Re: Bush Administration Weakens Truck Safety

gringo <gringo@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
news:EPsbj.36571$rc2.27743@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx:

If this is an example of your debating style, we might as well end
this now. Because that is a misinformed personal opinion, without
merit or factual basis.

The Senate sponsored immigration reform bill that did not pass earlier this
year offered those illegally in the states then, a path to citizenship by
requiring them to simply pay fines and fees totaling $3,000 per person, and
to pass a "rigorous" background investigation.

The problem with that is that most of us who watch how politics are played
out know that hardship exemptions would certainly have been a part of the
final bill, had it passed for those who were too poor to pay the fines and
fees, and the background checks would have been impossible to complete in
many, if not most cases, because the recordkeeping south of the border is
sparse at best.

Now the wrangling point over that bill was over the use of the word
"amnesty", and the fact is that anything short of sending them back across
that border and making them apply for admission to the United States like
everyone else who did it the correct and lawful way, is indeed "anmesty",
despite the fines and fees.

asinine statement. actually, to call it bull*** is to insult the
bovine subspecies. You want a debate, Tony? Produce one shred of
evidence (hint: your opinion and those of Faux talking heads is not
evidence) to back up your assertions.

You're going to have to look to the state Governments and those Democrats
on that one. I never meant to imply that there was an Federal Democratic
movement to force states to license illegals. But Republican led efforts to
stop states from issuing them are in evidence. The 2005 federal law called
Real ID Act, will make it more difficult to offer them to illegals, but
we'll have to wait until 2013 for that to kick in.

Eleven states did issue drivers licenses to illegal aliens, including
Alaska, Connecticut, Idaho, Louisiana, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, North
Carolina, Ohio, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Utah, Washington and West
Virginia. North Carolina and Tennessee rescinded their issuing them in 2006
to illegals.

In 2003, California's Governor Gray Davis (D) signed into law a bill that
would give illegals drivers licenses. This was behind the movement to have
him removed from office. Immediately after this law was signed, hundreds of
thousands of signatures were collected that would have placed the question
on the March 2004 general election ballot.

Incoming Republican Governor Schwarzenegger immediately annulled it.

But to get to the heart of your challenge, I need only to look back to last
month, where Democratic candidate for President Barack Obama in the
November 15th debate, stated clearly and concisely that he supported
allowing illegal aliens to be issued driver's licenses.

Hillary Clinton on that day reversed her stance on driver's licenses for
illegal aliens on the same day to a simple "no" when asked the same
question. In her earlier October 30th MSNBC debate, she gave a long and
apparently contradictory series of answers about whether to give illegals
driver's licenses.

Now as to my statement that "They want them to be allowed to vote in our
elections. Hell, for that matter, the Democrats are actively working on
signing them up despite the fact that it's illegal for them to vote. I
wouldn't be surprised if they are not funding fake identifications that are
good enough to allow them that opportunity", I need only point to a couple
of simple facts. You see, these two separate issues are tied hand in hand.

In 1993, Bill Clinton signed the piece of legislation called the National
Voter Registration Act, commonly known as "Motor Voter law,". It required
all states to offer voter registration to anyone getting a driver's
license. One simply fills out a form and checks a box stating he is a
citizen; he is then registered and in most states does not have to show any
ID to vote. No one checks if the person registering to vote is indeed a
citizen in ANY of the 50 states.

The act was passed by 62-36 in the Senate. Only 5 Republicans voted in
favor of it. Not one Democrat opposed it. In the house, it was passed by a
259-164 margin. 238 Democrats voted in favor, while only 14 opposed it. 20
Republicans voted in favor of it, while 150 opposed it.

My logic is more than sound when it comes to the statements I made. Refute
it if you can.

Yes, that is true. No one wants them granted complete amnesty. If any
Progressive could snap a finger and send them all instantly back
to...wherever they came from...we wouldn't be having this discussion.
non-citizens cannot influence our elections.

Really? Then explain to me the sheer number of monetary contributions given
to political candidates in this nation from foreign nationals.

