Ticasonar,

There are plenty of intelligent (D)s out here, but finding an (R) whose head is not up thier ass is an entirely different matter.

The most egrigious pork in the last session of congress was the Alaskan bridge to nowhere sponsored by Stevens (R) and Murkowski (R), but that is just the tip of the iceberg. On our side, Robert Byrd (D) is a porkmeister, so neither party is pure.

There are many ways that government can use taxes more effectively:

(1) BUILD a public transportation infrastructure that will move people to and from work quicker and at lower cost than privately owned vehicles. This has only happened in a few cities with very high parking costs so far. When I say BUILD, that means American labor for American street cars, not buying them from China.

(2) Devise a Health Insurance system that covers every individual by making every employer contribute $2 per hour worked. No more skipping out on these costs with part-time jobs or zero benefit jobs. This would equalize the burden whereas we now have a system where Daddy's company pays high insurance premiums while Mommy works for Walmart and Kiddy works for McDonalds who contribute nothing. Our present system is unfair, unethical and wasteful. Besides I resent needing an employer in order to get affordable group coverage.

(3) Anybody who equates the Bu$h failure in Iraq with the "war on terror" does not understand either. We must fight terror, but not by making America so hated in the world that everybody wants to hurt us. Military spending steals resources from civic needs and weapons stored in bunkers do not make society better.

(4) Free birth control for all women and truth based sex education instead of this abstinence only crap. World over population drives up demand for services, but drives up poverty and suffering at an even greater rate.

(5) Fiscal responsibility means that America makes most of what it buys and pays a fair market price for it. We must not exploit the poorer countries of the world by asking them to pollute their homeland in order to cut costs for our toys. America also cannot survive when so much of our wealth is being sent out of the country as evidenced by a massive trade deficit and the cost of government is not paid for as evidenced by a massive budget deficit. Recall that our nation had a budget surplus when Clinton was running the show.

(6) Let's improve public education for our children and provide free college tuition for "B" or better students. This will reduce the burden on families during the critical years before retirement and it will all come back in taxes paid by a better educated and more productive society.

(7) Raise the minimum wage in order to force what Ronny Dumass Reagun called trickle down economics. America is losing the middle class because labor policy is transfering wealth upwards and opportunity is being stiffled by those who control the capital.

(8) Alternate energy research and incentives rather than tax breaks to encourage our petroleum addiction and even Bu$h has begun to admit this is a dangerous addiction.

(9) Legalize marijuana so we can escape from the terrible republican reality that is destroying the world.

(10) Outlaw Fox News and Disney. All they do is lie to us and make stupid ideologues even dumber.

In this election season it is clear that the (R)s have absolutely nothing to offer except fear of Muslims, hate for migrant Mexicans and blame for of all their failures on anybody else.

Hot4ass2,

I agree with almost everything you say except item # 10. I watch Fox and Disney all the time and look at me. They haven't affected me one bit!

Jag

Ticasonar,

>>how will America be better off financially with the (D)s in charge when they constantly complain the (R)s aren't spending enough money on programs currently?<<

I didn't realize the Democrats were constantly complaining we aren't spending enough money on the Iraq war. What is your evidence?

And don't forget one undebatable truth. The the U.S.'s war on Iraq has bred a new generation of terrorists; it is exactly the opposite of a war on terrorism. Any contrary ideas aren't worth serious consideration.

smitopher: you said:

"If you really want to reform taxes, there have been several studies on how to create an efficient, mildly progressive tax that is cheaper to pay than avoid."

I too think this would be fair, and the best solution to our decaying economy. I believe that if enough people understood how this would help the average Joe, it could get done. Too many greedy fat asses however want to spend 80 cents of ever tax dollar on hookers and good booze however..........and if we speak out they send their hit men after us...............Hopefully we can get our heads out of our asses as a nation, get these fucking ultra-rich cock-suckers out of office and elect some human beings who actually care about what happens to America.

SP

Hot4ass2 :

Loved your analysis as well. Good work. I vote for you for president!

SP

Hot4ass2,
The only thing you said that made any sense is the fact that neither party is pure. Ok, maybe legalizing marijuana, but that is about it. Its funny to hear a Dem talk about free speech, but as soon as someone disagrees its another story. I would think you would protect Fox and Disney's rights in an equal manner. You want to outlaw them. Maybe the executives should be put in prison. Hmmm. Maybe we should ask Castro or Chavez what they would do. But seriously, shouldn’t all not be treated equally? And by the way, no one ever said life was fair. All of your posts on here seem like you have a huge chip on your shoulder. Have things not worked out for you? AZ

PS ok, I did see one other thing, we do need to break our addiction to oil. I would happily pay twice the price if we no longer purchased oil from the middle east/Chavez and the like, which would hopefully take away some of the power they hold over us. Are things a little fucked up? yes, they are, but am I going to let either side of the aisle work me up over it? No.

Hot4ass2 ... you and I think alike. Even to the point of our nicknames! I would add to your ten points, some others:

11.) Campaigns get free on-air time, to an equivalent amount for each qualified candidate, and NO MORE. In general, campaign finance needs to be overhauled in a lot of ways.

12.) Two words: proportional representation. Look it up if you don't know what it means.

13.) As I said before, change the "war on drugs" (and the "war on poverty," for that matter) from a military to an epidemiological / social model. They're our FRIENDS and FELLOW CITIZENS, these victims of circumstance. They aren't the ENEMY.

14.) Wage the "war on terror" more intelligently. Like, don't create a safe-haven in civil-war-torn Iraq, which borders Iran and thereby Afghanistan, for terrorists. Don't take away their prime deterrent. Don't provide the Middle East's youth (most of whom are without other prospects for a future in their homelands) with psychological and cultural motivators to hate us more, but rather cause them to LIKE us. Don't blow things up that don't belong to us unless there are real terrorists standing inside those things firing guns and stuff at us. Don't lie about weapons of mass destruction. Etc. Oh it's just too easy ...

15.) Make a parent rule. Children born to "unqualified" parents -- certain minimum education, that includes passing tests about birth control, abortion, basic school participation (daddy has to help with the homework), balancing a checkbook, etc. -- are "overseen" by professional care-givers, instead of left to their idiot parents' devices. Especially in our African-American community, the committed two-parent nuclear family, complete with attendant aunties and grand-mamas and good home habits and decent neighborhood schools, must return as the norm rather than the exception.

16.) Provide decent early-in-life sex education. Reduce the idiotic acculturation that hides sexuality from young women, implying that it is "dirty" to like the act of fucking. Make nudity and nakedness a NORMAL human condition. In fact, it IS the normal human condition, underneath our clothes or not. The current system teaches young women (strangely, young men seem largely immune to it) to believe in the "prince charming" myth, rather than in the "vibrator" reality. The intervening twenty years of unproductive lifetime, during which young women fail to provide adequate sexual services to America's young males except in exchange for large material gain, are lost time that could seriously jeopardize our nation's productivity. Just THINK how much less war those pent-up deadly-sperm-build-up Republican males would wage if only their shriveled up old hags of wives had been getting them off more regularly during their young adulthoods.

