Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 48

Thread: Saddam and Osama: A Love Story!

  1. #21
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    NJ
    Posts
    2,393
    Post Thanks / Like
    [quote][i]Originally posted by Jet Set Junta[/i]@Nov 18 2003, 01:40 PM
    [b] Pull all the "how are you so sure there's no link" and "you're just selectively picking your own soundbites that favor your viewpoint" twists on me you want, but you've admitted in the past you thought there'd be more "evidence" at this point in the game if this war was really about WMDs and an Iraq-AQ connection. Now the Administration is already talking about pulling out, so again I ask you: do you really think we're going to find more "evidence" to support the high-level average American viewpoint on why we went in there -- leaving out our usual and well-hashed-out arguments about PNAC, how this should have been done in 1992 and 1998, Clinton and Democratic Senators endorsement of the war, the "resolutions" of the "useless" UN, and -- least of all? --the honest goals of the "War on Terrorism"? [/b][/quote]
    I post the story as a response you guys posting every NY Times, anti-war [b]editorial[/b] you can get your hands on.

    You answered your own question. The liberal media cannot tolerate reporting on a story such as this because it undermines their objectives: to portray Iraq as an illegal war and President Bush as having a valid reason to prosecute it.

    I never said I thought at at this point in the game there would be more evidence. What has been provided thus far was more than enough to go to war. Terrorists were caught there and evidence of illegal weapons and programs were uncovered -- not to mention the 10's of thousands of bodies, all of which may have been American some day. Even without any evidence, the fact is that the Gulf War I was stopped because Saddam signed a treaty with the US and the UN. For 12 years he proceeded to violate almost every point, meaning the original Gulf War continued.

    As far as I'm concerned, this Baathist/Al Qaeda connection is just the icing on the cake.

  2. #22
    All League
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    851
    Post Thanks / Like
    [quote][i]Originally posted by jets5ever[/i]@Nov 18 2003, 02:04 PM
    [b] Hey Jet Set -

    OT:

    I am not interested in re-hashing our debate about gay marriage. However, in light of the Mass, court decision I have this question to ask of you:

    Does it bother you that it takes judicial activism to get to the desired end? I mean, shouldn't decisions like this be up to the legislature, which reflects the will of the majority of people? I know, I know, the SJC is merely "instructing" the legislature, with the caveat that they'll strike down anything that is inconsistent with their ruling.

    But it boggles my mind that the courts can simply subvert the will of the elected representatives of the people as easily as they do. We don't live in a democracy, we really don't. Regardless of whether or not you are for or against gay marriage, judicial activism is scary and I truly DO think the Democrats (because they can't win elections lately) are clinging to the courts for their agenda. This is party what fuels the present circus of nominee filibustering.

    (Before you bring up Florida 2000 as an example of conservative judicial activism, I implore you to use common sense and realize that, in legal terms, all the Supreme Court did was strike down the insanely activist decison reached by the Florida Supreme Court. "CAP Bush" the favorite nickname used by some is ironic, in that had Gore actually won due to the illegal, cherry-picked recount ordered by the Florida Court that is EXACTLY what Gore would have been. Hey, the electoral college is a dumb system, it really is. But Gore lost, fair and square. If those elderly Florida people could read ballots, maybe they wouldn;t have voted for Buchanon) - It is STILL funny to me to this very day that essentially a big reason why the Dems lost in 2000 is because a lot of them were simply too stupid to vote for their guy!

    This kind of touches on that:

    [url=http://www.nationalreview.com/goldberg/goldberg.asp]http://www.nationalreview.com/goldberg/goldberg.asp[/url] [/b][/quote]
    Personally, I think the terms "judicial activism" and "state's rights" are pretentious conservative code-words for any law THEY personally don't like coming into being through any court or federal legislature. I know there's plenty of intellectual conservatives who DO have a very consistent and articulate view on who should make the laws and why, but like you always say with intelligent liberals they are IMO a strong minority compared to the people who parrot these terms every time the touchy subjects of guns, gays, abortion, or jesus come up.

