Beachman has historically proven himself to not be very bright, so you shouldn't put much stock into his retarded conclusion that making a post on a Friday night and not having responses to it Saturday afternoon means something.

I'm unable to look at the videos where I am so cannot comment on them, but I can say from these and past posts that Beachman is too feeble-minded to tell the difference between liberals and the assortment of political identities that are critical of Bush.

Beachman also displays his remarkable stupidity in suggesting that criticism of Bush is related to cowardice. Just because Beachman is too stupid to understand many of us desire to fight and defend against existing terrorist threats rather than overextending our military while creating new threats doesn't make him more macho. I'm sure he'd be wetting his panties if he was in Iraq fighting people NOT responsible for 9-11 rather than spending his weekend at home in front of the computer.

That's enough of my rant for now, brothels await my arrival.

Actually, I found Beachman's points so trivial I didn't bother to look at the videos or respond. If he is suggesting there are SOME Democrats who are dumber than dirt and believe or believed al Qaeda was supported by Hussein, that's a pretty insignificant point and doesn't bear on Bush's own stupidity.

Only a complete moron, or someone who is completely mis-informed about how the middle east works would believe there was any significant relationship between Saddam and al Qaeda. Same for the idea we would march into Iraq and be greeted as heroes by the general population and the Shias, Shites, and Kurds would all become kissing cousins under our supreme guidance.

(Message edited by LAguy on September 23, 2006)

d'Artagen & Laguy-

Look at the videos and then comment.

To suggest that I am stupid because I suggest talking about one subject..... the Democratic view that they were lied to by Bush about WMD's......after I prove with the videos that the Democrats were certain and already knew that Sadam had WMD's years before Bush became President. In fact....John Kerry cleary states that he (and the Democrats) had known for 7 1/2 years that Sadam had WMD's. You are damn right they are cowards to now be redefining what WMD's are for political gain. We all know how Clinton redefined oral sex for politcal purposes.

Oh....Laguy....I am so glad to know you agree that Hillary Clinton is a MORON. On the 3rd video she clearly states that Sadam was giving aid, comfort and sanctuary to Al Qaeda members!

And to say I am not to bright....ypu are still pissed off that I told ypu liberals Bush would win in 2004 and the Republicans would keep a majority in both houses. And you will be more pissed off when they retain a majority in both houses come November.

The reason is that even though Bush and the Republicans may have solutions they are trying. And I think the majority of Americans still can see that the Democrats would operate much like the UN and we all know what a worthless, do nothing organization that is.

LA Times/Bloomberg poll 9/20/2006

Bush aprroval rating 45%

56% thought Bush's policies on terrorism & Natonal Security have made the country more secure over the past 5 years.

22% say no difference

20% say the country is less secure.

Beachman,

The problem with your posts is the extremely arrogant and condescending tone. It is entirely possible to make all of your points without using that tone. So I have to ask what objective it serves. To be honest, it makes people discredit your comments, rather than heed them.

I watched the videos and there is no doubt that there was strong bipartisan support for the Iraqi war. The democrats and many republicans are reassessing how well the war is going and some are finding that things have not turned out as planned. I find this to be a good thing rather than a bad one.

If you want to respond to me, please try to leave out the condesenscion and arrogance. That would be the best way to show off your intelligence.

(Message edited by bluestraveller on September 23, 2006)

So....78% say the country is more secure or at least at the same level!

You can't get Americans to agree on 78% on anything....but deep down inside 75%+ of Americans know that the rest of the World, the UN and the Democrats stance is more fucked up than the US. And their solution has always been to appeased fanatics until their Homeland's have been attack and they have had no choice but to fight on their enemies terms and have look to the US to come and bail their asses out.

So when the Democrats and some Republicans can stop putting there own political ambitions ahead what is right for America and stop back tracking when things don't go right and not taking responsiblity for there own miscaulations on their votes and actions for their own political ambitions.... I will stop calling them Cowards!

Bluestraveller-

I guess you choose not to comment that d'Artagen & Laguy are arragont and condesening in their tones....but after I rolled down this thread I see that you have on other ocassions you have reponded to other post that the author has been arragont and condescending and that those postings have been Republican view points.

