wattsat

No No No. You strip the 8 Arabs naked. Make them pose in demeaning ways while the 4 spanish GMa's watch. Then you go over and demand all of the film from the Japanese tourists and point them towards Disneyland. Once everything is finished you put the arabs on a military flight to Gitmo and hold them prisoner as terrorists. Then give the 4 spanish grandmas a bottle of pledge and a rag and tell them to clean your house.

Being the liberal that I am, I certainly agree that this PC crap has gone to far. It all started when we had to call black people African Americans. what. Unless you just hopped off the boat you made in your backyard and floated across the Ocean you are no longer connected to Africa. Then we had to call retarted people Mentally Challenged. what, We can easily say that 75% of our country is Mentally Challenged. Wheras only a few of them are Retarded. That is the medical term. Now call a normal person a Retard and you have gone to far. But if I go to the Special Olympics and happen to say "Man that retard that won the race sure was fast", I don't expect to hear any lip. Next was Vision Impared. I think the term is Blind. Like, man that Hot chick over there is F'n Blind. That sure will make it difficult for me to show her my Johnson. Now I cannot tell my Mat, Bob, and Art jokes anymore. How funny is it to tell a joke that starts like this, "So, this physically challnged African American was lying in front of Door, What was his name?" Really, how funny is that? I want to call them a dude with no arms or legs. So, to think that myself as a non religious type could be offended by an invitation to a Christmas party is just rediculous. After all, Christmas is a celebration of a Pagan Holiday and was banned in England, Parts of Europe and even the US for a period of time. It's the Jews that have a right to be ticked. Heck they were celebrating Hanukkah before Jesus was even born. (By the way, he was not Born in December.) So, in conclusion. Being a PC person is completely Retarded. For more information on the history of Christmas Click Below. http://www.historychannel.com/exhibits/hol...stmas/real.html For Hanukkah http://www.historychannel.com/exhibits/hol...ah/history.html For Kwanza http://www.historychannel.com/exhibits/hol...anzaa/hist.html

mmetz, This is what I was referring to. He is saying that people use the term Support the Troops but Oppose the war means you are antimilitary. It was a line used allot by Democrats to support their position. It is one I certainly aggree with but I am nor anyone in my family antimilitary. My comment was to illistrate that even though we are against the war we are for helping our soldiers to survive awar we do not agree with. If that means we should have a then so be it. How much more patriotic do you want them to be. That is exactly what being patriotic is. Fighting to the Death to defend your ideals. Just because their ideals do not align with yours means we should call them un-patriotic. I do not agree with what they are doing, how they are doing it or even why they are doing it. I don't want them to kill any of our troops, citizens, allies etc. But I do believe they have a right to do what they are doing. From their point of view we are invaders. They are right, we did not liberate a people, we invaded a country. I understand completely why you do not see it that way. Put yourself in their shoes. They have hard core religious beliefs. Another country that shares none of your religious or moral beliefs attacks and overthrows your government. You have no money or way to earn a living. Your home has been destroyed. Your family is mostly if not all dead or living very poorly as a result of the invasion. Your new political leaders were selected by the invading country. What do you do? If that were me, I would fight and kill and do everything I could to force those people to leave. How about this. Go rent the Movie Red Dawn. And see if there is any difference.

How many of our Minute Men during the Revolutionary war wore the colors and uniform of our birthing nation? How many of them would have actually worn a uniform if provided with one? I dare say that many of our nations founders were in it forthemselves more than they were for a country. They just wanted an end to British Rule. Same as these people. If given a uniform I doubt they would wear it. They are fighting for the Expulsion of an invador not necessarily for their country. You also call them insergants. What did you call the French? I think at that time we called them allies and the British were enraged by their assistance. If it were not for France we would not be an independant country today. Honestly, I am a very very liberal person with some significant conservative views. I don't think that Marine should face any punishment. His only mistake was being filmed killing him. I do not know if he was justified in killing that person but I certainly would not hold him accountable for it. It is a war and bad things happen in a war. Get over it. Also, as a direct result of my Mother (who like me is firmly against the war in Iraq and basically all of GW's policies) recently pushed funds through from a private foundation to purchase Hundreds of high power scopes for military rifles for the Marine Corps to outfit the troops in Iraq. Materials required but not provided by the conservative Republicans pushing this war. So when us Liberals say "Support our troops but not this war". We mean it!

Wish you had made that statement to Bush before he took our nation to War.

"People who use hair-trigger judgment to come to conclusions about things that are fast-moving frequently make mistakes that are awkward and embarrassing." Donald Rumsfeld George Bush said almos exactly the same thing in one of his speaches on Thursday. I guess they really do not think that going to Iraq was a mistake before they had "All the Facts" about WMD's and such. It is certainly true that their mistake is not awkward and embarrassing, but one giant Cluster F_ _ _.

Don't know about that. What did a Buddhist ever do to you?