    We live in a society of checks and balances, and the role of the Courts IS to interpret the laws in the constitution and apply them to current cases and conditions. If they can't be trusted to do that, then why have them at all? Why have the Executive branch carefully appoint people and the Legislature approve those nominations? For all the claims of "activism", it's not like the courts can invent cases out of thin air -- people still have to come to THEM to get a case heard and judge it against current laws on the books. If the legislature disapproves of this, then they can and should come back and try to "improve" the laws. If the conservatives outraged about this Mass decision have balls, they should damn well come back and try to get their "man and woman only" hysteria engraved into law. Let's see how well that sits with the voters in 2004.

    If you want an example of crude "activism" that had NOTHING to do with a current court case, you need look no further than Justice Ray Moore, heroic freedom fighter to many. And what "freedoms" did he want? The freedom to practice his religion in his church or in his house or with his buddies as guaranteeed by the First Amendment? Nope, he needed the "freedom" to sneak his ugly stone hunk into the court in the middle of the night in hopes of making an impression on anyone who comes through the doors of the building to participate in a public Court. I know we kind of agree on this issue at least in terms of the ultimate ruling, but this to me is a far more blatant example of a Judge doing something outside of their job descrption with contempt for the law than a state Supreme Court hearing and voting on a case about the rights of gays.

    Now if you want to bait me with more weird examples, yes I've read some bizarre horror stories off David Limbaugh's website about some whacko judge in Texas who ruled that anyone 'caught' praying to themselves during graduation would be arrested, and that's equally wrong -- believe it or not the ACLU actually hears cases for discriminating against Christians trying to practice their religion fairly. But cases like that are still outnumbered by 20 - 1 by Ray Moore type jerks in state courts, school boards, and legislatures across the country. The only way a lot of these "differences" will be solved WILL be to get them standardized and judged upon once and for all in the books by the government we trust to make these decisions -- and they include (and IMO RELY upon) a balance of Judiciary, Executive, and Legislative "power".

    As for the Mass ruling itself, yeah I'm happy about it. I think this is the 21st century and still maintain that anyone "afraid" that the appeal and potential of heterosexual marriage would be remotely affected by the legality of gay marriage doesn't have enough faith in their own institutions. We'll see where this court decision leads us... be sure to call me up when the first quadro-sexual nymphomaniac polygamy bestiality court case is taken seriously and approved by a State Supreme Court. :rolleyes:

  3. #23
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    11,692
    Post Thanks / Like
    JSJ -

    Stephan Moore's objectives were not only shot down, he was fired for what he did.

    The Nevada Supreme court raised taxes!!! The Nevada constitution states that a governor can only raise taxes with a 2/3 majority of lesgislature votes. The Dem governor wanted to raise taxes but the GOP legislature would not give him the 2/3 votes. Do you you know what the Nevada Supreme Court stated??

    They stated that the 2/3 majority requirement was merely "procedural" and that the "substantive" duty of the legislature was to provide adequate funding for public education. Thus, the "substantive" aspect of the constitution won out over the "procedural" aspect. Great - only the democratic will of the people AND the constitution were both subverted by actvism. Who are the courts to decide what constitutes "adequate" funding?!?!? Seriously, this is insane.

    (This is from the paper National Review and they charge money for it online, so I am not posting a link - trust me, this is a true, recent story)

    What about Roe v. Wade is constitutional? Aside from our own debates about it, clearly there are cogent cases people can make for saying it is and is not constitutional.

    I agree about the checks and balances, but for you to think judicial activism is merely a buzzword is absurd, IMO. It may be wildly over-diagnosed, but it exists and you know it does. I also don't really accept your 20-1 ratio of Stephen Moore to liberal activistism cases, but whatever.

    The Mass legislature IS presently working on a bill that would define marriage as opposite sex and gay marriage is opposed by more than 63% of people in Mass and well over 60% in the USA. Governor Romney said he would sign a bill defining marriage suchly.

    You think opposing a gay marriage amendmant is a losing strategy in 2004?! Just watch, you'll be surprised. The groundswell for it is not nearly what the gay lobby (does THAT exist ;) ) would have us believe. In fact, many within that lobby have warned that they are moving too quickly and too aggressively. Supprt for gay marriage has actually DROPPED since the full court press these past two years.

    Let me ask you this - if the democratically elected legislature of Mass were to pass a law deinfing marriage as opposite-sex, if you knew that a majority of the public supported that bill and if the democratically elected governor signed that bill and the Mass SJC STILL struck it down, would you consider that to be judicial activism?

