[Wart]

So mcCain is on the Campaign trail, giving speeches, whatever.

And there is absolutely no excitement about him. None.

Long time conservitives and the Neo-Cons are begging Johnny for something, ANYTHING for them to rally around, and Poor O'l Johnny just can't scare up crap.

Closest thing Johnny came to excitement was when he tried pimping his O'l Lady at Sturgis ....

Then Johnny pulls oue out, he names a woman as his VP running mate.

Suddenly there is a Buzz, an excitement about his candidacy. Except its not McCain who the excitement is about.

All this excitement is about the second tier, Palin.


Looks like Palin is the Lipstick on McCains pig.

[Reimann]

And it just burns your ass no end, doesn't it

[TheRican]

Not really. With the US's luck, McCain will keel over from old age and leave this country to that thing :shiver:

[GT40XStang9]

Originally Posted by Reimann

And it just burns your ass no end, doesn't it

She really does seem to be getting to him.

[Reimann]

Originally Posted by TheRican

Not really. With the US's luck, McCain will keel over from old age and leave this country to that thing :shiver:

Actually I think a lot of conservatives and Republications are quietly hoping for that.

[TheRican]

Originally Posted by Reimann

Actually I think a lot of conservatives and Republications are quietly hoping for that.

Thats the last thing we need; a hormonal woman in office.

[GT40XStang9]

Politics: Obama Campaign Ad Attacks McCain For Lack of l33t Skillz

lol @ title

[Reimann]

Originally Posted by TheRican

Thats the last thing we need; a hormonal woman in office.

Do you consider yourself to be a liberal or a progressive?

[Ike83]

Originally Posted by Reimann

Do you consider yourself to be a liberal or a progressive?

I think it may be far worse then that. He may consider himself to be a communist...er...I mean.....a Democrat.

[poboys 94]

Originally Posted by Ike83

I think it may be far worse then that. He may consider himself to be a communist...er...I mean.....a Democrat.

That's mighty slanderous of you, again you don't know what your talking about. Constantly spewing and mindless propaganda babble you pick up from other mindless dolts, or the TV. You support a religious theocratic society, overseen by a dictator, while wrapping yourself up in the American flag, you say you believe in the constitution and liberty, but are all for the trampling of those rights, because someone tells you it's all for the sake of "kicking some terrorist butt",and you believe that crap. According to Bush, the terrorists hate us because of all our freedoms, hell let's just take some of those freedoms away, then we'll be safe? You wouldn't know communism if it bit you on the **s. If you did you would see that under communism, there are 10 essential stipulations, and a few that America has in common with it already, or close to it, they are:
* Abolition of Private Property.
* Heavy Progressive Income Tax.
* Abolition of Rights of Inheritance.
* Confiscation of Property Rights.
* Central Bank.
* Government Ownership of Communication and Transportation.
* Government Ownership of Factories and Agriculture.
* Government Control of Labor.
* Corporate Farms and Regional Planning.
* Government Control of Education.
Communism believes in equality through force. That hasn't happened yet. In its system, individual rights are ground to powder and used to build its idol of absolute government control. Which Bush and the Neo Cons seem to embrace, preferably with him as dictator, as he once said. Communism embraces atheism and dismisses religion as the opiate of the masses, a system designed by the rich and powerful to keep the poor and disenfranchised in their place. It's also a good thing to use religion when you want to control a segment of the population by telling them all your policies and wars are missions from God. BTW, are the Democrats keeping you away from your church? Actually Bush and the Neo Conmen are closer to the ideas of FASCISM then anything else, here they are and compare for yourself -
* Powerful idea of nationalism
* Powerful executive control in government
* Lower human rights outlook
* Military reigns supreme
* Corporations wield great power
* Idea that National Security is at great risk to some threat
* Identifying of enemies/scapegoats that unifies citizens in Patriotism
* Mass media controlled by State and Corporations
* Fixed elections
* Rampant corruption
* Unlimited power held by police force
There was another tyrant who Bush's grandfather supported, that held fast to these ideas, and his name was Adolph Hitler.
So I guess that makes you a FASCIST sympathizer.

[CENTENNIALSTANG]

[Reimann]

Originally Posted by Ike83

I think it may be far worse then that. He may consider himself to be a communist...er...I mean.....a Democrat.