17.) National light rail network. Replace the trucking of goods by interstate with boxcar transport on trains. So much less dependence on oil, so much more ease of repair and maintenance, so much more coordinated distribution of resources.

18.) National, competent gun control. If you can read, write, pass a test, and fill out a form, you can drive a car. Otherwise you aren't supposed to. Well, since it's easier to kill with a gun than a car, why not make it harder to get a gun than a car? We need not eliminate them; we can even arrange for them to be readily accessible to the right people; but to distribute handguns among the inner city criminals as freely as we do? No wonder we are the murder capitol of the civilized world. What idiots we are ...

Azguy, to quote another real character from a fake show, "fiddle-dee-dee," "I don' know nothin' 'bout birthin' babies." No, wait, I mean, "he's dead, Jim," "I canna' change the laws o' physics." No, I'm sorry, I'll get it soon, hang on, I mean, "go ahead, make my day."

Arellius, "Relying on the govt to "spend taxes intelligently" flies in the face of my life experience," indeed. That's the heart of the problem.

In fact, why is it, exactly, that a higher-taxed society like Sweden or Great Britain can somehow manage to elect a government that does a better job of spending taxes than the USA? I'm sure that citizens of those countries would complain that their governments' spending patterns aren't ideal, either, but they'd also note that the Americans' patterns are even worse than their own. What is it that they know that we don't?

Here's another idea. The essence of laissez-faire capitalism is competition. But to compete is a divisive, not a unifying, instinct. In some manners, healthy competition can help both sides of the battle to improve themselves, and as long as the rewards and punishments aren't too severe, both sides learn to respect one another and even cherish their mutually competitive experiences. I remember fondly the guys who beat us, and whom we beat, in High School soccer, for example. "We used to play together" is as far as the animosity now goes.

But I don't really think Macintosh "remembers fondly" the theft of their entire modus operandi by Microsoft's Windows operating system. It isn't that Mac is TOTALLY destroyed, but they have become a shadow of their former selves precisely BECAUSE they lost at a competition. And Abraxas Petroleum? Are they "glad" that Shell and Exxon basically ended their very existence? In those cases, to "compete" in the market didn't necessarily bring about the best solution for the most clients or customers. The computer users of today have fewer choices (cf. "winner-take-all markets") and, probably, worse products. Oil investors certainly don't have more and cheaper gasoline outlets nowadays than in the past at which to power their (mandatory, necessary, not-just-a-frill in our economy) automobiles. Gas prices continue to go up thanks to competition.

To compete can mean, to beat up on the other guy so that he is spurred to improve himself. Or to compete can mean, to totally destroy the other guy. Competition is inherently divisive. Is it possible for a nation to base itself on divisiveness?

What unifies us? The fact that we are all free to destroy one another economically? (Heck, with our gun attitudes, we are all "free" to destroy one another literally.) Is it so important to us, to be vigorously competitive, that we must ruin our fellow citizens just to prove who's king of the mountain?

And I leave you with this thought: "double good double fresh double mint gum!"

(Message edited by book_guy on September 07, 2006)

Book guy, are you sure you are on the right site? Maybe you should go to www.leftistgeekmadattheworld.com

Do you see anything at all in the world that is right and not fucked up? Typically people that need a bad guy (republicans in your case) cant seem to get present with their own life, so its easier to focus on what others are doing.

OK, I am off to fuck the shit out of a sweet little Thai hottie, the worlds problems will have to wait. Later AZ

Bookguy's unemployed and living in Mississippi. At least he's writing goofy stuff here and not out with a couple of Uzis wiping out the local McDonalds or something.

Thanks Cat, I feel better now. AZ

BTW Cat, are you going to be out and about anytime soon. I have been reading your posts for a while now. I'd like to meet up with you. I will be in MDE Dec 29 through Jan 20

Colombia isn't on my radar screen at this point, but I'm always out and about.

The reference to Book Guy was from his discuss thread a few months ago about being kind of stuck in Mississippi after moving there for a job and then getting fired. Not sure if you caught it or not.

Actually, contrary to popular opinion, I am neither unemployed nor in Mississippi any more, nor have I generally been angry at the world (though it might appear so, via the medium of my Club Hombre posts, and I don't blame you for getting that message); nor do I think of Republicans as "the bad guy."

More accurately, I think of IDIOTS as "the bad guy." My "parent rule," item (15.), probably demonstrates that pretty clearly. Though I've just heard, that a compelling case can be made for the necessity of lower-brain-capacity mammals in the work force to perform rote and menial tasks, so I may have to reconsider.

Anyway, on the idiot front, in my opinion there are some sharp Republicans out there, and there are certainly some idiots in the Democratic party. I think if we were to instigate proportional representation, item (12.), we might have more than two choices.

Why do people keep pegging me as a Democrat? I absolutely HATE political correctness, vegetarians, the National Organization for castration ahem I mean Women, PETA, those idiots who want to require McDonald's to pay for obese people's heart medication, and all those frigid bitches like Andrea Dworkin and Dr. Laura Schlessinger who want to clamp down on pornography and strip clubs.

There are some things I have a problem with, about the Republican party, too, though generally it's not the platform per se, as much as the "system" by which they foist control (in my opinion unconstitutionally and often illegally) through elections manipulation. Oh, and fundamentalist religious zealots of the Protestant Christian variety, I don't like them either, and they seem mostly Republican. And that party's dependence on a coterie of very wealthy stockholders whose profit-gathering interests seem currently to take precedence over America's national security.

But then again, there were an awful lot of stockholders and profiteers behind the Kerry and Gore campaigns, weren't there? Can you say "Forbes"? Can you say "Soros"?

Ah, it's all fucked up. Time to mount an armed insurrection. Anyone want to move to Idaho?

When the missles start flying Idaho and potatoes may be the only thing left under the American nuclear winter; go to;

A must see;

http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/flash/end.php

PS: Book -Guy Good for you! I like your style and think you speak the truth.