Do you know what "bundlers" are? Sure you do. It's the answer to all
candidate's ability to raise money from sources unknown, and where they can
mask the sources of donations.

http://www.capitaleye.org/inside.asp?ID=320

Then for your reading pleasure, take a gander at one of my state's more
embarrassing former Congresswomen...

http://herndon2.sdrdc.com/cgi-bin/dcdev/forms/C00256354/124538/sa/ALL


As for the drivers' license issue, I disagree with most Democratic
candidates on this. In order to get a license they must (1)show proof
of residence (2) produce proof of auto insurance, and (3)either drive
in accordance with our traffic laws or lose the license. Without
licenses, they still drive, because they must; but they do so
exceedingly uptight about being caught, and when stopped for speeding
or involvement in an accident caused by their too-careful driving,
they run, leaving the damages to be paid by insured motorists. To deny
them licenses is just plain stupid. And before you say it, no, Tony, a
driver's license is not recognized as proof of citizenship when trying
to register to vote. Commonsense alone ought to dictate the issuing of
DLs to everyone who can pass the test and meets insurance
requirements.

Look back at the above. There is absolutely no provision in the law to
check the citizenship of those who register to vote through ANY outside
source of voter registering. You sign the form ATTESTING to the fact that
you are a citizen. No one verifies citizenship EVER in ANY state.

The "Motor Voter Law" made it easier than ever to allow illegal immigrants
the opportunity to vote, and you can bet your ass they are doing it in many
states. There's nothing to prevent it from happening.

This is WHY most people are opposed to allowing illegal aliens to obtain
driver's licenses. In just about every state in this nation, a driver's
license is considered legal identification, despite the fact that in most
cases the information on it can be falsified prior to it being issued to
the person who's picture is on it, up to and including the very name that
appears on it.

You're a truck driver. How many people did you know prior to 1989, who had
false or dual driver's licenses when they were pulled over, for the sole
purpose of evading having to pay tickets? I knew at least a dozen myself.

The other candidates in that debate disappointed all reasonable,
thinking Democrats. Hillary's stance was the correct one, as I have
outlined above. Hillary's healthcare plan sucks--but not so bad as not
having one. The plan she proposed while husband Bill was president was
nearly perfect. But the AMA, the insurance lobby and big
pharmaceuticals spent $80 million to defeat it. Corporations don't
make donations; they make investments.

Under Hillary's healthcare plan that she crafted while she was the First
Lady, had severe problems. The most outrageous one, would have resulted in
any citizen who sought,obtained, and paid for private healthcare outside of
the "National Plan" on their own to be arrested and imprisoned for doing
so.

Look, the history of this nation should give you all the clues as to what
would happen if the Government were to take over the health care for EVERY
citizen in this nation. There is not one program that Government has
administered in the past 200 years, that has been proven to be run
efficiently. They can't do it. From the Post Office, which has nearly went
bust more than a dozen times, to Medicare, which I assure you is nothing
short of a disaster today. My wife took a job after four years of
retirement earlier this year. She spends her entire day assisting Medicare
patients resolve issues with the Government and Insurance companies. I
think she's wearing a wig at this point because her hair has been yanked
out at the roots.

Now fast forward to a time when this kind of crap will be played out over
and over for 300 million people, and think about what it would screwed up
it will become. Look at the countries that have switched to Governmental
administered healthcare. Not one of them is efficient, and people die long
before they are approved for things we take for granted, like simple day
surgery to take out a gall bladder.

Physicians have abandoned practices in those countries to go where they can
be paid on time, and at rates they deserve. In Australia, hospitals have
closed the doors in droves since they switched to national healthcare. One
article I read stated that in Queensland, there was a waiting list of 1,500
people for heart surgeries. The waiting lists for beds in one hospital
exceeded 3,000 people.

Canada is the only one that has any record of decent success, but there
again, in the more populated areas, healthcare beyond a cough and a cold
results in massive waiting lists. This is why in the Northern states, a
quarter of the patients treated are from Canada. Some would rather pay a US
provider out of their own pocket, than to die waiting for an MRI or a CAT
scan.

And let's not forget that the average National income tax rate in Canada is
around 26%, with additional Provincial income tax rates ranging from 11.5%
to 18%, which is used to fund all this wonderful "free" healthcare.

