Portrait of the average American voter...

"Ken Tough" wrote in message Okay, you defeat me. I
can't continue to waste time on correcting
each erroneous post you throw out. It's obviously not going to change
your mind, any clear thinking individual has already been convinced
against your position, and it's turned into a many-headed hydra.


Cheers!


--
Ken Tough

Obviously, you read and believe a different set of URL's that I read and
believe. But you need more than just means and opportunity....You also need
motive. I just can't buy the Democrats explanation for motive. I don't see
anything gained by anyone from the Iraq invasion. All that talk about huge
corporate profits from the war is hogwash.....Even Halliburton said that it
was a loser, and they won't re-bid on it again. (and that comes from PBS,
which is a liberal news source.)

Mark² (lowest even number here) wrote:
Annika1980 wrote:
William Graham wrote:
Why do you want to eulagize Saddam Hussein?

I never said he wasn't a bad guy. I just think it's somewhat
hypocritical to act like he's this super-terrorist when we (the USA)
were the ones that propped him up in the first place.

That whole "we used to be pals" argument is just silly, and it brought up
all too often.
That argument is similarly wrong to the situation of a mother who is
murdered by her own son...being blamed for having had him in the first
place. The kid is still a murderer, and the mother shouldn't be blamed....or
the boy given a pass...simply because his mother helped raise him for his
first 18 years. Amazingly, this same sorry argument get thrown in
constantly.


A better analogy would be if you had a friend that you knew was a
murderer and a thief, and yet you did nothing about it until he stole
something from one of your friends and tried to kill a member of your
family. The US govt. knew Saddam was a bad seed, but we looked the
other way until he crossed the line into Kuwait.

It isn't about blame, it's about hypocrisy.

Annika1980 wrote:
Mark² (lowest even number here) wrote:
Annika1980 wrote:
William Graham wrote:
Why do you want to eulagize Saddam Hussein?

I never said he wasn't a bad guy. I just think it's somewhat
hypocritical to act like he's this super-terrorist when we (the USA)
were the ones that propped him up in the first place.

That whole "we used to be pals" argument is just silly, and it
brought up all too often.
That argument is similarly wrong to the situation of a mother who is
murdered by her own son...being blamed for having had him in the
first place. The kid is still a murderer, and the mother shouldn't
be blamed...or the boy given a pass...simply because his mother
helped raise him for his first 18 years. Amazingly, this same sorry
argument get thrown in constantly.


A better analogy would be if you had a friend that you knew was a
murderer and a thief, and yet you did nothing about it until he stole
something from one of your friends and tried to kill a member of your
family. The US govt. knew Saddam was a bad seed, but we looked the
other way until he crossed the line into Kuwait.

It isn't about blame, it's about hypocrisy.

So should we have fought the Soviets in 41 because they weren't
capitalists...or joined with them against a common enemy (Germany)?
Good thing we joined them...despite our misgivings.
The war likely wouldn't have been won without them.

War ALWAYS makes for strange bed-fellows.
Nothing new there.
We adjust as necessary.
When Saddam was fighting Iran...he was worthing supporting.
That's just the way things work.
Wartime 101.


--
Images (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at:
www.pbase.com/markuson

On 13 Nov 2006 20:53:07 -0800, "Annika1980"
wrote:


The US govt. knew Saddam was a bad seed, but we looked the
other way until he crossed the line into Kuwait.

It isn't about blame, it's about hypocrisy.


Saddam was the enemy of our enemy. In that context,
his murderous inclinations were an feature, not a bug.

Ditto for the Taliban. We supplied them with SAM
missiles with which to shoot at the Soviets in Afghanistan.
The USA didn't give a rat's ass about the Taliban's
well-documented human rights abuses... until 9/11, that is.

Oh, and speaking of murderous thugs, endorsed and
supported (militarily) by the USA --

Anyone remember Augusto Pinochet ?
How about Rios Montt ?
Shah (Mohammad) Reza Pahlevi ?

Hypocrisy doesn't come close to describing US foreign policy.
Military coups, murder, torture, and death squads is the more
typical m.o.

But "they hate us for our freedoms." For sure.


rafe b
www.terrapinphoto.com

Raphael Bustin wrote:
On 13 Nov 2006 20:53:07 -0800, "Annika1980"
wrote:


The US govt. knew Saddam was a bad seed, but we looked the
other way until he crossed the line into Kuwait.

It isn't about blame, it's about hypocrisy.


Saddam was the enemy of our enemy. In that context,
his murderous inclinations were an feature, not a bug.