    Obviously - you can use absurd examples. Like if the bill said something like "Black people are 3/5 a person" and the SJC struck it down than that would not be activism. But you also KNOW damn well that such an amendment would never happen. It's be the same slippery slop argument you accuse me of making regarding quadro-sexual bestiality marriages (which was a good one, IMO)

    The "just cause" line will always be touted by those who agree with the ends and dismiss activism as just talk. "Well, gays SHOULD marry, so it's not activism." Perhaps, but that's not really the point.

    You talk about checks and balances, but who checks the Judges? They can lie or do whatever it takes to get appointed and then can go off on any ideological deep end they want to with impunity. They literally legislate bu fiat- that is frightening to me!!!

    Look- I know gay marriage is coming and I don't really mind that much. I just wish it came when the people of the USA wanted it and not before. Not by fiat.

    You know damn well that if it came to be and that somewhere doen the line a conservative Supreme Court just delcared gay marriage unconstitutional, you'd be screaming about activism...c'mon....

  4. #24
    All League
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    851
    Post Thanks / Like
    No, I honestly wouldn't be screaming about "activism" because it's NOT one of my chozen buzzwords like it is with the conservatives for some odd reason.

    If the Supreme Court DID use its fiat to outlaw domestic partnerships, enforce creationism teaching in schools, or -- to use a more fair example and turn your own question back on you -- overturn Roe v Wade (how would that sit with you if it was done under the same principles that the gay marriage thing is?) ... if it did any of that, of course I'd ***** to hell about the law and its impact. And then I'd do whatever it takes to inform myself of the issues, the impact of the law, and the chances of it being overturned by further legislative, executive, or judicial review, and any power I have as a voter in my district to affect that.

    I think most average liberals and conservatives think this way in the end; they are hoping to get laws they want passed, and fight existing laws, by whatever step it takes whether its through a court decision, a new bill, or (much less often) an executive order. I just wish catch phrases like "activism" and "States' rights" weren't so tossed around fickly when a lot of the same people are happy as a pig in s**t when a federal law (or a judge's proactive ruling) they like comes down the pike.

    I will admit as a predominant social libertarian that I'm biased towards any governmental series of laws/balances that keeps the gov't OUT of our personal lives and thus that might color some of my opinions on each individual case, but I think in the case of gay marriage the floodgates were open when 'domestic partnerships' became standard practice. Other than parables about the "politically correct" Judeo-hristian view of a happy society, in terms of cold law and benefits, civil unions and DPs in most areas ARE basically marriage except for the naming convention they are given. And when something boils down to a cute euphemism so as not to offend anyone or make their name sound 'bad', that is Political Correctness to a T; it's silly and it doesn't just exist on the Left anymore.

    I can see people holding out with a belief that homosexuality is nothing but an urban hip trend invented by Communists and satanists which will go away once America wakes up, and therefore being against any domestic partnership ruling that remotely validates their lifestyle. But to be in favor of (however grudgingly) domestic partnership but up in arms over its nomenclature and naming convention compared to the word 'marriage'? It just doesn't add up to me, especially to people with a secular worldview like yours. I do respect your right to an opinion on it, and I'm glad we seem to agree about most other civil liberties. Pass the bud (and not the Bud Light :D )...

  5. #25
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    11,692
    Post Thanks / Like
    [quote][i]Originally posted by Jet Set Junta[/i]@Nov 18 2003, 03:52 PM
    [b] No, I honestly wouldn't be screaming about "activism" because it's NOT one of my chozen buzzwords like it is with the conservatives for some odd reason.

    If the Supreme Court DID use its fiat to outlaw domestic partnerships, enforce creationism teaching in schools, or -- to use a more fair example and turn your own question back on you -- overturn Roe v Wade (how would that sit with you if it was done under the same principles that the gay marriage thing is?) ... if it did any of that, of course I'd ***** to hell about the law and its impact. And then I'd do whatever it takes to inform myself of the issues, the impact of the law, and the chances of it being overturned by further legislative, executive, or judicial review, and any power I have as a voter in my district to affect that.