You seem to be fair in your asessment of all postings of their content. But as you can see the liberals chose to believe and comment only on sources of absurd websites that support their view and when someone confronts them with video that proves their own leaders condridite their views they choose not only not to view but to ignore the evidence like it doesn't exist.

I don't agree with everthing Bush has done since 9/11....The illegal immigration issue is a joke and the first thing that needed to be done was to seal off the borders and account for every individual who is not an American citizen and validate their status. Both Bush and Congress have made a mockery of illegal immigration and in the long run that may be our biggest problem.

Beachman, your stupid posts warrant arrogant and condescending responses, or no responses at all. Now why don't you go suck on your pacifier, or maybe you'd prefer to suck on George W's dick?

Laguy-

It could hear your Howard Dean ranting in that post.

What is wrong....did you take a look at the videos...saw the facts from your Democraatic leaders and can not spin yoor way out.
What is your response to the videos or are you speechless because you know it is true. They have deserted what they said all during Clinton's terms and what was politically correct to say do and vote on. After all their claims even before Bush was President that Sadam had WMD's they now want to redefine.

It is like two men both having sex with a woman who both think and everyone else thinks that she is on birth control. She gets pregant and has a baby and one (Democrats) say it was a big lie so I have no resonsibilty and the other one (Bush) says even though I don't like it ....I have to see this though and take responsibility. Bad analogy....but it is along those lines.

The point is that everyone said he had WMD's and they voted to Iraq. Instead of blaming Bush that he mislead them when the videos clearly show that before he was President the Democrats where screaming that Sadam had, had used, was developing and trying to aquire more WMD'S and in the wake of 9/11 most everyone agreed to take him out of power. If there was no insurgeny at the level it has been...Clinton and the Democrats would be claiming the success happen because of there effors under Clinton!

Lets see, I see a bunch of PhDs, MDs, JDs and some general millionaires all taking the same side. Then there's Beachman's side.

Hey Cato,

Argumentum ad Verecundiam.

Argumentum ad Verecundiam? And here I thought Cat was simply making an impartial observation.

So only poor people, the great unwashed, the uneducated and religious nutbars are qualified to assess politics? Interesting observation. Keep this in mind - once you've paid six figures in federal income tax for one calendar year, your views on politics tend to get refined a bit.

No need to make the same error in reverse....

I'm saying if you're going to argue the issue, you need to argue on the ISSUE not on the PEOPLE making the arguement.

Wait a second....are you saying that the Democrats are now the party of the wealthy???

I would certainly argue that the clear majority of intelligent people are not voting for many Republicans these days.

What a pretty little circular dance.

Intel: War has worsened terror threat

The Iraq war has contributed to an increased threat of terrorism, according to an intelligence assessment that has not lessened the Senate majority leader's defense of the U.S.-led invasion three years ago and occupation.

The classified assessment of the war's impact on terrorism came in a National Intelligence Estimate that represents a consensus view of the 16 disparate spy services inside government, an intelligence official said Sunday.

. . .

The report found that the war has helped create a new generation of Islamic radicalism and that the overall terrorist threat has grown since the Sept. 11 attacks.

For the entire report:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060924/ap_on_go_co/us_iraq_2

To clarify, when I said above "for the entire report" I meant "news article."

Just finished reading the article and there are some very inteesting quotes that I think summarize the situation perfectly.

"Either we are going to be fighting this battle, this war overseas, or it's going to be right here in this country," Frist said on ABC's "This Week," echoing an argument that President Bush frequently makes.

This shows the lack of metrics regarding this war, and lack of focus on what we are trying to accomplish. The report states that the war has helped create more terrorists than we have killed. If we are to win the war on terrorism we must reduce the number of terrorists.

A good analogy is a football game where you only focus on offense and not on defense. You could tout all of your successes on offense, but the key measurement is the final score at the end of the game.

Sen. Ted Kennedy, D-Mass., said in a statement that the assessment "should put the final nail in the coffin for President Bush's phony argument about the Iraq war."

