. USA could nukes Iran without many reactions. So IMO it's much more likely that USA will fire off a few nukes than Iran doing it (and with Bush in the white house, that chance is like 10 times bigger than with most others).

[Student Pilot 0]

Quote[/b] ]Everyone that said you cannot trust any politician. Clearly by definition they think the NeoConMen of TBA are untrustworthy.

That's all fine and good but make sure you report the entirety of what everyone has said, that you can't trust a politician.  Singling out TBA is taking everyone's comments totally out of context.

Quote[/b] ]That is what the current battle dividing the US republican party is about.

No, the current battle in the Republican party is over conservatism and liberalism.  There are far too many liberals in the republican party and the conservatives are starting to take a stand against them.

Quote[/b] ]Yes I would expect any right speaking person who favours debate and free speach to answer it.

I don't mind debate.  However, I don't consider being asked completely biased questions and then having my answers twisted to support these biased questions debate.  

A debatable question is one like "is the war in Iraq just?"  or "is the education bill beneficial to today's schools?" or "Should Roe vs Wade be overturned?"

You are not presenting debatable questions.  You are presenting personal opinions and statements in the form of a question.

@Garcia

Don't forget the political consequences of some US president launching nukes.  He'd better have a damn good reason or he's toast.

-Pilot

[Supah 0]

@Garcia

Don't forget the political consequences of some US president launching nukes.  He'd better have a damn good reason or he's toast.

-Pilot

Who was going to ask those questions of him? The moment ICBM's are launched any country in the world that has them will probably launch them. For the first few seconds to minutes its anyones guess where that bird is going to land, it might be russia, it might be china, it might be tora bora. I doubt russia is gonna go "O well lets wait and see where this goes before we strike back".

@Garcia: yes fun isnt it! Someone who claims devine guidance in attacking countries without solid arguments to support such military aggression calling someone else a dangerous religious extremist