Now I don't know about you, but that sure doesn't sound like utopia to me.

I am an ex-Georgian. And I assure you that Carter was a good
president, and would have been a great president sans the economic
mess left in the aftermath of the Johnson war Nixon made his own and
the illegal, traitorous machinations of Reagan and GHWB.

We could pick it all apart, but there's no need to do that, because the
simple fact is, that Reagan will always be revered by the majority of
American's for his economic policies and Carter will forever be known for
his bumbling of the economy and as the only President in office with double
digit inflation numbers.

And if you want to blame prior administrations, let's remember that
Johnson, a Democrat you know, put us in that expensive and deadly war,
after Kennedy was poised to end it before it got off the ground. It's
probably what got him killed.

Nixon, a Republican, did end it right after he took office.

If Carter had been reelected, there would not have been an Iran-Contra
scandal, a savings and loan scandal, a first war with Saddam
Hussein--no gassing of the Iranians and his fellow Iraqis--no claims
of WMD in Iraq. and since there would have been no reason to invade
Iraq the first time, there would not have been a 9/11. And without
9/11, we'd still enjoy all the protections granted to Americans in the
Bill of Rights.

You really think so?

I happen to believe that the President actually has little power to
influence very much in this country when it comes to foreign affairs. I
also believe that the military pretty much does what it has to do, without
the President being involved very much in those affairs.

You can't seriously think that every four to eight years, that everyone
gets up and plays musical chairs, do you? It would be ludicrous to think
that even in a span of eight years, a President would know every little
detail of who does what, and what they are up to on a daily basis.

Naw...the real players in that game are never known to the President, or
you and I. They are nameless, faceless, and they live quiet existences both
on the the job, and when they retire.

But one thing you write up there deserves a little challenge. We (The US
Government) helped put Hussein in power, and he got a taste of that power
and liked it. The monster was created and went out of control. Just
remember one thing; his rise to power, began in 1968. Johnson was in office
then, and he had a great deal of ties to the military.

To not blame it on the Iran hostage crisis is ignorant in the extreme.

Oh for sure, it was an issue for some, but not the dominant one.

The inflation was a carryover from Nixon's inept handling of the
Vietnam War (Nixon even had to implement wage and price controls
trying to control inflation, but it failed).

Look...no President makes those decisions. He follows the advice of
financial experts. Everyone knows that.

But when a President signs legislation tax increases, that is a horse of a
different color. Carter signed legislation raising the rates on the top
earners in this country, and the tax revenue fell. Reagan reversed it with
his pen, and the revenue increased. Those are simple and verifiable facts.

Know how much of that Alaskan oil has ever been received at an
American dock? Not one gallon: it all goes to Japan and the Far East.

And you know why that is. EPA. The sulpher content is too high.

some kook! His Habitat for Humanity has provided about a hundreds
thousand Americans with a home of their own. He has supervised
elections in dozens of 3rd world nations, insuring that Democracy
doesn't rot on the vine. He has had the balls to stand up to the
Jewish cabal that insures that the world will never enjoy a single
peaceful generation.

We're going to have to disagree there. I am not going to blame the Jewish
people like he does for them being constantly under the threat of attack.

Carter did not start Habitat for Humanity. Millard and Linda Fuller, who
are also from Americus Georgia founded the organization. Jimmy's a family
friend.

I'll give you the point on much of his foreign policy achievements. He has
a great relationship with many of the foreign nationals, but much of that
is window dressing too. To think that he truly had the ability to oversee
elections in another nation is a bit of a stretch. We can't truly verify
the ones in our country to an degree.

funny thing, that American helicopters had been operating just fine in
sandstorms for several decades. funny thing, that. Even funnier is the
fact that immediately after reagan took office, ollie moved into the
WH and took over reagan's costly and traitorous Iran-Contra
machinations.

So let me get it straight. Ollie sabatoged the helicopters, is that what
you're saying? Give me a break.

You offer all this, as if it was the first time that the US has done
anything like furnishing weapons to foreign countries, or using proceeds to
fund actions elsewhere. It's not, and it's going on as we speak.