Ditto for the Taliban. We supplied them with SAM
missiles with which to shoot at the Soviets in Afghanistan.
The USA didn't give a rat's ass about the Taliban's
well-documented human rights abuses... until 9/11, that is.

Oh, and speaking of murderous thugs, endorsed and
supported (militarily) by the USA --

Anyone remember Augusto Pinochet ?
How about Rios Montt ?
Shah (Mohammad) Reza Pahlevi ?

Hypocrisy doesn't come close to describing US foreign policy.
Military coups, murder, torture, and death squads is the more
typical m.o.

But "they hate us for our freedoms." For sure.

I challenge you to run a country without having to make strange bedfellows
along the way...

Do you think we'd be friends even with France if we didn't need something
from them?
Welcome to reality, Rafe.


--
Images (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at:
www.pbase.com/markuson

"Mark²" mjmorgan(lowest even number wrote in message
...
Raphael Bustin wrote:
On 13 Nov 2006 20:53:07 -0800, "Annika1980"
wrote:


The US govt. knew Saddam was a bad seed, but we looked the
other way until he crossed the line into Kuwait.

It isn't about blame, it's about hypocrisy.


Saddam was the enemy of our enemy. In that context,
his murderous inclinations were an feature, not a bug.

Ditto for the Taliban. We supplied them with SAM
missiles with which to shoot at the Soviets in Afghanistan.
The USA didn't give a rat's ass about the Taliban's
well-documented human rights abuses... until 9/11, that is.

Oh, and speaking of murderous thugs, endorsed and
supported (militarily) by the USA --

Anyone remember Augusto Pinochet ?
How about Rios Montt ?
Shah (Mohammad) Reza Pahlevi ?

Hypocrisy doesn't come close to describing US foreign policy.
Military coups, murder, torture, and death squads is the more
typical m.o.

But "they hate us for our freedoms." For sure.

I challenge you to run a country without having to make strange bedfellows
along the way...

Do you think we'd be friends even with France if we didn't need something
from them?
Welcome to reality, Rafe.

Yeah.....Like the rest of the world never deals with these scum
either........

Starlord wrote:
" Liberals use this kind of logic all the time." WRONG. I am classed as a
Liberal, because one I notraly vote for that side, but not all the time,
there have been times I didn't care for either side and would vote for
someone like maybe the green party.

You have just done what all the so called high and mightys do, put everyone
who votes for the side they think right into one over all class.

I happen to be a Vietnam Vet with a 30% disabilty and it was ronie raygun
ragan who trye3d to get anyone with 30% or less taken off the VA rolls, even
if they where service connected, I had to fight for 14 years to get the
other 20% back after then first took it all away and only because I won the
appel did I get a whole 10% back and yet my knees which where injured in the
army never got better and I live on pain killers every day because of them.
Yet ones like Bush and his likes want to do away with a lot of the VA
services.

I was wounded on Luzon in WWll, went to a filed hospital, released and
rejoined my outfit. When I was discharged from service, the VA said they
couldn't find any records of my being wounded and hospitalized. A couple
of years later, I was hurt in an auto accident and just using my army
serial number, the hospital was able to get all my military medical
records, including copies of X-rays, showing I was wounded and hospitalized.

Screw the VA.


And the only reason we're over in that country now is because he wanted to
show up his old man who didn't do the job right the first time around.

I don't believe that. Too many other nations were involved with the
decision to oust Saddam. I don't believe G.W. can make another nations
do what they don't want to do.


Now that I've answered the rubbish, I'm going to set a message rule that'll
send this one down into the everliasting darkness of the Cyber Black Hole
and I don't belive it should even be on this newsgroup, I see nothing about
cameras or lens in it at all.

"nick c" wrote in message
...
Starlord wrote:
" Liberals use this kind of logic all the time." WRONG. I am classed as a
Liberal, because one I notraly vote for that side, but not all the time,
there have been times I didn't care for either side and would vote for
someone like maybe the green party.

You have just done what all the so called high and mightys do, put
everyone who votes for the side they think right into one over all class.

I happen to be a Vietnam Vet with a 30% disabilty and it was ronie raygun
ragan who trye3d to get anyone with 30% or less taken off the VA rolls,
even if they where service connected, I had to fight for 14 years to get
the other 20% back after then first took it all away and only because I
won the appel did I get a whole 10% back and yet my knees which where
injured in the army never got better and I live on pain killers every day
because of them. Yet ones like Bush and his likes want to do away with a
lot of the VA services.

