Schoeler

erm...China, North Korea's master, has said bilateral talks is not the best option.. erm, no, they didn't say exactly that. The President said that. Don't ever confuse what the President says with reality, the two are few and far between. Last thing I heard was that the Chinese were encouraging us to engage in bilateral talks with North Korea until very recently. Now they want a stake in the process for their own gain, not for our benefit. Chinese Interests in North Korea In fact, South Korea is encouraging a bilateral engagement. South Koreans Believe Bilateral Talks May Work Better

Frankly, yes I do. Kerry has already said we are in it to win it. Â He says troops might begin to be drawn down in 6 months but it will probably be another 4-5 years before we can pull out. Â You really should research these things for yourself, instead of having your opinion given to you like the rest of the sheeple. Â I had assumed you were smarter than that. Â How sad. Again, you can look this up for yourself. Â I can't hold your hand through life. Â Be an adult and do the math. Â The information is available from a variety of reputable sources and Kerry has said it several times in public himself including at the last debate. Â Kerry wants to engage in bilateral talks with the North Koreans and let the IAEA into Iran under the threat of enhanced sanctions. Â Bush won't hold bilateral talks because it is against his religious beliefs to negotiate with communists, and you can see, just where that sort of thinking has gotten us. Oh by the way, you can look this up too. Â North Korea doesn't have the missile range to hit the targets you mentioned. Â In 2-3 years, they may have the ability to hit the west coast. As opposed to the President's? Â At least Kerry can tell the truth about our foreign policy right now, instead of pumping sunshine and roses up our asses to win the election. Â Bush is by far the more dangerous of the two. Oh boy, this one takes the grand prize for ignorance! Â Someone hasn't been doing their schoolwork. Â You should have learned by now that the President can go to war for 90 days without Congressional approval. Â You can check it out for yourself, but you probably think the source has a liberal bias. This is freely available online from any government source and is in the Congressional record. Â You could look it up, but that would mean thinking for yourself and we wouldn't want to do that. Â It would mean all that carefully absorbed propaganda would come unraveled and you would have to admit to being brainwashed. You are a classic example of the sad state of affairs in our educational system and the poster child for drastic reform.

Man, you are way, way wrong on that. The AC-130 was used in Vietnam. C-130's have been around since the 1950's. See for yourself More Facts

Hmm, the Boston Globe doesn't look like the bullhorn of right-wing propaganda to me, and an article in the Boston Globe of states It is also mentioned in the wikipedia article on John Kerry, and so far, wikipedia political entries have been rather levelheaded. The Boston Globe is indeed a right-wing rag, they are the paper running nasty editorials on Kerry all season long, AND the ones that baited Teresa into making her "shove it" comment. Â Last time I heard, the New York Times called them a propaganda machine. Kerry's transfer request stated he wanted combat on either swift boats, or failing that, PBR's. Â Anyone, like myself, who has served in the Navy can tell you that seeking either assignment was seeking to get deep into the shit. That Boston Globe quote has been trashed by all major newspapers and several cable news outlets. Â Check it out for yourself if you don't want to take my word for it.

That is swifboat propaganda, and has been proved wrong by almost every respected news outlet in the world. Read Kerry's transfer request for direct evidence that refutes this.

I expect both of you to show up for duty when your draft number is called, you being after all the more superior patriots here as you continually self-profess. There is no running to Canada anymore.

Well, let's not pay any attention to the real issues in this election like the war going to shit and people dying more and more often, let's focus on something that really matters, like whether or not some 30 year old documents are real or forged and whether or not Dan Rather is a closet liberal. After all, the whole fate of the nation hangs on Dan Rather's journalistic credibility.

http://www.channelcincinnati.com/politics/3718468/detail.html .... .. That's one example compared to what, one thousand? Also, he was assaulted by someone in the crowd, not assaulted by the officially sanctioned goon squad Bush has at his rallies to forcibly remove anyone who doesn't profess absolute loyalty to the President. At least hecklers can get into a Kerry rally and stay there. Try doing that with Bush.

Go to a Kerry rally and heckle Kerry, and see what happens... I have been to a Kerry rally and seen Kerry heckled. In fact I've seen him heckled on TV several times as well. The funny thing is, he responds to the hecklers by addressing their concerns. No one gets arrested or thrown out and everyone is allowed to attend. Perhaps you should go to a Kerry rally instead of making assumptions about what will happen. Then, you can be informed on the issue by seeing it firsthand. All new concepts for you I know. Take it slow, we wouldn't want to see you get injured.