Sad to say, this statement is equally flawed. No study is going to create a solution to this mess. Bush still has two years in office, and I personally would like to see a solution before then. This would require both Democrats and Republicans putting down their swords and compromising on an alternate plan that gets to our ultimate goal sooner. The weird thing is that despite all the theatrics and politics, we all want the same thing.

BT,

Hard to compromise when "your either with us or against us". No way in hell the Bushies will bargain at this point, even if the Dems pick up one or both sides of Congress. Keep in mind, in my opinion, the Bushies still see themselves as winning, as having a mandate to govern (all 51% of it), and as having done absolutly nothing wrong and making zero mistakes. They will not compromise on any solution, they'll spin it and spin it until 2008.

Using a poker analogy, Bush is "pot committed" and has no choice but to go all in.

Solid,

I have thought of the gambling analogy often. Gamblers get caught in a bad run of luck and they just keep going back hoping their luck will ultimately change. I look at the analogy the following way.

1. The gambler is fighting just to break even at that point. We are trying to WIN.

2. The reality is the gambler ultimately always loses and the only winners are the house and the bookies.

The analogy is valid since a gambler feels like he has no other option. But Bush has other options, although he might be too proud to explore them. The analogy also holds because the first step in fixing a gambler's problem is getting them to admit they have a problem. It is worrisome to think that the president thinks there are not any flaws in the current Iraqi strategy.

One of the many problems with Beachman's use of a Republican video ad showing many Democrats stating Saddam had weapons of mass destruction is in many respects this is a side issue. Perhaps Beachman was correct that had we "won" the Iraq war and everything fell in place, including the sprouting of legitimate and moderate democracies in the Middle East, and good will throughout the Middle East and the world, no-one would be talking about the WMD fiasco. But this is not what happened.

Bush's famous mission accomplished theatrics, his failure to send sufficient troops to win the peace, his failure to understand the collateral consequences of his actions in Iraq, including the almost certain use of the Iraq war to recruit a new generation of terrorists (indeed, most commentators agree it was the first Iraq war and seeing U.S. troops in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait that resulted in Bin Ladin's conversion to extreme radicalism notwithstanding that THAT war may have been necessary) along with the outbreak of extreme sectarian violence in Iraq; the consequent strengthening of Iran as a regional power, and so forth.

Yes, Beachman you may be correct that if Bush hadn't made a total mess of everything, we probably would not be talking about WMDs. But Iraq is a total mess, the Middle East is a total mess, and the U.S. is held in contempt by virtually the whole world ALL AS A RESULT OF BUSH. Oh, and the article I cited above suggests the Iraq war (predictably) resulted in an increase in the terrorist threat against the U.S.

I see two major threats to the U.S. One is indeed the terrorist threat, which Bush's policies have increased immeasurably. The second is the threat posed by the right-wing Christian fundamentalists in the United States, led by Bush. With respect to the latter, our country is fast becoming a place to be ashamed of rather than proud of. Quite apart from our international reputation, I never would have thought I would have to consider as part of my travel plans whether I would be officially labelled a "sex tourist" if I visited certain countries. I never would have thought I would be thinking about the possibility that if I made a joke about certain matters on the telephone, it might trigger NSA's listening capabilities (I don't know if this latter concern is a realistic one, but it certainly is consistent with the times we are living in). Or for that matter, who would have believed the government of the U.S. would withhold funds designed to limit the spread of AIDS solely because a country refused to adopt a protocol stating prostitution is a degrading profession? So, let them have AIDS, right?

Now some of you Bush voters out there might say "Well what does this have to do with me, I don't support sex tourist lists, etc." Well, you elected the prick. And his agenda is your responsibility. So I must tell you I'm not real impressed by your trying to make this all a matter of whether he lied about WMD's, nor any other single issue you pick up from a Republican video ad. As far as the Bush supporters go, the fact is not only Bush, but YOU are the problem and YOU are ruining this country.