SP

Hot4Ass2 - I said "to you intelligent (D)s out there" .... that implies I believe there are such. Response to your item #
(1) We currently have the cheapest form of transportation. We operate in a free market. I live in RTP, they are trying to build a light rail system that will cost so much, it would be cheaper to buy everyone a Lexus and pay for their gas. The only (only) places mass transit works are in high-density population centers.
(2) National healthcare doesn't work. Ask Canadians who come across the border to get surgery done before they DIE b/c their 'turn' hasn't come up yet. I support requiring people to purchase a health insurance package at 18 years of age and being required to pay for it for the rest of their life. Trick is, the insurance company can't drop their coverage either.
(3) The Founders did not write the Constitution so that the government could make society better. National defense is one of the few things the Founders actually gave the Federal government the responsibility. The military is doing a good job in Iraq. We are going to have a central base of operations in the center of all the stupid shiot, just like we did in Germany for 60 years. If Carter had any nutz he would have leveled Iran in '79 and built one then.
(4) Nothing is free. If a chica wants your baby, or the money from the FREE guvamint progrm, then the free condom will sit in it's wrapper or she won't take the pill.
(5) Clinton vetoed Newt Ginrich (R) and Tom Delay's (R) balanced budget at least once. Remember when they shut the govt down because Clinton wanted more money.
(6) Our education system should already be better. We spend more money now than ever before. Again, nothing is FREE. You want better education, push for more Charter schools and vouchers. Competition/free market makes things better. Tenure and overpaid central office educrats have only made things worse.
(7) There are very few people working for the minimum wage. Most are STUDENTS. Unless you live in a depressed part of the country, exactly how hard is it for someone with a touch of motivation to work hard, get promoted and make two or three times the minimum wage? Raising the minimum wage only makes things cost more. It does not raise that persons standard of living.
(8) I'm all for fuel cells, nuclear plants, solar and wind farms off Teddy Kennedy's home. Why aren't we using them now? Oh, because Americans buy what is cheapest and oil is STILL the cheapest option.
(9) I'm all about legalized pot and shrooms. If you can grow it and eat it or smoke it without refining it, it should be legal.
(10) Oh you, you're just being silly. Where else would you get your news? And who else can piss off the religous right like Disney when they embrace alternative lifestyle issues or programs.
......At present, I would say neither party has much to offer. The difference is that if the (R)s are in charge, we know that the Terrorists will be getting their arse whooped every moment of the day and less money will be spent on government. Maybe you will join me in asking Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reed to hold a press conference supporting the reduction in govt spending to 2000 levels when Bill Clinton was in office.
.....on the ILLEGAL alien issue I would suggest that neither (R)s nor (D)s have a strong stance here. NE and upper midwest politicians generally support open borders, while southern and southwest politicians generally are against it. The polls show that 70+% of ALL Americans are in favor of closing the border.

If we're going to let people just come in the USA, I would prefer that we let Colombianas, Thai chicks and Czech girls.

Forgive me for saying this, but I believe in this forum alone we have the makings to formulate the NEW declaration of independence from the Corporate UNITED STATES, and become "we the people of these united states" once again. We can all be the new signers, kick out the present group of assholes by running honest elections once again and turn this country around! What do you say?! All I want for my efforts is to leave town and rule Australia. I hear the girls are naturally horney there 24/7.

In the movie, "NATIONAL TREASURE" with Nick Cage, he reads part of the declaration out loud to his bud......."people just don't talk like that anymore......" What a poignant comment! We have lost who we are because we have forgotton our roots. Granted, America was formed through the annihilation of one race and the slavery of another, but these white dudes started an initial dream experiment (for their own race anyway) which has resulted in one of the most free societies on the face of the planet over the past 2000 years other than the Langeduc during the Renaissance.

Some suggested reading: Anything by Howard Zinn: Especially
"A Peoples History of America" Noam Chomsky is also one of my intellectual favorites.

If you have yet to see the movie "V for Vendetta", it is also totally worth watching. I believe it is a masterpiece for our troubled times. "People should not be afraid of their governments. Governments should be afraid of their people."

SP

PS - That popular book by Zinn may be called
" A Peoples History of the United States"

SP

Ticasonar, I pretty much disagree with all your points. Some are valid, in my opinion, but most are just silly. The one I'd like to discuss is nationalized health care. Or, national health insurance security, or wuddever you want to call it.

True, for major procedures that a small percentage of the population undergoes, a national plan could cause major facilities not to be available, if those facilities weren't built for profit. If, however, facilities were built where needed despite the lack of a profit motive (as did not happen in Canada) then lack of facilities would be no more of a problem under nationalized health care than is currently the case in the USA.

The lack of specialized doctors and fancy machines in Canada isn't due to their national health system. It's due to their lack of a large and vigorously outgoing population. They are a few doltish people spread across a big area. In the USA, we see similar migrations -- people from Montana often have to go to Houston if they get cancer, for example; I once traveled from New Orleans to Rochester, MN, for treatment -- farther than most Canadians would have to go! American's travel for health care just doesn't happen to cross an international boundary, but it's just as distant. I believe the argument that we'd "end up like Canada" is false -- we're much more populous AND we invest more in our technological infrastructure than they do. We have the critical mass that would essentially fulfill medical demand (fancy hospitals, new machines, more new fancy specialized doctors), unlike Canadians, who don't do jack-shit unless there's a law requiring them to. Americans have go-get-em proactive spirit, Canadians don't.

And anyway, I liked the free health care in Canada when I lived there. Getting pills when I had a minor bug was a lot easier and cheaper. Public knowledge of appropriate health-based behaviors was much greater. General education on health (including sexual health and practice) was much higher. Getting a wart treated was just a matter of filling out a form. Every woman could receive free birth control pills. Clinical trials for all the conceivable experimental treatments for AIDS were available to anyone who wanted to sign up, and there were public databases making it possible for sufferers to find out how and where. And people who wanted to be doctors were starry-eyed kids with idealism and love of medicine; few just wanted money and status and happened to be good at biochem, which is a trend in the USA now.

In the USA we currently have a system in which the rich get better health care than the poor (not my view of a just society) and, worse yet, the scientists don't make public health decisions -- religious leaders and politicians do! So, how's our sex-ed program going? NOT at all. Canada's way ahead of us on that score. I don't exactly dislike the health care that the rich get; I dislike the lack of it that the poor get. I'm not for taking the giant and chopping off its head; I just want to give all the short people next to him a boost up so that they can stand right at his height.

Another benefit of national health care. The silly little programs like distributing anti-virals during a flu outbreak turn out to be much more efficient. There was a minor SARS (or was it bird flu?) outbreak in Toronto; they contained it. If that had happened to cross into North America via Philadelphia's or Chicago's airport instead of Toronto's? We'd ALL be sick right now.

Another point: nationalizing health care in a smart way takes private companies out of the business of providing health coverage. Right now, nearly every employer out there "has to" (in order to keep up with the expectations among employees and basically give the "going rate" of benefits) provide an expensive solution. That's hampering economic growth. America's entrepeneurs are in the business of insuring their employees at a very high price, rather than investing in their companies' futures. All that money could be pooled, used collectively, and distributed more justly, all in one fell swoop. The costs to employers would plummet, general risk of disease and of malpractice would drop, and (if we did it right) overall costs for the same degree of health coverage would drop as well.

In developed societies, we have a general recognition that health is a public concern. Just look at our behaviors: we quarantine people with tuberculosis until they are cured, rather than letting their _habeas_corpus_ civil liberty overrule the general public's health; we try to make sure all babies get hygeinic births even if their moms are filthy freaks; we don't let broken arms flop about but think of them as something "you have to" fix.