I was wounded on Luzon in WWll, went to a filed hospital, released and
rejoined my outfit. When I was discharged from service, the VA said they
couldn't find any records of my being wounded and hospitalized. A couple
of years later, I was hurt in an auto accident and just using my army
serial number, the hospital was able to get all my military medical
records, including copies of X-rays, showing I was wounded and
hospitalized.

Screw the VA.


And the only reason we're over in that country now is because he wanted
to show up his old man who didn't do the job right the first time around.

I don't believe that. Too many other nations were involved with the
decision to oust Saddam. I don't believe G.W. can make another nations do
what they don't want to do.


Now that I've answered the rubbish, I'm going to set a message rule
that'll send this one down into the everliasting darkness of the Cyber
Black Hole and I don't belive it should even be on this newsgroup, I see
nothing about cameras or lens in it at all.

Don't you just love people (usually bitchy women) who shout something, and
then slam the door in your face? (or slam the telephone down on the hook) I
wonder if they are afraid you might give them a reasonable answer, and they
are afraid they won't be able to handle it.......

William Graham wrote:
"Alan Browne" wrote in

There are no other states. If you capture a terrorist he falls under

(your choice of the above) and he cannot be tortured. Otherwise what is
the United States?


Sometime ago, I stated (on this forum, I think) that non-citizens shouldn't
get the same constitutional rights as our citizens do. Everyone came down on

There was actually a case before the courts that prompted somebody to
start to go for a Supreme Court ruling. However it never went anywhere.

me like a ton of bricks, and informed me that I was wrong, and that today,

Yep.

any visitor here has all the rights and privileges of a citizen of the
US.....Now, (it seems) this policy is coming back to haunt us.....It does

There is no privilege other than the _protection_ of the US Constitution.

pose a dilemma, when it is applied to spies who are here to do us harm. Even
a non-citizen here on a visa, who commits a crime, can't be deported if we
don't know where he came from. And, if we do, what's to prevent him from
coming back to finish his mission? I don't think we can survive terrorism
under your rules, Alan. We have no control over our borders, and no right to
treat non-citizen insurgents as spies. So you insist that we give a fair
trial to all these creeps, before a jury of their peers, just like they were
American citizens......I don't think that's possible. So, our only
alternative is to just hand them the keys to our country, and meekly lay our
heads on the chopping block.......

You don't understand the difference between defence and a police state.

You also don't understand that if you declare people as POW, you still
can't torture them. The US practice of "exporting" people to countries
with less restrictive interrogation rules is just a legal workaround and
a moral disgrace.

And yes you can accuse non-citizens (and citizens too!!) of spying but
like any "free democracy" you have to have reasonable cause to bring it
before a grand jury &| judge. (Of course right now this is being
bypassed any time that someone can reasonbly be labeled a "terrorist".
Under this guideline an innocent Canadian (Arar) was arrested in the US
and then deported to Syria (where he was born) and then tortured by the
Syrians. This shoddy event is due to the negligence and incompetence of
Canadian and US officials alike.

The principle of US law was always "better a 100 guilty men go free than
that 1 innocent be jailed". This has been totally lost.

Countries that have had severe restrictions on borders has been a social
and economic misfits. The more severe the restrictions the more severe
the economic drag.

Canada and the US are the least restrictive countries in the world and
are mutually the largest trade partners in the entire world. I travel
to the US with a Quebec drivers licence, no problem (this privilege ends
next year due to US paranoia). We would go to the US without anyhting
but a verbal declaration. Now you need photo ID of some kind that has
some probable (not certain) link to citizenship. Next year (or
beginning of 2008, I'm not sure) Canadians will need a passport to go to
the US.

All of this will be restricive on economic activity. Day visits will
drop and harm commerce and tourism.

etc.

Cheers,
Alan


--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.

That_Rich wrote:
On Tue, 14 Nov 2006 21:43:06 GMT, nick c wrote:

I don't believe that. Too many other nations were involved with the
decision to oust Saddam. I don't believe G.W. can make another nations
do what they don't want to do.

Unless of course Dubya and Co. tell enough lies and offer up enough
threats.

Bunk.

If it's your intent to say political leaders in other countries like
Poland, Australia, England, Italy, Spain. etc., are stupid or run scared
you can lay that bunk on someone who would _want_ to believe it.


Geez, he made Tony Blair look like a buffoon, and I like Blair.

I haven's seen Blair behaving like a buffoon and I'm not a fan of Blair,
although in some ways I like the man.




RP©