Why is it done? Because like Jack Nicholson offered so eloquently..."You
can't handle the truth". Americans want to go on believing that all is well
on the planet earth, and that everyone lives in peaceful harmony. Well
that's just not the case, and so the American Military does what it has to
do, behind the scenes, and without idiot politicians holding six month
hearings because they want to know all the little details of it, then
grandstand for another six months to solicit votes because they stopped it
all.

suspicions? Ain't suspicions, but factual that Eisenhower, Nixon,
Reagan, George the Dad and george the boy have all operated outside
the law. I take that back about Eisenhower; he wasn't responsible for
the illegal and traitorous machinations conducted by the CIA he
couldn't control. In fact, he tried like hell to have it disbanded. As
did JFK, before he was murdered. George the Dad was himself a CIA
henchman.

I plainly stated that ALL Presidents in the past century have been
involved, more than likely, with under the table deals that would most
definitely be illegal. It's part of the job. But don't you DARE suggest
that no Democratic President was not involved or knew something about them.

Johnson was very likely highly involved with Kennedy's assassination. He
benefited the most from it.

forgive me for breaking in the middle of your paragraph. But, ummm,
who was he the fall guy for, hmmm? his esteemed leader Ronnie Reagan,
maybe?

No...I would bet the more likely candidate would have been for a General in
our Military, who directed the entire operation.

obviously. So did Goebbels and Eichmann and several thousand
concentration camp guards. No excuse for violating American laws and
common decency. I assure you that not all that many people believe
ollie did such a good job: he has lost election to office several
times, and always by a large margin.

I honestly cannot recall the last time I read anyone bring him up. And why
should he care? He lost not a thing but some time in a cozy prison cell, if
that. No one really knows whether he spent a night in one or not for sure,
do they?

http://www.hermes-press.com/crimes.htm

I've already told you that kook sites are not proof of anything but the
person's opinion who wrote it. Not one thing written on that page can be
substantiated.



o-kaaay. Then here, read about this generation of bush:

<garbage snipped>

What was the source?

Show any evidence you have, please, that these presidents profited
illegally while in office--or out of office for that matter. I bring
up gross malfeasance and treason, and you, of course, counter with a
drunken brother and a blowjob.

This is going nowhere.

oooh, terrible crimes. almost as bad as cheney's allowing the oil
companies themselves to write energy legislation--in secret. almost as
bad as ol' dead-eye shooting the hubby of his lover in a drunken rage.

Tell me, do you have any original thoughts, or do you just quote those of
others?

horse***. presidents cannot pardon for local, inconsequential crimes.
they are, after all, Federal.

Regardless of that point of law that appears to be a fact, he did do it.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1184118.stm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Clinton_pardons_controversy

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=
9804E3DB1439F93AA15755C0A9679C8B63

define reputable. And "now" must also be defined. The people have been
rightly convinced that the troops could not be removed immediately,
that the process once begun will take up to a year.

You're hedging. I stated plainly what the criteria had to be. The question
is rather simple. "Do you want the troops out of Iraq now?" However that
may be defined is not an issue. Not one independent poll taken in the past
four years has reached a percentage of over 40% with a "yes" response to
that exact question.

define reputable. And "now" must also be defined. The people have been
*rightly* convinced that the troops cannot be removed immediately,
that the process once begun will take up to a year.

Again...your hedging is quite evident.

*** 'em if the parents won't or can't, right? And when they grow up
mentally challenged, and criminal, they'll have to pay for their own
incarceration?

It ought to be a crime to have a child if the parent(s) cannot financially
support them. It's called taking responsibilty for one's actions. If they
can't afford a kid, then they need keep their damn zipper closed. That's
rather simple isn't it?

"...who is able to."

I clearly made that distinction. The disabled, the elderly, and the ill
most certainly are exempt from that statement.

you're superior: I am happy for you.

No. I'm RESPONSIBLE.

Not everyone is as blessed.
Millions of people are brought up to believe that they cannot do any
better than their parents did--and a majority of them probably don't
have either the physical, mental or emotional gifts necessary to
succeed in life.