To me, a generally just society ought to have a generally just health plan, because health is a "human dignity" issue. And it ought not be funded the way it is now, privately in the most expensive manner possible and in interference with economic development. Maybe the socialized medicine of Canada or Britain isn't ideal, but the totally privatized system we have now is silly. It privileges doctors well above their just state -- to the point that people who have almost ultimate determination over life and death (the closest that a human could get to godhead?) operate under very little oversight to prevent them from using their power in irresponsible or money-oriented manners. In fact, they are generally ENCOURAGED to choose those behaviors which gather profit, rather than those which heal patients. How many cosmetic dermatologists out there go right out of the business of treating burn victims in order to give JAPs their nose-jobs?

Here's my thing. If it turns out like Canada, well, that's not all bad. They migrate to the USA for major procedures? OK, so will we. But I think it will turn out better even than that. Some things work great under privatization (competition spurring better private growth, etc.), but I don't think health is one of them. Doctors shouldn't be encouraged to go into it for the profit; they should be in it for the human service. Right now, their opportunity to provide service is in almost direct odds with their need (or greed) for profit. That's a major problem we need to fix.

If I get a bad disease and I'm denied the right to continue to live merely because I can't afford special treatment, I don't want to have only one recourse: whining to the free market that it "isn't fair" and then up and dying. I want to complain to the authorities that the law has been broken and then see the cops come down on them, so that a hospital is forced to treat me fairly BEFORE I die.

OK, another point. The Republicans really suck at fighting terrorists. I really don't see why people think of the Democrats as "weak" on the international front. If Al Gore were in the Oval Office on 9/11, would things be better now, or worse? I think, overall, a LOT better if Al had been in charge (though I think he ain't no genius, and he's a far shade less capable than either Clinton or Reagan was).

As you put it, "if the (R)s are in charge, we know that the Terrorists will be getting their arse whooped every moment of the day and less money will be spent on government." No, we don't. Terrorists aren't getting "their arse whooped" now. And anyway, the point isn't to make major shows of arse-whoopage that make us feel powerful and strong and hurt a few figureheads. The point is to WIN the battle by ELMINATING THE THREAT.

To me, the current practices (vaguely conquering and occupying Iraq on false pretexts; ignoring Afghanistan or, worse, setting up the Taliban so that it can be a safe haven; angering extremists; eating up oil like it was candy) don't whoop terrorists' asses at all. What we need are intelligent people who recognize the complexity of the problem, don't get caught up in "one size fits all" solutions, don't need monolithic thinking ("ME GOOD, SADDAM BAD"), and PRIMARILY don't think that a mere SHOW of force will win this war on terror. Smart folks who can do several things --

+ use espionage, surveillance, and good honest detective work to find and stop plots

+ use force to conquer and effectively occupy important areas

+ make government agencies work together at a moment's notice (remember Katrina?) -- this can only be accomplished from the "bully pulpit" oversight position, the Oval Office

+ understand the "cultural" war, which is MUCH bigger over there than it might seem over here (in fact, I'd say it's 99% of the problem) and proactively win it

+ take steps to explain the successes to the American people

+ remember that the POINT is to SAVE our society and all the parts of it that we cherish, not SUBVERT it in the name of closing out the foreign threat (if you keep that in mind, then you have a whole new view of the foolishness of the Guantanamo detentions -- we aren't here to beat terrorists at THEIR game, we're here to win OUR game: protect FREEDOM and DEMOCRACY and HUMAN RIGHTS and DIGNITY; but instead, we break all of our own rules when we detain them!)

+ create a world where the threat reduces rather than escalates

The current administration is woefully failing. I don't know if this is technically a "Republican thing" or just a "Bush thing." I, sadly, am beginning to think it's an "American thing" or even a "human 21st Century thing."

In fact, I'd say that many of the choices made by the Bush administration in the department of "war on terror" as a response to 9/11 (and even, before-hand) are essentially doing two things quite deliberately and proactively:

1. further endangering the American public.

2. helping the terrorists.

These thrusts add up to increasing our risk of being victims, increasing the likelihood of attacks, increasing the world's number of terrorists, failing to address viable threats, failing to close known loopholes, creating more and more reasons that I shouldn't go out the door in the morning. There's not much ass-kicking going on out there, not that I see.

Where's Osama? If the President happened to be a Democrat, FOX news would have an "Osama still at large, XX days since 9/11" ticker permanently running across the bottom of their screen. Why Saddam Hussein? He was absolutely the OPPOSITE of al Qaeda in the middle east -- a non-religious (Baathist) power-monger who could hold them in check because they wanted the resources he wanted. Maybe you don't want to use Iraqi people like the pawns they were, in the struggle between Osama and Saddam (I would argue that this would be a cynical abuse of human life, regardless of their citizenship), but before we bombed Iraq, Osama had FEWER places to recruit, hide, blow up, build bombs, train his converts, distribute his video tapes, and gather unto him the populace.

OK, those are the two points I'd majorly disagree with you on, Tica, public health care and (R) vs. (T).

I hear ya on the Clinton vetoes, on the pot and shrooms, and other points. I especially agree on the way you linked a few ideas to the "cheapest price" notion. Public transit, for example, being so expensive that it can't work. To me, I don't really care how I get down the road -- I just want something viable, long-term, that smacks of smart planning. Oil is running out, so we need to reduce our current dependence on foreign oil. One way is public transit, plus the rail network for transporting goods, because it's more fuel-efficient. Eventually that efficiency gets passed along to the individual consumer; at least, that's how trickle-down would have had it ...

Book guy, that was hilarious. Got anymore? AZ

I honestly believe that if Gore had been inauguratated Jan 20, 2001 like he should have, then 9/11 would not have happened. The recession of 2001 would not have happened either. Al Quaeda needed a foil the same as Bush did. Bush and company wanted to invade Iraq come hell or high water, and Osama and crew knew this. They knew that if they would give Bush the reason, Bush would jump at the chance without thinking, and then Osama would have his goal of really firing up the Muslim world.

If anyone thinks 9/11 was meant just to hijack airliners and bring down buildings, they are wrong. That was step one in the "Bait Bush" plan, which has worked to about perfection. For a nominal fee on the part of the terrorists, they have succeeded in turning most of the planet against the US. The US economy is struggling for many people and there will be a recession within the next year. We've wasted hundreds of billions of dollars in Iraq, oil is twice as expensive as it was, the federal deficit is balooning out of control and a general malaise has gripped the country for years now. You can't take a bottle of water on an airplane, our own government is throwing the Constitution out the window whenever it pleases, the list goes on and on. If I'm a terrorist and I want to piss off and/or frighten the richest, most powerful country in the world, bleed it partially dry and turn it's people against each other and the world, then what Osama has managed to accomplish the past 5 years is perfection.

He set up the dominoes, then just waited for the Bush Regime to start knocking them over.