(Message edited by LAguy on September 24, 2006)

LA Guy,

I really don't think you should blame the voters. Kerry ran a horrible campaign. He responded poorly to some of the slimey tactics pulled on him by the GOP. I believe the way a candidate runs a campaign is an indicator on how well he will run the government. The reality is that Bush ran a great campaign. I am not talking about idealogy here, but blocking and tackling. Raising money. Finding flaws in your opponent. Responding to potential weaknesses.

But the larger issue is that it is not clear that Bush was the will of the voter. It seems that the GOP felt that they had a larger mandate that could override the will of the American people. I had assume that you have already read this article.

http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/10432334/was_the_2004_election_stolen/1

Personally, I find these facts hard to refute, and a little bit scary about what it means for the future of our country. The article makes it seem like the voters were trying!

Ejack,

The prevailing logic has been that the Democratic Party consists of minorities, liberal academics and ultraliberal treehugging whites. The Republican Party was the party of the rich and the white and the religious pure. I would now argue that a lot of business owners and the wealthy, who 10 years ago were solidly Republican, have gotten sick of the Republicans and are now solidly in the Democratic Party. Thus, it's no longer leftists and minorities with the Democrats, it's a lot of the center and a growing percentage of the intelligent wealthy - not the ones with family money but those of us who made our own way.

Beachman sputtered:
"To suggest that I am stupid because I suggest talking about one subject..."

LOL! Your stupidity is evident from your illiteracy and dyslexia, and with each post you make it increasingly obvious that your logic is equally if not more flawed. Your claim of anyone else being a moron is hilarious given your lack of writing ability.

If anyone more intelligent than Beachman (everyone) actually finds any of his arguments convincing and want to rephrase his positions without made-up words like "arragont" and "condridite", then I'll happily respond appropriately. Otherwise it makes little sense to argue with an obnoxious retard who is so frustrated with his inability to debate intelligently that he misrepresents opposing arguments, then labels the mispresentations as cowardice.


Ejack1,
Catocony's statement may be considered Argumentum ad Verecundiam, but for the many people that are not well read on the intricacies of international politics nor the history of Beachman's posts, Catocony's statement provides some relevant context revealing that the village idiot is trying to keep up with some well-educated reporters. Of course, the statement is redundant because that is already obvious from the content of the posts.

As for logical errors, Beachman's posts are riddled with them in case you want an exercise in logical fallacy identification.

Bluestraveller:

Thanks for the link to the Rolling Stone article. I was aware of the article and some of the allegations but had not read it previously.

I can't disagree that the way a candidate runs a campaign is an indicator of how he will run the government. Bush and Rove's (as well as many other Republican) campaigns have been models of dishonesty, nastiness, and demagoguery. Their campaigns also assume the American public is too stupid to notice or to care (which, unfortunately seems to be true for a reasonable portion, not necessarily a majority, of the electorate).

Mirroring this, Bush and his crew continue to claim Iraq has been a great success, that it has helped the fight against terrorism, and those who disagree or want to pull out from Iraq are aiding and abetting the enemy. One only has to read through this thread to see some supposed patriotic Americans (who are actually competing with al Qaeda to see who can more effectively destroy the United States) actually lap this nonsense up.

Here are some interesting excerpts on Rove from Wikipedia:

Karl Rove's reputation is such that, among both his supporters and critics the phrase "Rovian" has come to be used as a synonym for "Machiavellian".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Rove

Machiavellianism is the term some social and personality psychologists use to describe a person's tendency to deceive and manipulate others for personal gain.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Machiavellian

Whether you like him or not (I don't), you cannot deny that the guy gets results. In the situation in 2004, it was a very tight race, and their execution had to be flawless to steal the election. The Rolling Stone article shows show they stoled 350,000 votes to steal Ohio, and they needed every one of those votes. They were clicking on all cylinders. Kerry knew about many of these issues and did nothing about them.

I also think that branding Kerry a Flip Flopper was a stroke of genius. You got to give the guy his due.

I bring up the Rolling Stone article because you can see so many parallels between the way they won Ohio and the way they run the government.

I'm amazed at the range of critical reasoning and argument ability that has been showcased by this thread. Everything from yahoos beneath contempt to thoughtful people with sharp minds, armed with deep knowledge and a fair bit of wit. Damn.