Utter crap. Most American's have their stuff together. It's a very small
minority that drag us down.

Nevertheless, we live in a consumer society. The
poor, having no resources, still want to have all the things others
have, such as a good tv and cablevision, a Wii game console and a few
of their favorite games, a good steak now and then, nice clothes and
the latest pair of athletic shoes.

People who budget their money know what they can and cannot afford. If you
cannot afford those things on what you are making now, then you find a
better job. You might have to work two jobs. But what you don't do is buy
things that you cannot afford, unless you are absolutely stupid.

So, given a choice between going
hungry or without electricity for two weeks or taking their kid to the
hospital, they're prone to assume every illness is something that can
be cured with a dose of Nyquil. BTW, those "free" hospital ER visits
aren't free: they cost quite a lot in self respect and embarassment
when the harassing phone calls begin to come in.

Aw Geez...spare me the pity party. It's not as if they are going to be
arrested if they do not pay the hospital bill. The calls quit at some
point, and the bill is written off.

I think given the fact that they do get the care free, and those bills are
quite often picked up by the taxpayers when they are not paid, is worth a
few phone calls and a little diminishing of self-respect. It's their price
to pay for not being responsible enough to have planned to have insurance
in place to pay the bill in the first place.

The net reasult:
we're teaching these people that, since they can't pay their own way
anyway, why worry about it, just take the handout and *** 'em if they
can't take a joke.

Reagan said, Let them pull themselves up by their own bootstraps. He
was gifted athletically, and he could act, and he came from upper
middle class family. some bootstraps! Few are as gifted as ronnie.
Apparently, few are as gifted as you. Lucky you.

Luck has nothing to do with it. I have worked my entire adult life, and
it's not been since I was 16 years old, that I made minimum wage. I strived
to make the most out of my work time, both in terms of compensation and my
work record, so that my job prospects were always assured. I also saved
money from day one on a job for those rainy days. I began planning my
retirement when I was 20 years old. I never bought anything that I could
not pay for in cash if I had to.

Now all of this has led me to be very comfortable in my fast approaching
older years, and not one person helped me, or gave me a thing, other that
20 acres of land that I inherited two years ago, and that is merely and
added tax expense as it stands today.

with a little trouble I can produce proof of that very thing.
Catastrophic emergency healthcare, yeah, but for anything more
serious--such as dialysis, a transplant, cancer treatment, no, hell
no, the poor are on their own.

Now you're changing the game. You went from typical medical care to
catastrophic. Insurance companies fight paying those bills too.

I guess I need to quantify this. No one has a RIGHT to the best medical
care in this country. You do have the right to seek it, to find a means to
pay for it, and to sacrifice whatever it takes to obtain it.

Without question, poorer people die at higher rates than those with more
substantial means to seek higher quality healthcare, but that's the breaks
in life like alot of things.

No one is entitled to live in a million dollar home unless you can pay for
it either.

Life isn't fair. But that's the way it is.

well, it's like this. If one can afford only the barest minimum
insurance, but the government will provide better coverage at a third
of the cost, which would you choose? The answer isn't to provide less
healthcare, but more. Healthcare is a RIGHT of all people everywhere.

Please quote the relevant passage in the Constitution that states that
people have a "right" to medical care in this country.

provide evidence supporting the assertion.

http://seniorjournal.com/NEWS/Medicaid/3-01-14StateBudgets.htm

If his employer provided healthcare, he would have had no problem,
would he. BTW, you should get your propaganda from better sources.

He HAD healthcare. He worked in Calhoun for Shaw Industries. They have one
of the best benefit programs in the area.

higher tax brackets are a thing of the past, guy. The top tax rate is
only a few percentage points higher than that paid by those in the
middle.

And rightfully so. Why should ANYONE have to pay taxes at a higher rate,
simply because they make more money than others? It's robbery.

Most of the taxes are paid by people that I would categorize as almost
poor to almost rich. Or, more specifically, 66% of income taxes are
paid by those who make from $44,451 to $383,407.

That's a skewed perception.