I don't know about this idea that Osama and his crew were trying to bait Bush and 9/11 wouldn't have happened without this factor. It appears they had this thing planned for awhile, and furthermore were active against the Clinton administration as well (U.S.S. Cole, as one example). Although it is always possible some link in the chain of events leading to Sept. 11 would have been disrupted under a Gore administration, this would likely have been more fortuitous than calculated.

OTOH, Bush couldn't have come up with a better "plan" to enhance the terrorists' position in the world than the one he implemented after Sept. 11. One of the questions I don't have a good answer for is whether Bush's "plan" (including the war on Iraq, and the failure to put sufficient resources into Afghanistan) was the result of abject stupidity on his part ("gee, the Shias, Kurds, and Sunnis will all be friends and will all love the U.S. and me for overthrowing Saddam"), or rather stemmed from evilness and revenge seeking (e.g., "He [Saddam] tried to kill my Daddy, that's worth wasting thousands of U.S. lives on, and many times more Iraqi lives").

"9/11 would not have happened if Al Gore had been inaugurated."

I'd like to hear more about this theory of yours since the administration Gore was a part of was so successful in stopping and responding to terrorist attacks during the previous 8 years.

Part of your "bait Bush" reasoning would have to be that al Qaeda knew Bush was going to become President when they started planning the attack years before. Maybe they stole the election for Bush!

These kind of comments, and the people that make them, are what is wrong with American politics right now. Silly and hysterical .....

AZ ... glad to oblige. Here's another good one. Gun control works. Really. Look at the stats.

LAguy ... I don't think it's either of your options (the Bush "plan" being A. abject stupidity or B. revenge). I believe the "plan" (ROFL, I like the use of quotes to indicate spurious word choice!) stems largely from profiteering. This is about Haliburton stock, and the way that people like Cheney have a strangle-hold on committee-based decision-making; it's not about a "plan" from a given person or administration.

Cato ... you go too far down the "conspiracy theory" route for me. But it does make ya wanna go hmmm ...

AZ ... really, I do think those two points of mine are valid (national health works; Bush = good for terrorists). I'm sorry you aren't in the mood to try to refute them, though. I'm not a dyed-in-the-wool adherent to any political point of view, so I think I'd be open to intelligent commentary from any angle. My "liberalism" is in strictly a social sense (for example I think we should all be free to fuck whomever we want, including prostitution and homosexuality, etc; thus making me the opposite of the "social conservatives" and other neo-Con-style fundamentalist Christian protestants running much of our current moral legislation); oh, and I'm kind of an environmentalist, though not 100%. My "conservatism" is in a mostly libertarian sense (thus making me quite similar to many aspects of the Republican national platform). I'm a funny mix.

Book-Guy: I agree - Bush and his buddies created 9-11 : If Gore was there we would have a totally different situation right now, and would not be fighting to keep politicians from using our civil liberties as ass wipes. Whomever believes that official 9-11 report is seriously challenged in grey matter.

SP

Oopps, sorry! I guess my post should have been for Catocony

SP

"created 9/11"

Please elaborate.

Arellius,

Do you think that a Gore administration would have invaded Iraq under the false pretenses that Bush did? Bush and his boys were planning the invasion before they got elected, it was a goal for the Republican Party. 9/11 gave them the excuse to do so, and as it stands today, every reason for starting the war has been debunked. WMDs, terrorists, connections to 9/11 - all false.

Should Saddam have been removed from power? Yes. Do you spend hundreds of billions of dollars and thousands of US lives (plus tens of thousands of casualties) and who knows how many Iraqis, alienate the world and 3.5 years later have zero to show for it except a doubling in the price of oil and a quagmire that will costs hundreds of billions of dollars and many more lives to get out of?

Would Osama have hijacked some planes if Gore was president? Perhaps. Would Gore have toppled the Taliban in return if they did? Yes, and I have little argument against the Bushies for that, although not using US forces to bottle up Tora Bora was a gigantic act of stupidity.

However, I do not think we would have illegal wiretaps, we would not have gulags set up around the world and in Cuba to detain prisoners without due process and in violation of the Geneva Convention, I don't think we would have US citizens sitting in Navy brigs without a due process, I don't think we would have illegal wiretaps of citizens' and the whole gigantic mess that is DHS. And this is the stuff that Osama really wanted, and he got it - and didn't have to work on it at all.

I have no idea what Gore would have done because I can't see into an imaginary reality like you can so confidently.

With respect, I wanted you to explain your belief of how 9/11 would not have happened had Gore been elected, but you instead chose to back off rather than defend it, which begs the question of why you said it in the first place.

Yeah, it's pretty easy to speculate what would or would not have happened if someone else had the stick. However, I find it pretty hard to believe that if we had Al Gore or another person as president on 9-11 that the terrorist attack would not have happened.

Yeah, it is very plausible that Pres Bush attacked Iraq to get "even" for Saddam's attempt to cap George Sr. I think in George Jr's mind making an example of Saddam would deter other would be tyrants...who knows...maybe there are others out there that have backed down and (obviously) we are not hearing a peep from them. Yet, George Jr's actions seemed to incite others to become more vocal (Chavez, Castro & the dude from N. Korea come to mind).

Yeah, attacking Iraq no doubt "rallies" Muslims and the "war on terror" makes one wonder if we and our allies are going about it the best way possible...I for one just do not know how to do a better job killing these guys. By the way, I think they must be killed because I am convinced that these radicals will never stop trying to kill westerners...unless we can somehow get the upperhand and make the consequences too painful for them.

Maybe we just need to really think out of the box? Genocide of the Muslim world is just too horrific for most westerners to stomach given what happened when the Nazis tried to wipe-out the Jews during WWII. However, maybe we need to draw lines and fight terrorism with terrorism in known areas where the terrorists hide.

There is no doubt that terrorists like to fuck just like we do...but these guys fuck to procreate to further populate their species...seems to me that most major terrorist figures have a bunch of kids with numerous wives. Perhaps we need to prevent these guys from sowing their seeds? Perhaps we could contaminate water & food supplies in and around where the terrorists are known to live with birth control? Put a cap on their ability to conceive and I think we would literally have them by their balls.

Additionally, through this application we would NOT be outright killing anyone (guilty or not)...we would simply prevent their ability to conceive. Once they stop having babies, it is just a matter of time before they capitulate.

Then if the killing of westerners stops...we stop seeding their water & food supplies reversing the effects of birth control and allow them to peacefully co-exist again. If they don't cooperate...we simply deny them their offspring.

Is this too extreme? Would we forever go down in history as the next Nazis? I don't know. But I can't think of any other way to stop these guys short of committing genocide and wiping-out the Muslim people.

AJ

Three GREAT films for the intelligent person;

911 in Plane Site: Dave VonKleist
http://www.ThePowerHour.com

9/11: The Great Illusion: George Humphrey
http://www.fearorlove.com

Loose Change: 911 Truth
http://www.loosechange911.com

There are about 100 others, many from other countries. But these are Americans and the best I have found.