BT,

I ran several precincts as a Democrat Committee Member back home for the last 5 elections. We have elections every year in VA since the ststa/local elections are held every other year in odd-numbered years - a holdover from when the good "Commonwealth Democrats" under Harry Byrd didn't want to be associated at all with the national Democratic Party during the 50's and 60's when segragation was kicking in. So, every September we get ramped up for working the polls, and have a fairly constant series of voter drives, door-to-door canvassing, participation in the local community events, handing out flyers and campaign lit at back-to-school nights at all the local schools, etc.

However, so much of this goes completely to waste, since the grass-roots of the party is led primarily by gray-haired baby-boomer liberal women who are still refighting the 1972 and 1988 elections. It's pathetic. Incredibly disorganized. Poor communications systems, poor databases, just disorganized as hell. There is never a lack of volunteers - we get them by the dozen. But, the powers that be still insist on centralized phone banks for pre-election day canvassing instead of letting volunteers call from home. What this amounts to is a bunch of zealots shooting the shit with each other for 3 hours and complaining about the current state of affairs, without actually calling anyone. They constantly overcall certain lists and ignore the rest. Then, on election day, when you actually want a central call bank to have some economies of scale for the final afternoon calls to people who haven't voted in the morning, they insist on having local precincts do their own calling - when most of the local precinct people are busy working the polls and/or driving people around to vote. I spend my days driving from preceinct to precinct, covering problems, voting complaints, getting fresh batchs of sample ballots and flyers to hand out, and shuttling elderly voters from retirement home to the polls.

The big problem is what Howard Dean brought up. I hate Howard since I think he is way to liberal and just gives Republicans a target but he was right on in saying that Democrats need to take the fight right at the Republican party and spend some time and money winning over some voters in the South and out on the prairie. Democrats tend to canvass the same neighborhoods over and over without hitting the "Republican" neighborhoods. I guess you need to hit both but really, is it easier to get the last batch of non-voting, apathetic slackasses from a heavy Democratic precinct to come out and vote vs. hitting some other precincts that haven't been touched since the early 90s?

Go to the Democratic National Committee headquarters. Nice eye candy, it's about 100 women and one guy, the IT guy. Again, lots of energy, but it all gets wasted. Same thing goes for a lot of the state committe HQs. Databases are old. Computers are new but don't have Microsoft Office installed, so you can't fire around spreadsheets to keep track of voter lists. Email is frequently bounced back. Everyone is very smart, eager, dedicated and ready to do everything they can to win an election. Except there is no direction and no discipline. People running around, making signs, returning calls, sending email blitzes - but nobody doing hard work like random cold calling of Republican voters.

Back in the 90s I volunteered to help in one single elections for one Republican candidate, John Warner. That was 10 years ago. To this day, I get more information in the mail from Republicans than I do Democrats - I'm not even in the database.

The Republicans, meanwhile, operate with far fewer volunteers and paid staff, but are simply much better organized and have all of that cool advanced modern technology like Blackberrys, voter rolls on Excel spreadsheet instead of boxes of printouts, VoIP systems in their HQs so that if you have a surge of people to work a campaign you just lay a few more runs of Cat5 and you have a new call center. The Democrats, they still call the local telco and wait a month for phone installations.

Cat,

You are hitting the nail on the head. The Republicans are a well oiled machine. They operate like a business. The Democrats are an organizational mess and Howard Dean is clearly not the answer.

On another note, I have found that the wealthier a person, the more independent and middle of the road. They tend to support people from both parties, and have their own foundations to accomplish the rest. One of my wealthier friends said it best. "I'm not a republican because they are assholes, and I'm not a democrat because they are incompetent."

Did you see the Fox interview with Bill Clinton? I only wish that he had said something sooner.

That was an awesome interview. Makes one yearn for a president who can string a few words together. Give me the intelligent philanderer or the moralistic moron any day.

Yeah....typical Clinton Bullshit!

One moment in the interview he is saying his hands were tied because he "legally couldn't bring Bin Laden to the US to be prosecuted. Then he is crying he told the CIA to kill Bin Laden and that he came closer than anyone else to killing Bin Laden.