The reason I asked is because liberals consider themselves to be so high and might and for equality and all that and he made a completely sexist comment. It's been weird that since Sarah Palin was announced it has been the liberals and feminist, the people who should be the most happy about her being selected as VP, are the ones who have been attacking her.

[Ike83]

Originally Posted by poboys 94

That's mighty slanderous of you, again you don't know what your talking about.

And obviously you DO with your mindless conspiracy theories that never cease to bore and comatize the rest of the room. Preach on poboy. You're a lone soldier in the war against America.

Originally Posted by poboys 94

* Abolition of Private Property.
* Heavy Progressive Income Tax.
* Abolition of Rights of Inheritance.
* Confiscation of Property Rights.
* Central Bank.
* Government Ownership of Communication and Transportation.
* Government Ownership of Factories and Agriculture.
* Government Control of Labor.
* Corporate Farms and Regional Planning.
* Government Control of Education.

I find that this list generally coincides with the agenda that the Demcrats have today. In certain instances they support the abolition of private property if it means they can install a business that will provide the government with more tax dollars (Emminent Domain). They certainly support a higher Progressive income tax, and are sincerely trying to have a centralized everything...including a centralized health care system.

So thank you for proving my point even further.

[Ike83]

Originally Posted by poboys 94

* Powerful idea of nationalism

So to be safe, we better hate the country then...right?

Originally Posted by poboys 94

* Powerful executive control in government

The President has always been a powerful figure

Originally Posted by poboys 94

* Lower human rights outlook

Again, what rights are being violated? Nobody's violated ANY of mine yet...so why am I missing out on all the fun?

Originally Posted by poboys 94

* Military reigns supreme

Umm...we've ALWAYS had one of the most powerful militaries in the world. That's how we've remaind the world Super Power. However, we MUST get rid of the military altogether in order to distance ourselves from the fascist governments of the past...correct?

Originally Posted by poboys 94

* Corporations wield great power

This is a capitalistic country. Corporations SHOULD wield great power or else our economy will collapse.

Originally Posted by poboys 94

* Idea that National Security is at great risk to some threat

The IDEA? Do you NOT remember 9/11? Or do you just deny that it ever happened?

I love the fact that Bush has kept us SO safe in the war on terror that liberals now have the luxury of denying there's any present danger to our country. Good job G.W.

Originally Posted by poboys 94

* Identifying of enemies/scapegoats that unifies citizens in Patriotism

You mean like Osama bin Laden, Saddam Hussein, Kim Jung Il, and Ahmadinejad? Yeah, you're right, they're just scapegoats. No real threat to be considered.

Originally Posted by poboys 94

* Mass media controlled by State and Corporations

So what kind of crack DO you smoke poboy? 'Cause obviously you're forgetting that the media is controlled by LIBERALS. Keep smoking on buddy, I'm sure you'll catch that pink dragon one day.

Originally Posted by poboys 94

* Fixed elections

You mean elections where they RE-count the votes THREE times and STILL can't satisfy Leftie? It would appear you're just upset because you're a whiney liberal. Sorry wittle guy.

Originally Posted by poboys 94

* Rampant corruption

I'm sure you're referring here to the Clintonian era. You know, the era where MORE Presidential colleagues mysteriously disappeared then under ANY other Administration. The era where our President rented out the Lincoln bedroom in order to win more votes in 1996. The era where he DIDN'T have sex with that woman. And the era where our President LIED to the Supreme Court...tampered with official evidence...and bullied witnesses in the process. You're right, rampant corruption is definitely a sign of Communisism....er....Fascism.

Originally Posted by poboys 94

* Unlimited power held by police force

And I really don't have anything for this one...so I guess you win.

[TheRican]

Originally Posted by Reimann

The reason I asked is because liberals consider themselves to be so high and might and for equality and all that and he made a completely sexist comment. It's been weird that since Sarah Palin was announced it has been the liberals and feminist, the people who should be the most happy about her being selected as VP, are the ones who have been attacking her.

I'm a moderate. I hated Hillary (can't stand the woman) and it just seems to me that Palin was an easy way to capitalize on Obama's miss-step at the convention.