Here's the latest FACTS:

The wealthiest 1 percent of the population earn 19 per­cent of the income
but pay 37 percent of the income taxes collected by the IRS.

The top 10 percent pay 68 percent of the tab.

The bottom 50 percent now earn 13 percent of the income but pay just 3
percent of the taxes.

http://www.american.com/archive/2007/november-december-magazine-
contents/guess-who-really-pays-the-taxes

The bottom line is that we have a system where wealth is being
transferred from the bottom 90% to the top 10% and from the top 10% to
the top 1.0% and from the top 1.0% to the top 0.1%.

That is absolute hogwash. It doesn't begin to be true. It's as valid an
argument as those who claim that the money that illegals send to their
families will make us all poorer.

People make what they work for, plain and simple. People invest and profit.
More Americans than ever are doing that through 401K's and other retirement
programs.

I previously wrote:
And why not? It's the Democrats that allow them to do this, with
their constant wanting to create more "entitlements" that they exchange
for more votes.

Gringo's brilliant response:
asinine statement, without factual backup.

Please...There isn't one entitlement program on the books that the
Democrats were not clearly responsible for proposing, passing, and signing
into existence.

Poverty is, and always will be, a mental disease. But I digress.

to an extent, yes, it is. So what? No child should ever go hungry; no
child should ever die for lack of regular doctors' visits, here in the
richest nation on Earth.

If a child is going hungry in this country, it is because of actions or
lack thereof by the parent(s). And all the money in the world will not save
that child if they do not avail themselves of it.

No one, not even a child is "entitled" to healthcare. I'm sorry, but that
is not a right anywhere.

Richest nation or not, the focus should be in showing people how to live
responsibly, and not how to become leaches of society.

What happened when welfare as we knew it was changed? A date was given when
all benefits would be terminated, and what happened? The lazy bums got off
their asses and went to work.

We need more of that kind of tough love enacted in this nation. Omly the
truly disabled, the elderly, and those too ill to work, should be drawing
support checks. The rest should be evaluated on a case by case basis to
determine if they could be doing more to support themselves.

there have always been wars and rumors of wars. the occupation of Iraq
is a proving ground for terrorists. One of the complaints of American
colonists was that they were being forced to house foreign (British
troops) in their homes. How many doors do American troops kick in
every day? how many Iraqis are forced to sleep on the street so that
American troops can take cover overnight? how many innocent Iraqis
have been gunned down in the streets by mercenaries paid by America?
Blackwater "troops" raped an American contractor employee, and the
rapists are totally 100% immune from prosecution by either American or
Iraqi courts!

You sure know how to spread those rumors, don't you? What did you do, join
the John Kerry fan club?

I'm sorry, but the above deserves no response whatsoever, because it is
completely unsubstantiated and supposition. For all anyone knows, someone
got bored at a keyboard and made it all up.

Ben said many "clevor" things. He was the founder of the Democratic
Party. Since he himself "borrowed" many of his favorite sayings from
others, I'm certain he wouldn't mind in the least that his words are
still being used to promote his ideals.

The only problem is, that they no longer apply to our world.

Laughable but so ignorant of history. Research what befell about 60 of
the signers of the Constitution. And damnit, tony, are you seriously
claiming that bush's destruction of Constitutional protections will
have no longterm effects on our life here in America???? Of course
everything that affected Franklin still affects us all!

First of all, no one has destroyed anything. I've yet to read one case in
the papers of ONE American being hauled off in handcuffs over something
that was heard in a monitored phone call, unless it was absolutely related
to terrorism.

Secondly, the Bush Administration has made it clear as a bell many times,
why they need to monitor suspected communications, under what circumstances
that they intend to do it, and it's continuously ignored by the Chicken
Little's in our land.

I don't care of George Bush himself taps my phone line. I've got nothing to
say that he's not welcome to hear if he wants to.

"in a reasonable manner" is the key phrase. Do you advocate seeding
the Rio Grande with 'gators?

Wow, I had not heard that one. I actually like it very much.

Burying a few million mines under the fence that republican Bush won't
build?

Another good one, but rather pointless. The rats have figured out how to
build tunnels.

The United States is STILL respected.

by whom?