He was so committed to getting Bin Laden and Al Qaeda that he treated the first World Trace Center bombing as a law enforcement problem and his compassion and Bullshit "I feel your pain" act....he didn't even visit the site after the bombing. Foreign Terrorists killing American's IN America and Clinton treated as a law enforcement matter for the local authorities to handle.

Which they did and actually solved the case, with convictions and some of the guilty in jail.

I don't think we'll see Osama or any of his crew at Riker's anytime soon.

Just like McVeigh in Oklahoma City - he was caught, tried, convicted and executed. Would you have preferred the carpet bombing of Pendelton NY because that was McVeigh's hometown?

(Message edited by catocony on September 25, 2006)

Beachman,

I realize that you are a hard core republican, and no one will ever change your mind, but as I said before your condescending attitude serves no purpose at all. In fact, it hurts your credibility, not just with democrats but also with republicans.

Bill Clinton is an American and a former president. Do you not believe that he deserves even a little respect? Or is that only reserved for republicans?

To respond directly to your post. I feel the nation is hurting because of glaring weakness in the democratic party and a machiovellian republican party. It is a bad combination. Since Bill Clinton, Al Gore, John Kerry, and Howard Dean have been incompetent and lack intellectual capacity and emotional charisma to hold the party together. It was nice to see someone with a little spark providing an alternative view point to the republican party line. I don't necessarily agree with everything he said, nor should anyone, but it was nice to see the contrast.

Bluestraveller-

Actually....I am not a hardcore Republian......I am American first! And I despise most all politications from both parties because they both parties put their parties first before what is best for the country. Bush, McCain, the Clintons, Kennedy, etc. they all would sell their souls for power and most of them already have!
But if people don't wake up and see that the Muslim fanatics are going to start World 3. In the last 20 years 80% plus of the World's conflicts have involved the fanatic Muslims and they pretty have convince most of the World to let them have their way or they will cause problems in any country that challenges their right to do what they want to. And you can't negociate with people who have no value for life. The Soviet Union did!

I walked up on a fellow on a street corner one night who seemed to searching the ground for something. I asked "What are you looking for?" He said "I lost my watch." I asked "Are you sure you dropped around here?" He said, "No, I dropped it halfway up the block but the light is much better here."

This is what comes to mind when I realize that our "leader" has committed so many troops to fighting in Iraq and so few to finding Bin Laden.

Clinton Meltdown

You know the last time Clinton got flustered, upset with the press...his face red.....and waging the finger in our face......"I did not have sex............." Of course he was telling the truth in his interview of his commitment to get Bin Laden.
Chris Wallace should ask why Clinton didn't go after Bin Laden as seriously as he was going after Wallace in the interview.
And no....Clinton is not entitled to respect as an ex president he lost that when he made a brothel out of the oval office and LIED under oath! He LIED under oath and only the Arkansas Supreme Court had the balls to punish him....took his law license away from him.
Clinton fail to uphold and protect the constitution when he committed perjury and wagged his way out of it with his interpretation of when it is OK to LIE under oath and to the American people! Oral sex isn't sex......after all these years still hard to believe he sold it to protect his ass!

Oh yeah.....What was Sandy Berger doing stuffing Classified Documents down his pants! Talk about cover-up!

Clinton lied about a blow job, and no one got hurt. Bush lied about weapons of mass destruction, an al Qaeda/Iraq link, etc., and 3000 Americans and countless Iraqi civilians died.

Look at the video's posted on this thread September 22.
Clinton and the Democrats LIED about weapons of mass destruction before Bush was ever President and Hillary must have LIED about "Sadam giving aid, comfort and sanctuary to Al Quada members"
You can spin, ignore, waffle, etc. all you want to but the facts are right from their mouths in the video's because at the time they made the statements it was in the best interest of their political careers to have that view.....not what was best not only for America then & now.....but in the future too. Wake up and look back at World History....you appease fanatics and you pay a terrible price later by allowing them to control the meaningless negociations they stall.... while having no intention of ever obiding to the terms of the negociations.