Plus and I don't like Palin, just rubs me the wrong way

[poboys 94]

Nationalism can often be both heroic and inhumanly cruel; the formation of a recognizably national state often responds to deep popular sentiment, but can and does sometimes bring in its wake inhuman consequences, including violent expulsion and “cleansing” of non-nationals, all the way to organized mass murder. The moral debate on nationalism reflects a deep moral tension between solidarity with oppressed national groups on the one hand and repulsion in the face of crimes perpetrated in the name of nationalism on the other.

Not to the point he becomes a dictator,
Most Americans are sick of the partisanship that has divided our country into warring camps of "Red" versus "Blue"and of the "culture wars" that have poisoned political dialogue so that citizens can't discuss important issues without being called "liar," "traitor," or worse. An issue has arisen however that should unite all Americans who value our constitutional system, regardless of party or other politics. A doctrine is being promoted that, because of the "War on Terror," the American president need no longer obey the laws of Congress—that the Constitution grants the president the sole authority to determine what policies and practices are needed for "national security," including violating laws whenever he determines that they interfere with his responsibility as "Commander in Chief" (even when Congress has not declared war). It is a bedrock value of our democracy that NO ONE IS ABOVE THE LAW—NOT EVEN THE PRESIDENT. The doctrine of presidential power now being espoused subverts this basic principle by claiming that the president has the authority to decide that any policy or action he decides is necessary for "national security" is by definition "legal," even if it violates constitutionally adopted statutes. Any official who is limited only by what he unilaterally determines is legal, has in effect unlimited power. A dictatorship.

Again, what rights are being violated? Nobody's violated ANY of mine yet...so why am I missing out on all the fun?

Amendment IV:
Freedom from unreasonable searches: The government may search and seize Americans' papers and effects without probable cause to assist terror investigation.
Amendment VI:
Right to a speedy and public trial: The government may jail Americans indefinitely without a trial.
Amendment I:
Freedom of speech: The government may prosecute librarians or keepers of any other records if they tell anyone the government subpoenaed information related to a terror investigation.
Amendment VI:
Right to liberty: Americans may be jailed without being charged or being able to confront witnesses against them. US citizens (labeled "unlawful combatants") have been held incommunicado and refused attorneys.

Umm...we've ALWAYS had one of the most powerful militaries in the world. That's how we've remaind the world Super Power. However, we MUST get rid of the military altogether in order to distance ourselves from the fascist governments of the past...correct?

UMM... No where does it say we are supposed to police the world, it has become apparent, that the over exuberance, and over glorification of the military, has become rampant, and a sign of nationalism, and empire building, that stretches our men and women to exhaustion, and to top it off this administration, treats them like s**t when they are all used up. And McCain voted against the troops, John McCain skipped close to a dozen votes on Iraq, and on at least another 10 occasions, he voted against arming and equipping the troops, providing adequate rest for the troops between deployments and for health care or other benefits for veterans.Don't you read the headlines of record suicides of military personnel?

This is a capitalistic country. Corporations SHOULD wield great power or else our economy will collapse.

Corporations are the dominant force in modern life, surpassing even church and state. The largest are richer than entire nations, and courts have given these entities more rights than people. To many Americans, corporate power seems out of control. According to a Business Week/Harris poll released in September 2000, 82 percent of those surveyed agreed that “business has too much power over too many aspects of our lives.” And the recent revelations of corporate scandal and political influence have only added to such concerns.

The IDEA? Do you NOT remember 9/11? Or do you just deny that it ever happened?

Oh it happened, right before our eyes, but if you think 19 Islamic radicals, taking orders from their leader who lived in a cave, hijacked 4 airliners with box cutters, and hit 75% of their targets while eluding the most powerful airforce, and security in the world, without the help of people on the inside, and at least 4 countries, then you believe the most tin foiled conspiracy theory there is about 9-11. But wait, that's right we went to Iraq to retaliate instead. Keep eating the

I love the fact that Bush has kept us SO safe in the war on terror that liberals now have the luxury of denying there's any present danger to our country. Good job G.W.

The most danger lies within, hell he didn't do chit about the ports, where only 10% of stuff gets checked. He hasn't made this country any safer, he's made it more dangerous for America, by helping to recruit more radicalism against the US. You don't know much about 9-11 do you?