Dissent is indeed verboten. Bush Requires Loyalty Oath to Attend Rallys More Loyalty Pledges Required Man Fired for Heckling Bush Mother of Soldier Killed in Iraq Arrested at Bush Rally Woman Fired for Having a John Kerry Bumpersticker There are literally dozens if not hundreds of similar stories. Â I'd say it is decidedly disproportionate towards the Bush crowd when it comes to abuse and intolerance. But then who would have guessed when you should be getting a brown shirt, jackboots and a neat armband at these sort of events since you support a person who started a war for the sport of it.

I'm sure the combat risks of almost-40 women are immense. What do you call someone who vociferously advocates pointless war and is planning to join the military ? What is this, "A Vote For Kerry Is Good Way To Dodge The Draft" ? You've obviously never had anyone close to you die have you? Never had someone die in your arms? You might just want to shut your mouth before you make yourself look even more like an insensitive ass.

Still fits. The Patriot Act suspends individual warrants in favor of blanket warrants in direct contravention to the 4th Amendment. The Supreme Court will stomp it to death for that as soon as someone brings a challenge in front of it. It also plays hanky panky with the 5th and 6th Amendments and Habeus Corpus with people being whisked off into the nacht and nebel (night and fog a term the SS used for their program that made people disappear) to Guantanamo Bay.

BoweryBaker, Another one for you: "Those who give up liberty for the sake of security deserve neither liberty nor security." -Ben Franklin Kinda makes you think about the Patriot Act a bit doesn't it? Franklin also said: "Beer is living proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy." So you know he was a pretty sharp guy! Lastly: "For having lived long, I have experienced many instances of being obliged, by better information or fuller consideration, to change opinions, even on important subjects, which I once thought right but found to be otherwise." So I guess Bush would call Ben Franklin a flip-flopper too. I call him and others like him someone smart enough to learn from their mistakes.

One sunny day in 2005, an old man approached the White House from across Pennsylvania Ave where he had been sitting on a park bench. He spoke to the Marine standing guard and said, " I would like to go in and meet with President Bush." The Marine replied, "Sir. Mr. Bush is not the President and doesn't reside here." The old man said, "Okay," and walked away. The following day the same man approached the same Marine and said, "I would like to go in and meet with President Bush." The Marine replied, "Sir Mr. Bush is not the President and doesn't reside here. The old man said. "Okay," and walked away. The 3rd day the same man approached the same Marine, understandably agitated at this point, who looked at the man and said, "Sir, This the 3rd day in a row you have been here asking to speak with Mr. Bush I've told you already that Mr. Bush is not the President and doesn't reside here. Don't you understand?" The old man answered, "Oh, I understand I just love hearing it." The Marine snapped to attention, saluted, and said, "See you tomorrow."

What would Jesus do? Ha, ha, ha! I thought this was funny. Eat that evangelical christians, your guy is the antichrist!

I consider this a pretty ignorant statement considering I'm a Democrat and have argued quite persuasively here in support of the end of the ban and the 2nd Amendment. Do you make ignorant generalizations about whole classes of people with respect to race, sexual orientation and economic status too, or do you save that for politics only?

Do I? Thanks for telling me that. I'm sure you'd like to live in a society of full personal vendettas. One man gets paralyzed the other one should be also. Let's see...I think I can find some differences between muzzle-loading muskets and AK-47. And I am also capable comprehending that there are some differences between 18th century US and today's. Tell that to the relatives of victims Washington sniper for instance. You are missing the point. Muzzle loading muskets represented the optimum in military technology at the time the founders allowed citizens to have them. They were the revolutionary era equivalent of assault rifles.

You might kindly ask your government to lift the ban against Stingers, AT4s  and explosive devices as well. You know, today you wouldn't face just infantry, cavalry and some cannons, but tanks and choppers... That ammendment might have been appropriate for its time, but today it is just a silly excuse. You won't be able to overthrow an US tyranny backed by its military with some assault rifles. One last thing - tyrannies are not enforced at the end of the barrel of an assault rifle. Far more, they are enforced by fear, distrust, collaboration and denunciation, controlled by elements ala Gestapo and Securitate... Is today's political situation in the U.S. so far removed from tyranny? The 2000 election The Patriot Act Unreliable news media Deepening divide between the American people Go tell the Iraqi insurgency they can't defeat a modern military power with IED's and a few assault rifles. I'd say they are soundly thrashing your argument.