As I recall, Clinton did not declare war on Iraq, Bush did. And it was Bush and his boys who sent our troops in without planning an occupation strategy.

You seem to get all worked up about appeasement. You've been listening to too much Rush and watching too much Hannity. Meaningless gibberish about appeasement. What does that mean? Who were we appeasing? And over what? And are you suggesting that Bush is guilty of appeasment in Iran? Should we go in and bomb them because they've stalled the talks on the nuclear program? And is Dubya guilty of appeasement with respect to N. Korea? Should we bomb them too? You seem to have a curious view of what American foreign policy should look like. "Don't appease!" Whatever the fuck that means...

Negotiating does not mean appeasement. Why negotiate if you're more powerful and could rule by fiat? Well, as we've seen in Iraq, negotiations can save you hundreds of billions of dollars and thousands of lives, and to boot, they don't tear a country apart. That country being the US, by the way, not the country we "appease".

Catacony,
Are you saying in your view we should have continued to negotiate with Saddam while he continued to shoot at our aircraft patrolling the no-fly zone, simultaneously committing genocide on the Iraqi people, giving out rewards to terrorists and kicking out UN Inspectors(well who can blame anyone for poking the jerk-UN in the eye)?

LaGuy,
http://www.aclu.org/supportaclu/taxdeductible/index.html
The ACLU Foundation is the arm of the ACLU that conducts our litigation and communication efforts. Gifts to the ACLU Foundation are tax-deductible to the donor to the extent permissible by law.

No, I still haven't gotten to the Enron campaign contribution dealio, but I'll get to it

Catacony said, "You are simply making no sense whatsoever right now." -Not the first person to tell me that. Men are from Mars and Libs are from Venus. j/k
Catacony said, "As to that crashing the US economy, that's fucking stupid and you're a complete fucking idiot for even writing crap like that." - geewhiz, I'm blushing...but while we're at it, what caused that recession then?

Bluestraveler said, "The entire undertone of your messages are arrogant and condescending." -not intended...
Bluestraveler said, "No matter how provacative your responses, I refuse to return your condescending attitude with more of the same." -good luck(!) and oh yeah, at best, you're a RINO. There is no way in Hades you're a conservative...although, if in the voting booth, You, W & McCain would probably have identical cast ballots.
Bluestraveler said, "Beachman, The problem with your posts is the extremely arrogant and condescending tone." -You must be addicted.

Catacony said, "Lets see, I see a bunch of PhDs, MDs, JDs and some general millionaires all taking the same side. Then there's Beachman's side." -Let's see, by profession, Lib/Lib/Lib/general libs. My experience with millionaires is that they support Democrats. YMMV.
Cat said, "Keep this in mind - once you've paid six figures in federal income tax for one calendar year, your views on politics tend to get refined a bit." -Does this count as proof of my prior statement? Under Clinton you would have paid more in taxes...after all, you anti-bushies say he lowered taxes on the rich.

Ejack 1 to Catacony, "What a pretty little circular dance." -roflmfao (!)

LaGuy --the NOW gang has pushed the sex tourist thing. Sure, the christians jump on board, but the evangelicals are democrats too. If NOW could stop you from using your pen!s, they would. That is why NOW says 'all' sex is rape.

In all my condescension and arrogance, I don't think I called anyone any names...I don't mind my idea being fkn stupid, but do we really have to call each other stupid? Oh yeah, that's the first rule of Lib-debate 101

Ah, Ticasonar, back from under the rock he had scuttled to. I had forgotten about you.

Beachman,

Aside from your post to me, every other post that you have made indicates to me that you are a hard hard core republican. It's a little strange to me that you are running from that characterization. My gut feel is that the arrogant and condescending tone is because politics is a very emotional issue that hits you in the heart hard.

If you are truly an American first (as I am), you will be able to see the flaws in BOTH parties. You vote on the issues you believe in first, and the parties second. Personally, I have no trouble with Clinton having a blow job and lying about it later. I also have no problem with George W doing drugs, and then refusing to discuss it. These are petty issues that have NOTHING to do with how well these men do their jobs.