If you believe;
1. Terrorists with box-cutters could have dominated the planes
2. Passports of the terrorists were discovered in the ruins
3. The heat from the plane explosions had the ability to collapse the buildings by the "pancake effect (fucking joke)"
4. That planes in the US can just disappear and then re-appear to crash into buildings, and we just didn't catch it.
5. A plane could crash into the Pentagon and create that little hole without initially collapsing the roof.

Don't even bother.

9-11 was an inside job that had to happen to push Americans into fear mode. Now they had all they needed to invade the Muslim world and crush American civil liberties.

My take on it from what I have read......as screwy as you may believe this may sound.....

1. The real terrorists worked from within under the noses of other most likely "good" security agencies, planning this for a long time.
2. The real terrorists are those who benefited from the murders. Who has benefited thus far.....hmmmm, lets think.....
3. Over 20 firemen on the site reported hearing multiple explosions in both buildings that sounded like a controlled demolition.
4. IMHO, based on these resources and many others available if you can look beyond Newsweek and FOX news, I believe wholeheartedly in what these resourses dictate.

Just since you asked......

SP

Thinking further:

If you were a Muslim terrorist, wanting to die for your cause and kill the evil infidel, would you really plan on bringing down the trade centers?

Think about this, really. How did this benefit the Muslim world? How did it better their position and agenda?

With the same amount of effort, or probably less, they could have crashed the NSA computer systems, blew up the stock exchange, I can think of 1000 other things a terrorist might do to fuck up the American way of life and the American Economy. Why be so showy and bring down the trade centers? Did Allah say,"yeah, you could totally fuck up their governmental profile, blow up a few cities at once and fuck up the national security main-frame, but forget about that......I hate those fucking buildings, so bring them down!!!!!!"

No.. Not likely. Remember that Hitler burned down some major buildings and blamed it on the people he hated the most; the ones blocking his power. After he did this he was able to rally Germany together from a shit-hole to a major world power in less than 2 years.

9-11 was a grotesque show put on by the power elite to begin taking over the world. Conspiracy theory? Fuck that! When something is staring you in the face we have Conspiracy facts, and all else is bull shit spin.

SP

What a fucking idiot

Arellius,

What do you think was the primary purpose of 9/11? Ignoring StevePenman's conspiracy theories, what is the purpose of crashing planes other than to incite a response? It's your standard guerilla war technique - make a flashy show of blowing something of the enemy's up, then wait for them to come after you so you can run and hide. This pisses off your enemy and makes them look stupid, and in return the enemy gets more angry and starts doing even more stupid things. Somalia, Lebanon, Vietnam, the Phillipines - we had that happen to us in those four instances just in the last century. We bailed on three and finally won the PI Insurrection with heavy loss of life.

So, if your purpose is to incite this kind of response, and I can make an intelligent guess that Osama knew that Bush would eventually end up going after Iraq, then just make the first attack and then sit back. Maybe Bin Laden expected to die in the immediate counterpunch, maybe he (correctly) predicted that he could run away and hide. I think his purpose at this point is to give the US a nice big shitburger to eat, and Bush has not only eaten it but asked for seconds.

Would Gore have done the same thing? We'll never know, but I can make a guess that invading Iraq and shredding our Constitution would not have been at the top of Gore's policy agenda. And with that being well known, then the expected payoff from 9/11 goes down for Osama, since crashing buildings (very doubtful they even expected them to crash, nobody else did until the first one fell) was not the end game.

People keep saying "wow, we haven't had a terrorist attack here in five years, things must be working". Well, who needs actual terrorist attacks when the US government has turned on it's own citizens, the vast majority of the planet despises the US, we're taking an economic beating on the world front and are being bled dry in Iraq. They don't need to launch attacks, the work's being done for them by the current administration.

People please! Argue politely.

I don't hold with the conspiracy theory. And I can't "prove" that Gore would have been a better respondent to 9/11 than Bush has been. But I do believe that the current administration has handled the American crises poorly -- REMARKABLY poorly. So much so, that it is evident (at least to me) that their motivations must be something OTHER than positive benefit for America as a whole.

That's how I come up with the idea that the profiteering motivates the administration more than anything else.

About the movies mentioned: I don't get my info from art or from popular entertainment. I do like art and popular entertainment but I don't believe the creators have a motive to present unbiased opnions. (Just ask any Republican whether or not they think it makes sense to get your knowledge about Detroit auto-making from Michael Moore ...) Frankly, the movie that Spike Lee has made about Katrina in New Orleans (my home town) is appallingly misleading.

Here's my thing. If I were filthy rich I think I'd be quite gleeful about the current reverse-engineering of the economy. My access to stock inside information, and to government contracts for the companies I ran, would be unprecedentedly profitable. If, on the other hand, I were not, then my administration would have convinced me to be MORE scared of getting killed by terrorists, MORE scared of family members getting killed while serving in the military, MORE scared of my country no longer representing freedom and democracy. Case in point? Even on this very forum, one recommendation for how we ought to respond to 9/11 is, to "fight terrorism with terrorism."

To me, that means we've already lost the fight. The POINT is to MAKE THE WORLD BETTER AND SAFER FOR DEMOCRACY. To export our "values" of tolerance, liberty, religous freedom from persecution, participatory democracy, and essentially the Western European Enlightenment's BEST ideas. Not IGNORE those ideas in the name of fortifying our borders or killing potential enemy converts before the enemy gets to them.

It's noble, maybe even overly idealistic. Maybe it's just plain old impossible to teach a dumb towel-head religious tolerance. But I'll die trying to do THAT, than trying to shoot him first, because then at least I'll know I'm on the right side. Ever seen "The Great Escape"? Pretty silly WWII movie. But there's this touching scene near the end, when Gordon Brown (name? played "Hudson" in "Upstairs Downstairs") and Richard Attenborough, allied soldiers, have been re-captured in Germany after getting out of the prisoner-of-war-camp that incarcerated them for the first half of the movie. The Germans, strapped for resources and sick of putting up with problematic prisoners, have just hiked them out of the truck and are going to gun them down in cold blood on the side of a highway. The two characters look at one another, realize what's going to happen, shake hands, and one of them says, "Well, at least we know we're fighting for the right side."

I want THAT kind of clear-minded point of view from my administration. We don't have it. That's the way I use movies -- for inspiration, not information.

I apologize for my part in getting off topic, but I can't resist getting the kooky left-ards started.

Cat, you are misdirecting. You said you didn't think 9/11 would have happened if Al Gore had been elected and I'm still waiting for you to explain that. If you are going to say something like that, at least have the courage of your conviction to defend it.

Steve, you are nothing but a caricature.

This is great though. Keep it up.

Ok, I've explained it three times already, let me try and simplify the explanation. My hypothesis: 9/11, like all terrorist/guerilla attacks, was meant to provoke a reaction. The attack was executed a specific way to provoke a specific response. The main ingredient in creating the response is the person in charge of determining what the response will be. That is, Bush and his administration. The attack most likely would have been different if there was a different administration, since the long-term response would have very likely been different.