Think of this, if this system was in place for the Democratic primaries, do you think that Kerry would still be the Dem's choice. I'd be willing to bet that Howard Dean or Wesley Clark would have won.

There would still be regulations on who would actually be allowed on the ballot. As it stands now Nader only qualifies in 34 States. So, even with the system I propose it would be extrordinally difficult for him to win. This system would give a better view of the actual issues people care about. Right now we are stuck with one side or the other and no way express my approval of both sides views. I am a Gun Lover. Feel it should be everybodys right to own and carry firearms. That is a typical conservative view. I am a Pro Choice person. It is not my body so why should I tell you what you can do with it. I don't want to pay for your decision but I will not restrict you from that. That is a very Liberal point of view. So, from my standpoint I would really like to vote for somebody that shares my views but I cannot do that and have any hope of them actually being elected. I really don't think it would be possible for any Extremist to win even with what I propose. And if they do it means that there was a strong shift in the fundimental beliefs of our country and there is something greater to worry about than our electrion strategy. What is to prevent that from happening now? What about David Duke? He was a Klansman he was elected to Political Office in his state but was not able to go any further. http://www.adl.org/special_reports/duke_ow.../duke_intro.asp What I propose is called Approval Voting More info can be found Here http://bcn.boulder.co.us/government/approv...te/altvote.html Look at item #6 I am not alone in favoring this type of electoral system. It is practicle, It Makes sense, and assures a winning candidate that the overall majority will approve of. Which tells me it will never work because the majority sides will suddenly find themselves losing to a minority candidate.

Instead of having a contained dictator controlling his country with an Iron fist we now have full fledged Terrorist recruiting ground. Ask Spain if they feel Safer. Yeah, NK has no valueable commodities. No, he only ensured the intelligence read what he wanted to justify the war.

I most certainly agree that any one of those things is an act of war but they are not all connected. The problem though is there is no specific government or country to easily hold responsible. Kaudafi in Lebabnon owned up to the Pan Am bombing and has paid reparations and is now in good standing with the US. 9/11 could be directly tied to Osama and his bases in Afghanistan. We went to war and invaded that country. No brainer, good job GW. Wish you had stayed longer and done it right. Terry Nichols and Tim McVeigh blew up a Federal building in Oklahoma. Should we go to war with ourselves? That was a terrorist act. Was it an act of war? And as his list goes, not a single one of them originated in Iraq. Not one has any significant ties to Iraq. Saying Iraq harbored or aided Al Qaida before the invaison is pure nonsense. The only terrorism that Saddam supported were the suicide bombers in Isreal. Did that affect or harm the US? No. Was that an attack on the US? No. However the overwhelming majority of terrorists on those planes were from Saudi Arabia. Saudi money funded them, and a Saudi was the mastermind of the operation. At the time all of those events occured from 93 back, the US was supporting Iraq and Afghanistan. IIRC the reason our Embacy was attacked in Iran was because there was a sudden shift in power in Iran and we were supporting Iraq against them. We SOLD F-14's to Iran in the 70's and provided support technicians from Grumman. To say that the US has been under attack from Terrorism since 1979 is a true statement. To imply that there has been one fundimental source that could have been eliminated to prevent future attacks since 1979 is idiotic to say the least.

The U.S. did not go to War for Oil. Our leaders went to War for Oil. Companies that they have interests in are making or will make Millions of dollars off of this war. In one way or another it is good for them and not for us. http://www.energy.ca.gov/gasoline/statisti...i_adjusted.html Gas prices have risen almost 50cents a gallon since 2002. The world is a less stable place. Part of the reason Gas prices are so high is because the Iraq is so unstable and the rest of the Oil producing countries are running at capacity. The cost to extract the oil has not gone up. The cost to refine the oil has not gone up, but the price certainly has. At the moment that is to the direct benefit of GW's friends the Saudi's. Going to War for oil encompuses alot more than just supplying the US with the commodity. What does North Korea have that we care about. Every singe reason that was given to go to War with Iraq can be said about North Korea. But North Korea has nothing they want. So, sanctions and negotiations are just fine with them. But they have no place for a Country with a strong GDP based on Oil. No, them we have to invade.

Goes to show that the Terrorists have greater insight than half the US population. They want GW to win because they know he will continue and expand the fight. A fight that will only draw more and more people into their cause.