We have guns in America for one reason and one reason only. The 2nd Amendment. That amendment came second after the first for a reason. The people who wrote the Constitution had just fought an armed rebellion against a tyrannical government. A rebellion they won by luck and the possession of personal firearms. They made sure to put a process in place for future generations of Americans should they ever find themselves oppressed by another corrupt and tyrannical government. First, they gave us the power to protest, assemble and publish articles of dissent. If that didn't work, they gave us the right to keep and bear arms for the purposes of maintaining a well regulated citizen militia. Said militia was to exist for the express purpose of overthrowing the corrupt and tyrannical government if it failed to respond to all the actions given in Amendment One. Now, given that we have firearms to protect ourselves from tyranny and today's tryanny is enforced at the end of the barrel of an automatic weapon or assault rifle, would it not make sense under the current laws of our nation that the citizens be equally well equipped should that power fall into the wrong hands or be used for the wrong purposes? If you argue otherwise, I would like to hear a credible reason backed by historical fact and the letter of the law as read in the Constitution. Save your breath though, you won't find one. Do I think everyone should own an assault rifle? No. But then again, I don't think everyone should own an automobile either. Both are machines designed for express purposes, one to kill, the other for transportaion. But both can be equally as dangerous if used irresponsibly. There are plenty of repsonsible people capable of owning and operating both and plenty incapable of owning or operating neither. Cars kill ten times more people in the U.S. every year than guns do, yet you don't see protestors in the street calling for a ban on automobiles. I grew up around firearms, enjoy shooting, and learned how to operate them and around them safely at an early age. By what miracle did this happen? My parents were thoughtful and conscientous enough to teach me to handle guns responsibly. If I want to buy an AR15, I'll be damned if I'll allow some asswipe whose liberal pinko hands have never even handled a weapon tell me I can't own one, or handle it safely and in a responsible manner.

35 years ago.... Bush has completely changed from that time. I guess Clinton, one of your favorite presidents, was not fit for command... How do you feel about Kerry's trip(s) to Paris in 1970? What did he say to the Vietcong delegation and North Vietnam delegation? How can a navy guy talk to a leader of a delegation that were killing fellow americans? He should of left it to the politicans. I think that is one of the major reason that some vietnam vets do not like him. Here's another reason: My choice is between someone who wiggled himself out of national guard duty and someone who lied when he accused his "felow" soldiers of attrocities and abetted the enemy. I'll stick with Bush. The entire Steve Plitkin story can be found here: Yesterday's Lies: Steve Pitkin and the Winter Soldiers Avon, are you seriously insisting that atrocities were not committed during the Vietnam War? If so, I know a lot of veterans including my father who could accurately testify otherwise. Shit, I could show you pictures of war crimes committed by both sides. Please tell me you don't really believe this crap.

What exactly has been holding him back? He has a republican Congress and a conservative Court. So far he's managed to completely fuck the country up and split it in half to the point where revolution is now a hell of a lot more than just talk. Now you eagerly await a Bush with even less restrictions?

I find you a hypocrite then. You know Denior does not have no proof that I'm a racist and he tries to go personal. Now, that is really low. I forgot he is your friend. If this was the 18th century, I would challenge people on this forum to a duel for insulting me. That's funny, because you've run away from every duel I've challenged you to.

Seafire6, I'm no surgeon, but I am a political scientist on my way to becoming a damned good attorney. I have little doubt that if the Bush administration or hopefully the Kerry administration can get the situation in Iraq together, the Iraqi people will be much better off, and I will admit that they are slightly better off now then they were under Saddam. Where I take isssue is with the Bush administrations' premise for going to war. It wasn't about engaging in a military adventure to free the Iraqi people from oppression, and frankly if the United States did decide to conduct that sort of foreign policy, there are other places in more desperate need of freeing. It was about WMD and the possibility they could be given to an international terrorist organization plain and simple. Now as you say, hindsight is 20/20. I have no problem with that. What I do have a problem with is the administration's use of what every CIA analyst free to speak about such issues calls ambiguous intelligence data at best, and out and out cherry-picking of desired information at worst, all the while that clear and unambigous information existed showing that both Iran and North Korea are pursuing weapons of mass destruction and do have direct links to terrorism. In case you forgot, those are the other two legs of the axis of evil. Now, we are engaged in an unnecessary war in Iraq and spread too thin to address the more real threats, so the whole reason for going to war is now a moot point. Our enemies will develop nuclear weapons and there is nothing we can do to stop them from giving those weapons to Al-Qaeda. Tell me, how happy does this make you about the adminstration's claims they have protected you and made you safer, or, will it take a mushroom cloud over a major American city to make you see that the Bush adminstration screwed the pooch on this one?

Oh really? Â And how many tens of thousands of innocent lives were lost because of Reagan's decisions? Â Actually, I really admired Reagan. He was like a grandfather figure to me. The last real Republican in my opinion.

After discovering that the patient's appendix was normal, do you continue to go around insisting it was not and then make every attempt possible to present a different reason for conducting the operation? Just wondering.