I don't think Gore or really, just about any other administration (pick McCain if you wish) would have then done what the Bush regime has done the past 5 years. I believe 9/11 was executed to get this country to react the way it did - long term, which is how a smart terrorist/guerilla organization like Bin Laden's would think.

Think of the 9/ll attack as an igniter for a specific fuel. That fuel is/was the Bush administration's Neocon goals of ousting Saddam and taking a hardline on the Middle East peace protest. A different administration would not have had the same goals, and thus the response would likely have been different. Thus, a different fuel so a different igniter.

Cato -- interesting theory. I disagree with it, largely because I think the 9/11 terrorists weren't as closely linked to major long-term planning as your conspiracies would imply.

I think they ("the terrorists" as a whole) over-reached with 9/11. I think they got more, and more play, and bigger results, than they ever could have dreamed. And I think the perpetrators of the actual attacks (the men ON the planes, and the other dudes who ran the safe-house in Florida) were VERY distant from "world leadership" of terrorist organizations.

Their mode of operating, to me, is simply to fling out there whatever they can, and try to get away with as much as possible. Like a bunch of little kids playing war games, there aren't coordinated attacks which can be planned, then withdrawn depending on election results, in the manner that you suggest. They aren't competent to operate on the basis of that model (yet). Instead, the individual terrorists and individual cells run more independently, trying to impress their big bosses and get away with whatever they can.

I could see that SOME oversight exists -- for example, the selecting of dates and locations. Osama himself, or a schedule-coordinator deputy, might say, "nobody but Hakim is allowed to plan a big attack in July in Berlin; August is Youssef's for the Pacific Rim; etc." Otherwise, I can't see the back-and-forth communication you imply. It would have to go about "OK, so, we had airplanes into skyscrapers for the Bush administration, but since Gore got elected, we need to go after the Alaska pipeline because it will offend all the enviro-geeks that voted for him instead, and he will predictably close off the world's oil supply thus destroying Venezuela's economy, so we have to backtrack, everyone who learned how to fly a 747 has to lay low for a while, and all the dudes who have been practicing dogsled mushing in Canada's Yukon territory are now ordered to muster in Kamloops." Just seems too much of a stretch.

Anyway, they couldn't have predicted Bush's response -- I think THE WHOLE WORLD is amazed at how moronic his choice (invade Iraq?) has been, much to the glee of the terrorists, yes, but I can't imagine them having predicted it. Just the same as Kennedy invading Jamaica in order to thwart Castro during the Bay of Pigs crisis ... Not even someone like Castro would have relied on Kennedy being that stupid to the point that Castro would found his major long-term strategies on the basis of it. Iraq is a tangential choice, and therefore pre-Iraq it could not have been predicted by either side.

I do think that the type of coordinated response that you're suggesting CAN soon become part of the terrorists' planning. They're getting better at it fast, and we need to remember that they don't just sit around doing the same thing over and over. In the absence of Yassir Arafat, however, a new generation of terrorists doesn't know to whom they should defer in matters of terrorism training. Aside from the para-military militia camps where they learn to hike, dig bunkers, run obstacle courses, and fire a Kalashnikov (none are skills useful for urban terrorism) the world's "bad guys," though growing in number, are more fractured in organization. You'd think this would be good for the USA, but it's a good thing only in some senses, and a very bad thing in other senses. The disorder has lopped off the beast's head, but for a while the beast will just run around like a chicken without a head, much more unpredictable and therefore equally (or MORE) dangerous.

Ideally, I think, we Americans should foster two things --

1. friendship with all nations and cultures. We have something good to offer, so we shouldn't stuff it down their throats through invasions but rather should offer it for voluntary acceptance or rejection. "Win the hearts and minds" in the cultural war. Provide irrigation. Cause it to MAKE SENSE to people, that they WANT a type of American society, where they're FREE to be any of a number of cultural "myths" that they have about themselves -- pious, or merchants, or faithful wives, or whatever. Right now most Middle Easterners quickly associate the USA with decapitation (their own sense of the most final of punishments), with destruction of already marginal habitat (they scratch a living out of feeble rocky ground; then we go and bomb it!), and with marital infidelity (note Britney Spears' midriff). But few people in the USA think the same about the USA. Heck, we don't do decapitations, THEY do! The best offshoot of this plan, is that fewer young people will be easily converted to terrorist participation.

2. keep the terrorists at bay. There are lots of fronts where we need to do this -- espionage, conversion, defense, infiltration, etc. -- but one we are not currently considering is setting up international situations such that they are NOT condusive to terrorist growth. Keeping strong regimes in Pakistan and Afghanistan is paramount; stabilizing Iraq immediately; figuring out what the FFF to do about Lebanon, Syria, and Jordan.

I don't understand, in the simplest of senses, why my administration isn't doing any of this. Why is it so important to Bush to create situations in which it is more, rather than less, dangerous for Americans.

So when Al Gore is inaugurated, they decide it isn't such a good plan after all, leave their flight schools, pack up and go home to plan a different attack. Makes sense!

I'd like to hear more of these theories, especially from Steve.

Bush-haters,
What is your response to the fact that the 1st attack on the World Trade Center was during Bill Clinton's presidency and the majority of terrorists that flew into WTC entered the USA during the Clinton presidency?

How do you square the subsequent attacks on the USS Cole, Kobar Towers, Overseas Embassy bombings(2 of them) that also occurred during the Clinton Adminstration against the comments that Bush's policies have created new terrorists?

As a cap, please throw in an explanation as to why American interests around the globe have not been attacked since 9/11 compared to the number of times during the Clinton Administration.

Thanks,
TicaSonar

PS - Book_Buy - I didn't call your views silly and while you may not agree with my views, as a libertarian, you should be able to dialogue without getting personal. In regards to your 'wish' to have 'non-profit' medical centers, keep on. People in this world are able to purchase things based on their income. How many people with the intelligence, patience and nerve to be a doctor are going to go through all those years of education and sacrifice when they can get a computer degree and make more money in half the time? The answer is some, but it is in no way enough to guarantee quality health care at low cost. And poor people get good free health care every single day. Just go by Duke University or UNC-Hospitals and see how many poor and illegals they 'charge-off' every quarter.

>>Bush-haters: What is your response to the fact that the 1st attack on the World Trade Center was during Bill Clinton's presidency and the majority of terrorists that flew into WTC entered the USA during the Clinton presidency?

How do you square the subsequent attacks on the USS Cole, Kobar Towers, Overseas Embassy bombings(2 of them) that also occurred during the Clinton Adminstration against the comments that Bush's policies have created new terrorists?<<

(1) That there was an earlier attack on the World Trade Center, etc., has nothing to do with why I hate Bush; my hatred for Bush is based on what he has done during his presidency, not what earlier presidents did;

(2) The earlier attacks do not preclude that Bush's policies have created new terrorists. I'm not sure I understand your point, nor for that matter do I believe it is understandable.