    I think most average liberals and conservatives think this way in the end; they are hoping to get laws they want passed, and fight existing laws, by whatever step it takes whether its through a court decision, a new bill, or (much less often) an executive order. I just wish catch phrases like "activism" and "States' rights" weren't so tossed around fickly when a lot of the same people are happy as a pig in s**t when a federal law (or a judge's proactive ruling) they like comes down the pike.

    I will admit as a predominant social libertarian that I'm biased towards any governmental series of laws/balances that keeps the gov't OUT of our personal lives and thus that might color some of my opinions on each individual case, but I think in the case of gay marriage the floodgates were open when 'domestic partnerships' became standard practice. Other than parables about the "politically correct" Judeo-hristian view of a happy society, in terms of cold law and benefits, civil unions and DPs in most areas ARE basically marriage except for the naming convention they are given. And when something boils down to a cute euphemism so as not to offend anyone or make their name sound 'bad', that is Political Correctness to a T; it's silly and it doesn't just exist on the Left anymore.

    I can see people holding out with a belief that homosexuality is nothing but an urban hip trend invented by Communists and satanists which will go away once America wakes up, and therefore being against any domestic partnership ruling that remotely validates their lifestyle. But to be in favor of (however grudgingly) domestic partnership but up in arms over its nomenclature and naming convention compared to the word 'marriage'? It just doesn't add up to me, especially to people with a secular worldview like yours. I do respect your right to an opinion on it, and I'm glad we seem to agree about most other civil liberties. Pass the bud (and not the Bud Light :D )... [/b][/quote]
    Well, that's a pretty good post....can't find much wrong with it. I disagree that activism is a fictional buzzword. I think it exists and is probably wildy over-diagnosed, but exists nonetheless. That Nevada example is particularly ridiculous, you have to admit that....

    FYI - Roe V Wade wouldn't bother me as much because the original decision was "activism" IMO. To correct activism with more activism is not as bad as generating activism, IMO. (Follow that?) If the legislature had made abortion lawful, than you'd have a whole new can of worms.....

    But your larger point is correct, in essence. I am "pissed" about activism to the extent that I whine on a chat room about it, but essentially I do the things you mentioned whenever a law is passed that I disagree with.

    I have some passionate views (abortion, Iraq War) and some less passionate convictions (death penalty, gun ownership, gay marriages). I am anti-death penalty, for example, but if a candidate IS pro death penalty it doens't bother me as much as if he/she were pro-choice. Also, sometimes I do understand how people support it...it's a vsiceral reaction to heniousness. But intellectually, I find it hard to accept that the government kills it's people pre-meditatively, and in cold blood. It just seems barbaric to me.

    Same for gun control - I support it, but I do have reservations about the NRA. I am kind of that way about gay marriage. I am against it, but not as pasisonately as you probably think. 9I enjoy arguing on this site, so I am sure my tone during our discussion was harsher than it should have been)

    But you are essentially correct about supporting "civil unions" while opposing "marriage" being a total cop-out. It's word-play nonsense as you said, so I suppose I should really think about whether or not I support it and decide once and for all to sh*t or get off the pot on this issue.

    Anyway - good show today. I am only making it to the Jets -Pats game this season...I'll be at 16H as soon as they let us in! Plenty of seats available and the bud would be on me!

  6. #26
    Jets Insider VIP
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Posts
    31,407
    Post Thanks / Like
    [quote][i]Originally posted by tailgators+Nov 18 2003, 03:04 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>[b]QUOTE[/b] (tailgators @ Nov 18 2003, 03:04 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--jets5ever[/i]@Nov 18 2003, 02:10 PM
    [b] It was the right thing to do before and it is the right thing to do now. Just because moveon.org doesn&#39;t have a mea culpa on their front page doesn&#39;t mean anything. We could find a huge warehouse of active WMD, capture both Saddam and OBL together and the NY Times would still downplay the decision to go to war in Iraq.

    Bush has stated the case and stuck to it from the outset, and yet you still accuse him of waffling. [/b][/quote]
    Disarming Iraq of its "Massive Stockpile of WMD&#39;s" was the primary and pretty much the only justification Bush gave during the run up to this war. To insinuate anything else is dishonest and revisionist. [/b][/quote]
    I guess you listened to only half the arguement as I continually heard "regime change in Iraq" as a major reason besides the WMD for going in.