You mean like Osama bin Laden, Saddam Hussein, Kim Jung Il, and Ahmadinejad? Yeah, you're right, they're just scapegoats. No real threat to be considered.

Scapegoats that have seen through his Americans who have been marginalized, and labeled unpatriotic, who have been demoted or forced to resign from positions in government who were not subscribing to his regime. Or the people who peacefully participate in demonstrations, and jailed, and innocent people being put on the no fly list etc.

So what kind of crack DO you smoke poboy? 'Cause obviously you're forgetting that the media is controlled by LIBERALS. Keep smoking on buddy, I'm sure you'll catch that pink dragon one day.

Ask yourself that, while your looking in the mirror, holding in your hit. You are clueless, and you have the nerve to come here and call people communists? There is no liberal media. But while some conservatives actually believe their own grumbles, the smart ones don't. They know mau-mauing the other side is just a good way to get their own ideas across or perhaps prevent the other side from getting a fair hearing for theirs. On occasion, honest conservatives admit this.

You mean elections where they RE-count the votes THREE times and STILL can't satisfy Leftie? It would appear you're just upset because you're a whiney liberal. Sorry wittle guy.

FWIW, I am an Independent. And again you need to be schooled on the election fraud perpetrated on this country.
In July 1998, a contract between the DOE and a Tallahassee firm was terminated. In November 1998, the DOE (under Sandra Mortham) contracted with another private firm, Database Technologies (DBT). In December 1999, (under Katherine Harris), the DOE renewed the contract. In May 2000, DBT merged with a company called ChoicePoint. That time line is based on a DBT Vice President's testimony before the US Civil Rights Commission. Sandra B Mortham [Secretary of State in Florida before Katherine Harris – was she also a campaign manager?] should go down in history as the architect of the greatest election fraud since Rutherford B. Hayes. But she’s done well for herself since disenfranchising thousands of African Americans and positioning Governor Jeb Bush’s brother to seize the White House in 2000.
Since leaving the Secretary of State’s office, the highest election official as it was then constituted, Sandy Mortham put the two most populous, heavily Democratic counties in Florida through another national embarrassment, with the result that an African American supervisor of elections lost everything but her name on the door.
But let’s return to the aftermath of the election debacle of 2000, when ballots counted by hand were mocked by Republican “spinmeisters” and optical scanners were operated more carefully in affluent, white counties than in poor, black ones. Electronic voting was promoted as the solution – touch screens that are fun to press and which, conveniently, leave no receipt [that is, “paper trail,” written record –ed.] to count later. A month after Mortham became a lobbyist (that is, February 2001) for the Florida Association of Counties, a lobbying group, she negotiated an endorsement arrangement with a manufacturer of touch screen voting machines, with impeccable Republican connections, to compensate the association for all those extra ES&S (Election Systems & Software of Omaha, Nebraska) machines sold. The timing of the endorsement was also peculiar: the iVotronics machines weren’t yet approved by the then Secretary of State, Katherine Harris, but was there any doubt they would pass her inspection?

I'm sure you're referring here to the Clintonian era. You know, the era where MORE Presidential colleagues mysteriously disappeared then under ANY other Administration. The era where our President rented out the Lincoln bedroom in order to win more votes in 1996. The era where he DIDN'T have sex with that woman. And the era where our President LIED to the Supreme Court...tampered with official evidence...and bullied witnesses in the process. You're right, rampant corruption is definitely a sign of Communisism....er....Fascism.

You are quick to only scrutinize one party and that's the problem, you are hopelessly lost in the delusion that the Republican party has not been taken over by extremist. You are so delusional, to the point of siding with anybody who takes up conservative talking points, under false pretenses. REPUBLICAN OFFENDERS

And I really don't have anything for this one...so I guess you win.

That would fall under excessive police force, brutality, torture during interrogations, and of course, tasering people to death.

And you left out Bush's grandpa being a Nazi sympathizer, I thought you'd run from that one.

[poboys 94]

Originally Posted by TheRican

I'm a moderate. I hated Hillary (can't stand the woman) and it just seems to me that Palin was an easy way to capitalize on Obama's miss-step at the convention.