(3) I wouldn't get too worked up about your last point; it may not last for long. If Al-Quaida is anything, it is patient. Moreover, I would rather have all the attacks during the Clinton administration than the one attack--9/11--that occurred during Bush's.

I don’t think we should have responded to 9/11 at all. Just think about it, if we would have just forgotten about the whole thing everyone around the world would still like us. Just because they killed all of those people doesn’t give us the right to kill in retaliation. And besides, the guys that did it died, so their debt to society is paid. My only concern is for the muslim families of the terrorists that died that day. I think the ACLU should look into the possibility of bringing a law suit against the airlines. If the planes had not been made available, the terrorists may have lived and been able to enjoy their lives. Besides, muslims were only expressing their frustration that the entire world is not muslim, which is understandable. They do have a right to express themselves. I am sure if we would have only just let them get their anger out of their system this would have all just blown over in a matter of days. When you let that kind of anger build up, shit happens. We brought this shit on ourselves. I am just worried if we don’t let them continue to do what they want, something bad is going to happen again. Can’t we just let it go?

All stupid ass talk aside, I for one am done with this thread. I have always been impressed with the level of conversation on this board until now. I am back to talking about pussy and where to get some. Like they say, pussy and politics just don’t mix, well unless you are a politician. This heavy shit is bringing me down. AZ

PS I do have a theory that Elvis was behind the entire attack, but like I said, I am done with this conversation and besides, I think we are being monitored by George.

Interesting how diverse our opinions are, yet laced with common threads? SP with his conspiracy "facts"...wouldn't that just be incredible? (SP - you gotta stop self medicating buddy...but I will admit, it is fascinating to wonder if this could possibly be, especially while getting jinky then warding-off charging pink & green elephants with a spoon). Then there is my suggestion to stop terrorism by finding a way to (temporarily) cause terrorists great pain...such as make it difficult for them to conceive...then wait them out...I admit bit far fetched...but plausible if concentrated in specific locations and regions...yes...I believe this would severely "bother" the terrorists who will always wonder whether they might have had a son. Book_Guy (and I apologize in advance), but you are just a plain ole weak ass whimp..."let's be nice to the crocodiles everybody and maybe they won't eat us!!! I know...let's feed them tofu to make their tummies full". Then Cat thinks the terrorist have "out thunk us" with a more diabolical plan of striking us, then waiting...and in the true sense of terrorism...allowing our fear of more attacks consume us from within like a cancer...I agree...this is what is happening, however, essentially the same group of Intel people are advising the Reps as would they the Dems...I don't think either party is smarter than the next...true Gore probably wouldn't have been as maniacal as Bush...but regardless who holds the White House stick...and as Arrelius has put it...the terrorists would have struck anyway...they were flight training for years...and we know this...so the arguement that the Dems could have prevented or significantly lessened what we are experiencing today is IMHO not valid.

AJ - I say nuke 'em before they nuke us lest we suffer a missile gap...

I'm intrigued at how someone formulates the kind of opinions and beliefs that have been expressed above, which is why I kept prodding them to explain. How do you get to the point where you think your own govt is as dangerous, if not more, than people that want to blow you up?

Anyway, I think I agree with SF_Hombre though. They all are ....

---

quote:

How do you get to the point where you think your own govt is as dangerous, if not more, than people that want to blow you up?

---

Yeah, I'd rather be blown up any day over risking the government listening to me talk to my girl about how I am going to fuck her up the ass. Give me a fucking break. Extreme times call for extreme measures.

Its interesting how easily people forget in 5 short years.

I really hate to say this, but the only way some people are going to understand this shit aint going away is for another attack on the US. What would it take 5,000, maybe 10,000 people to be murdered this time around? Wake the fuck up. Radical muslims will only be content when every last infidel is dead. Oh wait, I forgot, if it happens again it will be Bushes fault for making them mad at us. AZ


PS I know I said I was done with this thread, but I just cant help myself (I have a self-control issue)

I am amazed at the way that people will so easily throw away their liberties. Remember the commies? They were bent on our destruction. The same hoary old scare stories were used to try and destroy our rights and liberties.

Do you really think that, given the track record of the Bush regime, we are any "safer" now that we have shredded the principles which we as a nation are supposed to stand for? Oh yeah... you do.

The commies really did want to destroy us. They failed because their people knew we were a better place with better respect for the rights of ALL people, with due process for ALL people and opportunity for ALL people. They were wrong of course but we did not destroy what we had of our founding ideals in the battle.

I do not want to minimize the real pain suffered by those who have lost loved ones in the attacks of 9/11/2001 but I do want to contemplate the evil done by governments in the name of security.

The Nazi "Final Solution"
The Chinese "Cultural Revolution"
The Gulags of Stalin
The Killing Fields of Cambodia
The Genocide in Rwanda
The ongoing genocide in Darfur

---

quote:

Extreme times call for extreme measures.

---

Its interesting how easily people forget in 5 short years.


Yes it is .... yes it is. I don't think some of these people would have been making these theoretical arguments had they been on one of those planes or stuck above the impact zones in the WTC 5 years ago.

From Wikipedia

---

quote:

Appeal to Fear
An appeal to fear (also called argumentum ad metam or argumentum in terrorem) is a logical fallacy in which a person attempts to create support for her or his idea by increasing fear and prejudice toward a competitor.

---

---

quote:

False Dilemma
The logical fallacy of false dilemma (also known as falsified dilemma, fallacy of the excluded middle, black and white thinking, false dichotomy, false correlative, either/or dilemma or bifurcation), involves a situation in which two alternative points of view are held to be the only options, when in reality there exist one or more other options which have not been considered.

---

---

quote:

Begging the Question
In logic, begging the question is the term for a type of fallacy occurring in deductive reasoning in which the proposition to be proved is assumed implicitly or explicitly in one of the premises. For an example of this, consider the following argument: "Only an untrustworthy person would run for office. The fact that politicians are untrustworthy is proof of this." Such an argument is fallacious, because it relies upon its own proposition—in this case, "politicians are untrustworthy"—in order to support its central premise. Essentially, the argument assumes that its central point is already proven, and uses this in support of itself.

---

From Wikipedia:

Moonbat:

The term was originally rendered as "Barking Moonbat", suggesting that certain issues seem to trigger a reflexive response from some people much like wolves howl at the moon. It evokes the traditional association between the moon and insanity. While this term was originally coined to attack commentators on the Right, it was also used to afront Leftists.

Some bloggers claim "moonbat" is neither a general epithet for U.S. War on Terror critics, nor even a purely U.S.- oriented term. They say they use it only against those who construct elaborate conspiracy theories concerning American foreign policy.[citation needed] For example, someone who claims that George W. Bush caused the 9/11 attacks would fit this category. "Idiotarian" fits a similar context.

OK, I called you a dittohead, you called me a moonbat. That pretty much ends civil discussion. Good day.