    And why not...that prick Sadaam gave money rewards to the families of homicide bombers; or have we forgotten that??&#33;&#33;

  7. #27
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Kingston, NY
    Posts
    3,975
    Post Thanks / Like
    [quote][i]Originally posted by Come Back to NY+Nov 18 2003, 09:41 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>[b]QUOTE[/b] (Come Back to NY @ Nov 18 2003, 09:41 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> [quote]Originally posted by -tailgators@Nov 18 2003, 03:04 PM
    [b] <!--QuoteBegin--jets5ever[/i]@Nov 18 2003, 02:10 PM
    [b] It was the right thing to do before and it is the right thing to do now. Just because moveon.org doesn&#39;t have a mea culpa on their front page doesn&#39;t mean anything. We could find a huge warehouse of active WMD, capture both Saddam and OBL together and the NY Times would still downplay the decision to go to war in Iraq.

    Bush has stated the case and stuck to it from the outset, and yet you still accuse him of waffling. [/b][/quote]
    Disarming Iraq of its "Massive Stockpile of WMD&#39;s" was the primary and pretty much the only justification Bush gave during the run up to this war. To insinuate anything else is dishonest and revisionist. [/b][/quote]
    I guess you listened to only half the arguement as I continually heard "regime change in Iraq" as a major reason besides the WMD for going in.

    And why not...that prick Sadaam gave money rewards to the families of homicide bombers; or have we forgotten that??&#33;&#33; [/b][/quote]
    I guess you missed the State of the Union Address because nowhere in it does Bush indicate that the primary objective of the US was anything but disarming Iraq of its "Massive Stockpile of WMD&#39;s".

    BTW...Please spare us the ridiculous [i]FOX NEWS[/i] terminologies.

  8. #28
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    11,692
    Post Thanks / Like
    [quote][i]Originally posted by tailgators[/i]@Nov 19 2003, 08:40 AM
    [b]

    BTW...Please spare us the ridiculous [i]FOX NEWS[/i] terminologies. [/b][/quote]
    You&#39;re right, keep your terminologies accurate, like "CAP Bush" "colonization of Iraq" and "the criminal attacks of 9-11."

  9. #29
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Kingston, NY
    Posts
    3,975
    Post Thanks / Like
    [quote][i]Originally posted by jets5ever+Nov 19 2003, 09:46 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>[b]QUOTE[/b] (jets5ever @ Nov 19 2003, 09:46 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--tailgators[/i]@Nov 19 2003, 08:40 AM
    [b]

    BTW...Please spare us the ridiculous [i]FOX NEWS[/i] terminologies. [/b][/quote]
    You&#39;re right, keep your terminologies accurate, like "CAP Bush" "colonization of Iraq" and "the criminal attacks of 9-11." [/b][/quote]
    Bush was Court Appointed.

    Whether you admit it or not we are in the process of colonizing Iraq.

    The terrorist attacks of September 2001 were criminal.

  10. #30
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    11,692
    Post Thanks / Like
    [quote][i]Originally posted by tailgators+Nov 19 2003, 09:04 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>[b]QUOTE[/b] (tailgators @ Nov 19 2003, 09:04 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> [quote]Originally posted by -jets5ever@Nov 19 2003, 09:46 AM
    [b] <!--QuoteBegin--tailgators[/i]@Nov 19 2003, 08:40 AM
    [b]

    BTW...Please spare us the ridiculous [i]FOX NEWS[/i] terminologies. [/b][/quote]
    You&#39;re right, keep your terminologies accurate, like "CAP Bush" "colonization of Iraq" and "the criminal attacks of 9-11." [/b][/quote]
    Bush was Court Appointed.

    Whether you admit it or not we are in the process of colonizing Iraq.

    The terrorist attacks of September 2001 were criminal. [/b][/quote]
    True, Bush got no electoral votes and ther recount the Florida SC authorized was completely fair AND constitutional.

    Yes - American citizens are moving enmass from the homeland to settle in Iraq, and displace Iraqi civilians.


    Yes - by your logic Pearl Harbor was criminal too.

    You are a joke.

  11. #31
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Kingston, NY
    Posts
    3,975
    Post Thanks / Like
    [quote][i]Originally posted by jets5ever[/i]@Nov 19 2003, 10:13 AM
    [b] You are a joke. [/b][/quote]
    Good morning to you too&#33;

    Pleasant as 5-ever I see.