Plus and I don't like Palin, just rubs me the wrong way

She's a Neo Con ploy that plays to the so called base, that is obvious to me. And she is clueless about the federal gov and foreign issues, AND she lies on top of it all, but Fascist peeps let all that slide.

[Wart]

Originally Posted by Ike83

I think it may be far worse then that. He may consider himself to be a communist...er...I mean.....a Democrat.

Oh, My!

I guess you told me !!!

[Wart]

Originally Posted by poboys 94

She's a Neo Con ploy that plays to the so called base, that is obvious to me. And she is clueless about the federal gov and foreign issues, AND she lies on top of it all.

Biology gave us only enough blood to run one head at a time.

But really, the McCain campaign was all but dead before he pandered and brought in Token ... I mean Palin.

With her popularity and dare I say ... Celebrity ... Token is not only the Lipstick, Token is also becoming the Pig. Isn't that a paradox?

Johnny has always been the Brides Maid, Now he gets to be the Brides Maid in his own Campaign.

[Reimann]

Originally Posted by TheRican

I'm a moderate. I hated Hillary (can't stand the woman) and it just seems to me that Palin was an easy way to capitalize on Obama's miss-step at the convention.

Plus and I don't like Palin, just rubs me the wrong way

I only ask because you insulted every woman and said none of them should be President. "Thats the last thing we need; a hormonal woman in office." That's not something a liberal or moderate should say. Insulting one woman is one thing, insulting them all is another.

Originally Posted by Wart

Oh, My!

I guess you told me !!!

This idiot thinks everything is about him. I guess he didn't notice that we were talking about TheRican

[Ike83]

Originally Posted by poboys 94

Not to the point he becomes a dictator,
Most Americans are sick of the partisanship that has divided our country into warring camps of "Red" versus "Blue"and of the "culture wars" that have poisoned political dialogue so that citizens can't discuss important issues without being called "liar," "traitor," or worse. An issue has arisen however that should unite all Americans who value our constitutional system, regardless of party or other politics. A doctrine is being promoted that, because of the "War on Terror," the American president need no longer obey the laws of Congress—that the Constitution grants the president the sole authority to determine what policies and practices are needed for "national security," including violating laws whenever he determines that they interfere with his responsibility as "Commander in Chief" (even when Congress has not declared war). It is a bedrock value of our democracy that NO ONE IS ABOVE THE LAW—NOT EVEN THE PRESIDENT. The doctrine of presidential power now being espoused subverts this basic principle by claiming that the president has the authority to decide that any policy or action he decides is necessary for "national security" is by definition "legal," even if it violates constitutionally adopted statutes. Any official who is limited only by what he unilaterally determines is legal, has in effect unlimited power. A dictatorship.

Maybe it's my fault that I haven't made my position clear on this issue. I am NOT in favor of a dictatorship, nor am I in favor of ANYBODY violating my rights. But here's the reality. First of all, YOU....and I...are NOT the ones who are being improperly detained here because of random conspiracy theories (well, on second thought, maybe YOU are.). If the President, or the CIA, or the FBI, or the police, or whatever form of government is going to take an interest in somebody, it's PROBABLY not in the government's interest to waste their own time. Which means, it comes down to WHO'S going to give...and WHO'S going to take? Are we going to worry about the AUTHORITY'S right to do what they fell is necessary in order to protect us? Or are we going to worry about the TERRORIST'S (or suspected terrorist's) rights to live as a normal person in society? I would rather see the government (in a POST-9/11 environment) err on the side of "protecting the country first" vs. "violating someone's rights". When you get down to it, SOMEONE'S rights are going to get violated either way we go. I mean, we either violate the TERRORIST'S rights to society, or we're going to violate the 3,000 innocent victims in 9/11 the right to LIVE.

I, personally, could really care less if I'm held up longer at the airport because security is using tougher measures. I'd rather be held up an hour extra, versus stepping blindly onto a plane that will later be hijacked by terrorists. So my point is, is that some liberals have begun to focus so much of their energy on the wrong part of the story. In war, things happen. To protect yourself against terrorists, or any other form of invader, you're going to have to do things quite differently. A good example would be how you can't say the word "bomb" in an airport anymore. Back in the day BEFORE 9/11, you might not have been looked at twice...but we live in a different time period now. And if this whole "violating people's rights" thing was really getting out of hand anyway, it would probably be all over the local news at an alarming rate. But the simple fact is...it ISN'T. The water-boarding "technique" worked EVERY time we used it...which wasn't even a handful of times at that. It wasn't like we were getting carried away with it, and I don't think the violation of people's rights has gotten carried away either.