All of our allies, or at least those that matter anyway.

Everyone on the left thinks that just because a few British citizens
decided to protest the war, that we are now suddenly hated throughout the
world.

The prior leader in France was an idiot, and his replacement is a pretty
kewl dude, and he's back on board with us again.

yeah, make 'em fear us, that's the thing.

It sure makes people think twice about screwing with us. Didn't you learn
anything in school? Or were you the picked on kid?

George made Iran fear us with his axis of evil speech. So Iran, who had
been helping us out in Afghanistan, set out to protect itself with a
nuclear strike capability.

Where in the hell did you get the idea that Iran helped us in Afghanistan?

Iran has been behind more of what we are fighting over there, and is and
has been a bitter enemy of the United States since we assisted Israel in
the fourties.

we've killed an estimated 150,000 Iraqi citizens (who had nothing
whatsoever to do with the attack). Is that revenge enough? If Bush
wasn't so goddamned greedy, he would have gone after his business
partners, the Saudis, who had everything to do with 9/11.

The Saudi's did not have "everything to do with 9/11". They just happen to
have had the unfortunate distinction of having more of their former
citizens who wound up as terrorists and involved in the 9/11 attacks.

There is no way you can claim that Saudi Arabia is sponsoring terrorism any
more than Nebraska does, just because a 16 year old kid decided to kill
eitht people in a shopping mall.

Israel is a deep subject, worthy of its own debate. Ample proof can be
provided of Israel's insane and inhumane treatment of all its
neighboring peoples.

I've seen no evidence of that. But of course, I'm sure there are plenty of
kook sites out there, dedicated to the goal of informing just how violent
Jews are.

LOL. There were no terrorists in Iraq prior to our Occupation. Saddam
killed them for us. That is the very reason Bush Daddy armed Iraq with
a small supply of WMD for his fight with Iran at our behest.

Actually, there really isn't any way to know that for sure, but the bottom
line is, they are there for sure now, and they have to be taken out.

I have provided you with FACT; you have provided me with a few
thousand words of your personal opinion...baseless personal opinion.

If you say so.

one must negotiate in good faith; the Israelis do not. They grab more
and more land, displacing more and more Arabs, creating more and more
enemies.

We're going too far off the subject here, and I'm not very well versed in
the struggle between those surrounding Israel to effectively comment on it.

we cannot either. The British couldn't defeat us, because we were
fighting on our own turf, for ourselves.

Well..time will tell, won't it? We have at least a year before the
Democrats will have a chance to yank those boys outta there, don't we?

The planner of the first WTC bombing is as we speak rotting in an
American prison.

Bin Laden claimed it. I have no idea who you claim is in prison. But either
way, Bill Clinton hardly deserves any credit for that, if it indeed is even
true.

Bin Laden, sure, he provided the funding. BTW, the
barracks bombing occurred in Lebanon while Reagan was in the WH.

My bad...I'm referring to the Khobar Towers bombing in Khobar, Saudi Arabia
on June 25, 1996. 19 of our tropps were killed, and 372 were wounded.

For
your education, American forces, chiefly FBI, raided inside an Arab
nation, essentially kidnapping one of the ringleaders of that first
attack. Clinton damn well did act. But he was also being distracted at
the time by republiCON's $70 million whitewater investigation that
found him guilty of getting a blowjob. Every time he made any move
militarily against terrorism, he was slandered by the right wing
press-- Clinton was a warmonger when he sent missiles after Osama,
didn't you know???

You really believe that don't you? The FBI? Right. Uh Huh...Sure....

He ordered the bombing of a pill factory and chickened out after three days
in the other skirmish, because of poll data that the bombings were driving
down his approval numbers. Look it up.

You raise lots of issues with lots of ill-formed opinion without
offering the first shred of evidence to back up your assertions. When
are you going to begin shredding *me* in this debate? Do you seriously
want to delve into the stories of some of these "dangerous terrorists"
held in Gitmo?

You know, when you're right...you're right. I can't compete with someone
that quotes sources of information, but refuses to cite those sources so
that verification can be made.

You win...


Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com
.

Quantcast