  12. #32
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    11,692
    Post Thanks / Like
    [quote][i]Originally posted by tailgators[/i]@Nov 19 2003, 09:14 AM
    [b] &#33;

    Pleasant as 5-ever I see. [/b][/quote]
    Another decent line....

    "Colonization" Tail, c&#39;mon - that&#39;s pretty absurd, even for you.

  13. #33
    Jets Insider VIP
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Posts
    31,407
    Post Thanks / Like
    [quote][i]Originally posted by jets5ever+Nov 19 2003, 10:34 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>[b]QUOTE[/b] (jets5ever @ Nov 19 2003, 10:34 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--tailgators[/i]@Nov 19 2003, 09:14 AM
    [b] &#33;

    Pleasant as 5-ever I see. [/b][/quote]
    Another decent line....

    "Colonization" Tail, c&#39;mon - that&#39;s pretty absurd, even for you. [/b][/quote]
    Don&#39;t even bother...this guy must be related to Oliver Stone. I recently pointed out in a post I belonged to a web-site intially responsible for an e-mail/snail mail campaign against CBS for the mini-series on President Reagan and the response to the post was:

    [i]BTW...your dumbass website had nothing to do with the decision by CBS to put the Reagan mini-series on Showtime. Viacom the parent company of CBS had the program pulled because their looking to gain ownership of 26 stations and need the Bush administration to veto any change the Congress is making to the recently passed FCC regulations regarding station ownership.[/i]

    Hell, even the TV Guide has an article this week stating "outcries from conservative group cause CBS to halt the airing of mini-series".

  14. #34
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Kingston, NY
    Posts
    3,975
    Post Thanks / Like
    [quote][i]Originally posted by Come Back to NY[/i]@Nov 19 2003, 11:26 AM
    [b] Hell, even the TV Guide has an article this week stating "outcries from conservative group cause CBS to halt the airing of mini-series". [/b][/quote]
    Oh&#33; Well if [i]TV Guide[/i] says its so then it must be&#33;

    BTW...Wasn&#39;t the Publisher of [i]TV Guide[/i] a personal friend of the Reagan&#39;s? I seem to recall that during his presidency he would always spend New Years Eve with him.

  15. #35
    Jets Insider VIP
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Posts
    31,407
    Post Thanks / Like
    [quote][i]Originally posted by tailgators+Nov 19 2003, 11:31 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>[b]QUOTE[/b] (tailgators @ Nov 19 2003, 11:31 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Come Back to NY[/i]@Nov 19 2003, 11:26 AM
    [b] Hell, even the TV Guide has an article this week stating "outcries from conservative group cause CBS to halt the airing of mini-series". [/b][/quote]
    Oh&#33; Well if [i]TV Guide[/i] says its so then it must be&#33;

    BTW...Wasn&#39;t the Publisher of [i]TV Guide[/i] a personal friend of the Reagan&#39;s? I seem to recall that during his presidency he would always spend New Years Eve with him. [/b][/quote]
    It&#39;s been in about fifty different publications, including [b]C[/b]ommie [b]N[/b]ews [b]N[/b]etwork...the TV Guide reference was just to show how ridiculous it was to say conservative groups had nothing to do with CBS pulling the show&#33;

    [url=http://www.cnn.com/2003/SHOWBIZ/TV/11/17/tv.reagans.ap/index.html]http://www.cnn.com/2003/SHOWBIZ/TV/11/17/t...s.ap/index.html[/url]

  16. #36
    All League
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    4,226
    Post Thanks / Like
    I never like to post on political issue because there are ass holes on every side. As a Vet who has been to war I can say this.

    Do we belong in Afghanistan. Damn straight they attacked us.

    Do we belong in Iraq. No way. Those sleeze balls don&#39;t want us there or our type or form of liberty. Why are we there? Simple, money...

    I don&#39;t believe half of what I read on either side of the coin. I have to ask who stands to gain on Iraq? I think we all know, If this was an attack on a supportor of terrorism than why haven&#39;t we invaded Saudi Arabia?(certainly they gave enormous amounts of money and support to Osama). Why didb&#39;t we, again money. I love this country and I have fought for it but please with the massive problems we have at home why isn&#39;t the president helping us instead of the rich money companies who are scrambling to get a piece of the pie in Iraq by enourmous contracts etc..