The only people complaining, are the suspected terrorists who probably ARE up to no good. Other then that...most people are pretty happy that we're winning the war on terror and have successfully crippled Al Qaeda in Iraq. Sorry.

Originally Posted by poboys 94

UMM... No where does it say we are supposed to police the world

Well, for one, your Democratic party said it when FDR was President. He made it clear, in more words or less, that our mission was CLEAR. To not only help other oppressed nations and aid them in establishing a democracy, but to also help KEEP them a free people as well.

Originally Posted by poboys 94

Oh it happened, right before our eyes, but if you think 19 Islamic radicals, taking orders from their leader who lived in a cave, hijacked 4 airliners with box cutters, and hit 75% of their targets while eluding the most powerful airforce, and security in the world, without the help of people on the inside, and at least 4 countries, then you believe the most tin foiled conspiracy theory there is about 9-11.

Please give me a chance to APOLOGIZE for believing that 19 Muslim terrorists had ANYTHING to do with 9/11. You're right poboy, I'm so far off base.

Originally Posted by poboys 94

Ask yourself that, while your looking in the mirror, holding in your hit. You are clueless, and you have the nerve to come here and call people communists?

Umm...I think you took what I said a little too seriously. It was actually meant in a stereotypical jest. Although now that you've clearly stated the Communist agenda, I see that the Democratic agenda seems to line up with it quite nicely. Thank you for that comparison.

Originally Posted by poboys 94

There is no liberal media.

Oh man...that one was priceless!

Originally Posted by poboys 94

And you left out Bush's grandpa being a Nazi sympathizer, I thought you'd run from that one.

Is that kind of like Barack Obama being a terrorist sympathizer?

Just wonderin...

[poboys 94]

[QUOTE]

Originally Posted by Ike83

Maybe it's my fault that I haven't made my position clear on this issue. I am NOT in favor of a dictatorship, nor am I in favor of ANYBODY violating my rights. But here's the reality. First of all, YOU....and I...are NOT the ones who are being improperly detained here because of random conspiracy theories (well, on second thought, maybe YOU are.). If the President, or the CIA, or the FBI, or the police, or whatever form of government is going to take an interest in somebody, it's PROBABLY not in the government's interest to waste their own time. Which means, it comes down to WHO'S going to give...and WHO'S going to take? Are we going to worry about the AUTHORITY'S right to do what they fell is necessary in order to protect us? Or are we going to worry about the TERRORIST'S (or suspected terrorist's) rights to live as a normal person in society? I would rather see the government (in a POST-9/11 environment) err on the side of "protecting the country first" vs. "violating someone's rights". When you get down to it, SOMEONE'S rights are going to get violated either way we go. I mean, we either violate the TERRORIST'S rights to society, or we're going to violate the 3,000 innocent victims in 9/11 the right to LIVE.

Our rights to protest against governments actions, according to the Patriot act , could be classified as terrorist activities, you have no clue Especially not to even question how we got in the position we are today, because of 9-11 and you swallow the governments conspiracy theory, so as a result, that's why you believe everything they tell you. They are your Gods, who are you to question right? Just be a good sheeple. THEY COULD PISS DOWN YOUR BACK AND TELL YOU IT'S RAINING.

I, personally, could really care less if I'm held up longer at the airport because security is using tougher measures. I'd rather be held up an hour extra, versus stepping blindly onto a plane that will later be hijacked by terrorists. So my point is, is that some liberals have begun to focus so much of their energy on the wrong part of the story. In war, things happen. To protect yourself against terrorists, or any other form of invader, you're going to have to do things quite differently. A good example would be how you can't say the word "bomb" in an airport anymore. Back in the day BEFORE 9/11, you might not have been looked at twice...but we live in a different time period now. And if this whole "violating people's rights" thing was really getting out of hand anyway, it would probably be all over the local news at an alarming rate. But the simple fact is...it ISN'T. The water-boarding "technique" worked EVERY time we used it...which wasn't even a handful of times at that. It wasn't like we were getting carried away with it, and I don't think the violation of people's rights has gotten carried away either.

Again you are lost on what the ramifications are to INNOCENT AMERICANS. You don't even care that you believe in a doctrine that is based on deceit and fear. Your own government is terrorizing YOU, and you couldn't care less.

The only people complaining, are the suspected terrorists who probably ARE up to no good. Other then that...most people are pretty happy that we're winning the war on terror and have successfully crippled Al Qaeda in Iraq. Sorry.

Prove your statement that the only people complaining are the terrorist,. And we are winning the war on terror, says who, you?
How well have we done against Al Qaeda?
Here's one measure. Seven years ago, on September 11, 2001, Osama bin Laden and his deputy, Ayman Zawahiri—two men who have dedicated their lives to killing as many Americans as they can—were living in Afghanistan. Their hosts, the Taliban, possessed only primitive weapons and rode around in Toyota pickup trucks.
Today, bin Laden and Zawahiri are almost certainly living in Pakistan. Their hosts, the Pakistanis, have an arsenal of nuclear bombs and missiles with which to fire them. And the Pakistanis, including many in the military and ISI (its intel service) are becoming more anti-American as the Bush administration embraces their mortal enemy, India, with a technology-rich new strategic partnership. Under this deal, Washington will forgive India's decision to go nuclear and not even require that it abandon nuclear testing.And we are winning by paying off the enemy.
Paying Insurgents Not to Fight by Paul Craig Roberts
George Washington's Blog: Top Advisor to U.S. Military Confirms The War on Terror Is a Hoax: "There is No Battlefield Solution to Terrorism"

Well, for one, your Democratic party said it when FDR was President. He made it clear, in more words or less, that our mission was CLEAR. To not only help other oppressed nations and aid them in establishing a democracy, but to also help KEEP them a free people as well.

I meant NOWHERE IN THE CONSTITUTION. Not political parties. You keep answering with replies that move away from the actual question/topic.

Please give me a chance to APOLOGIZE for believing that 19 Muslim terrorists had ANYTHING to do with 9/11. You're right poboy, I'm so far off base.

You are accepting that as a fact then? Why hasn't OBL been charged with the crime. And you probably believe that the WTC was brought down by fire right? Then maybe the next time a skyscraper that size needs to be destroyed at free fall speed, virtually in it's own footprint, why bother with demolitions experts? Let's just light the thing on fire and wait an hour or so, sure would save a lot of money.

Although now that you've clearly stated the Communist agenda, I see that the Democratic agenda seems to line up with it quite nicely. Thank you for that comparison.

No mention of the Bush administration, being a twin to the Fascist party huh?

Is that kind of like Barack Obama being a terrorist sympathizer?

Just wonderin..

Much worse. You condone and support a criminal administration, and you are too ignorant to realize it.

[Ike83]

Originally Posted by poboys 94

Much worse. You condone and support a criminal administration, and you are too ignorant to realize it.

I don't mind debating different topics with you poboy, but are you capable of replying with anything else other then..."you're too stupid to realize", or "they've got you right where they want you", or "you're just another blind neo-con who follows the media."

I mean seriously poboy, make your point, post your ridiculous links to "the sky is falling" websites, and then move on. I have my opinion, and you have yours. So try to find a way to hold a normal conversation without consistently slamming everybody for not following you down the yellow brick road. The way I see it, YOU'RE the only one who thinks America is WRONG in every decision that we've ever made. I on the otherhand, would prefer to err on the side of caution and give our country the benefit of the doubt before I proclaim America the criminal in every situation that arises.

The fact of the matter remains, that no war is fought perfectly, and America isn't a perfect country. However, I am still proud of my country and couldn't dream of living anywhere else. Not to say that you don't, but isn't it a little odd that for as long as you've been posting on this board you haven't said ONE thing positive about this great nation? Why don't you spend a little more time talking about the positives this country has to offer, or are you under the impression that there aren't any?

And if you have nothing else to say besides, "you're to ignorant to realize what's going on", forget I even said anything.

[poboys 94]

.....So try to find a way to hold a normal conversation without consistently slamming everybody for not following you down the yellow brick road.

[Ike83]

My point exactly.