    I have seen too many young Americans die for a war that didn&#39;t benefit anyone. Call me whatever you want but I pray for peace daily.

  17. #37
    Jets Insider VIP
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Posts
    31,407
    Post Thanks / Like
    [quote][i]Originally posted by FloridaJet[/i]@Nov 19 2003, 02:56 PM
    [b] I never like to post on political issue because there are ass holes on every side. As a Vet who has been to war I can say this.

    Do we belong in Afghanistan. Damn straight they attacked us.

    Do we belong in Iraq. No way. Those sleeze balls don&#39;t want us there or our type or form of liberty. Why are we there? Simple, money...

    I don&#39;t believe half of what I read on either side of the coin. I have to ask who stands to gain on Iraq? I think we all know, If this was an attack on a supportor of terrorism than why haven&#39;t we invaded Saudi Arabia?(certainly they gave enormous amounts of money and support to Osama). Why didb&#39;t we, again money. I love this country and I have fought for it but please with the massive problems we have at home why isn&#39;t the president helping us instead of the rich money companies who are scrambling to get a piece of the pie in Iraq by enourmous contracts etc..

    I have seen too many young Americans die for a war that didn&#39;t benefit anyone. Call me whatever you want but I pray for peace daily. [/b][/quote]
    While I respect your opinion from your experience and certainly admire your service to our nation and keep people like myself free I disagree with your argument.

    First; it wasn&#39;t the Afghans that bombed us rather the terrorists that took over there nation...that was a problem that stretched back to 1995 and when we had the opportunity to do something about it the President at the time declined to act.

    Second; while you may be cynical about politics/politicians and with good cause I still believe much of what they say and I believe the President wholeheartedly when he says this is a different kind of war. While I understand your point about Saudi Arabia and agree with it much the same can be attributed to most of the muslim word in the middle east and to an extent SE Asia...so what do we do? Bomb the living sh&#33;t out of all of them? I wouldn&#39;t mind doing that but it is not the practical thing to do.

    Third; Hussien was a tyrant and terrorist and someone that would destroy America if he had the potential/opportunity and he had to be removed (imagine had we removed the mullah omar and bin laden back in 96/97).

    Lastly; this whole "war for money" angle is ridiculous. It&#39;s turned from "blood for oil" to "war to benefit America&#39;s corporations".

    America has always had problems; it just took the tragedy of 9/11 to open up to them.

  18. #38
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    NJ
    Posts
    2,393
    Post Thanks / Like
    [i]It&#39;s all about oil[/i].

    Are we supposed to ignore the fact that our whole economy and national security, depends upon imported oil? Perhaps if China or North Korea decided to strike, we could ask them to wait until we develop an alternative fuel source or retrofit our tanks, planes and ships with (inefficient) solar cells.

    Why is it even theoretically inappropriate to fight in order to ensure the continued delivery of a substance so essential to our survival and independence? Why is it inappropriate to take out a vengeful dictator, long before he could develop any kind of advantage?

    Before the war, the United States imported almost no petroleum from Iraq, but our little frog-eating "allies" got most of their energy from that country.

    I&#39;d still like to know why we didn&#39;t see any protests around the world after Saddam gasses thousands, or against Al Queda for 9-11 or these recent bombings of civilians.

    Maybe you liberal / moderates should concentrate on that little conspiracy.

  19. #39
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Kingston, NY
    Posts
    3,975
    Post Thanks / Like
    [img]http://graphics7.nytimes.com/images/2003/11/21/international/donk.184.1.jpg[/img]

    Is this what Bush meant by Weapon of Mass Destruction? :unsure:

  20. #40
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    NJ
    Posts
    2,393
    Post Thanks / Like
    [quote][i]Originally posted by tailgators[/i]@Nov 21 2003, 04:18 PM
    [b] [img]http://graphics7.nytimes.com/images/2003/11/21/international/donk.184.1.jpg[/img]

    Is this what Bush meant by Weapon of Mass Destruction? :unsure: [/b][/quote]
    You&#39;re right. Democrats (donkey party) are Weapons of Mass Destruction.

    Insurgents in Iraq are using donkeys as weapons.

    Insurgents in America are using the donkey party as verbal weapons.

    Coincidence? I think not.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us