I guess everyone forgets that Saddam was our Friend in the 1980's. Thus far every regieme in the past 20 years we have gone to war to overturn was one we either put in power or assisted during their early years. We used to be friends with the Muhajadeen. Remember Rambo III. In effect Rambo played that sheep game with Osama. Now those same people that wanted our support and arms (Stinger Missles) are the same ones we are fighting in Afghanistan. "and the people that opposed him were either killed or put in jail." Yeah, at least in the US we move the People that oppose the President on another street so he cannot see and those that refuse go to JAIL. If Saddam was still in power our Gas would not be $2.00 a gallon. If Saddam was still in power our soldiers would still be alive along with the thousands of Iraqi's that have been killed. If Saddam was still in power Afghanistan would have a stronger more stable governement and be much further along in its democratic process. If Saddam was still in power Iran and North Korea probably would not have Nuclear weapons because more attention would have been paid to their activities. If Saddam were still in Power 350Tons of high explosive would still be under lock and key. You can make the argument all day long that Saddam was a bad guy that killed his people, ruled the media and prevented imprisoned anyone that said disparaging remarks. Wake up people, there are numerous other countries out there EXACTLY like Saddam. Some harboring terrorists, some not. They all are equally as bad. Now at least one of those countries (NK) actually has weapons of mass destruction. Iraq did not. Iraq had oil and leader of which our president held a grudge. Thats it. WMD's were the only way he could justify it. Right now we DO NOT have the ability to invade another country like we did in Iraq. If we had to go to war with Iran or North Korea we would have to instate a draft. I bet there are alot of people on this board that are of draft age. Are you ready to go? GW was wrong in his justification for going to war. GW has made the ENTIRE WORLD a less safe place to live.

There would not be TWO presidents. The person with the most Votes wins. No electoral College. Example with 3 Candidates and 5 People voting. -----Kerry----Bush----Nader 1.-----I-------------------I 2.-----I 3.---------------I---------I 4.---------------I 5.-------------------------I Totals: Kerry: 2 Bush: 2 Nader: 3 Winner Nader See How it works. Very simple. This system would make it possible for a 3rd party to actually have a chance. They would not require alot of money only a solid platform. Since people would not be afraid of wasting their only vote on a candidate they feel can not win, they would be able to vote for each person they feel is qualified. Don't like it if you want, but it is more fair than the current system.

Honestly, does anybody truely want to vote for Either of these nice guy's? I would be willing to bet alot of people out there would love to vote for their true first choice as President but don't because they know that by doing so they lessen the chance of Winning a person they can live with as President. Our current system is absolutely horrid. At what point in our lives do we normally only have two choices? If you went to McDonalds and could only choose between a hamburger with ketchup or a hamburger with mustard, do you think they would be in business very long? When you buy a car there is more than Ford and Chevy. Think of the debates, there were only two sides represented. There are certainly more opinions and ways to handle the tough decisions. By being able to cast a vote for multiple people for President you will return a more valid sense of the peoples choices. With that type of voting system a person like Perot or Nader will have a good chance of winning and will force the current parties to actually do something good for people or face being beaten by an independant choice. BTW which one of the current candidates best represents you now? The Crack smoking Alchoholic Dumbass or the good Senator from Massachussetts? Neither one represents me or my beliefs and their values certainly don't show in their actions.

Personally I think our current voting system is Horrible, including the electoral college. To me the best way to elect anybody is to cast a vote for whomever you can live with as your representative. So, in a race with 3 candidates (JFK, GWB, RN) you can vote 3 times, 2 times or 1 time. If you only want GWB then you only vote once. If you could live with John Kerry or Ralph Nader then vote twice, once for each person. You cannot vote more than once for the same person. That way it is possible for a 3rd party candidate to win. All candidates have to visit everyone because they are actually working towards a Yes vote and not a Null Vote. But that would completely screw all of these percentages up now wouldn't it. :D

Maybe I should not have said "Call You Dan Rather" but said, that is just like Dan Rather. Because that is what that is. Publishing information from any source without bothering to properly fact check. New Term: Rathering-- The act of publishing or propigating factual information without properly ensuring its validity. "Besides this is a political forum not your course in political science. " My comments have absolutely nothing to do about Political Science. They come from a Network Administrators point of view about propogation of Crap on the internet. And even if I meant it to be a "Course in Political Science", you said it, this is a Political Forum. While I do not know Rich personally, he is a very helpful and informative source on this board. I in no way wish to degrade him, only ask him to please not forward that crudd. Computers, Networking and the Internet is my area of expertise and I know from reading tons of email each month caught in my SPAM filter what is and is not reliable information.

Rich, please please please never ever never forward crap you receive via email. They are never true and server only to propigate misinformation and clog mail servers and network connections for the rest of us. Maybe I should just call you Dan Rather. I does not matter if the email comes from somebody you know. It came to them from somebody they knew. If you like I can send you one that says Oliver North testified before congress in the 80's that he invested a million dollars for a security system to protect himself from Osama Bin Laden. Or one that Bill Gates will offer $100 if you forward this email to 10 people so he can test his new email system. If you are going to believe everything that comes via email you may as well cancel all other news media and read only The Onion Daily news, because at least their made up stuff is funny. "BAGHDAD—After 19 months of struggle in Iraq, U.S. military officials conceded a loss to Iraqi insurgents Monday, but said America can be proud of finishing "a very strong second." http://www.theonion.com/

IMHO I think that everybody that boards and airplane should be allowed to carry a concealed firearm. If you are a terrorist and you know you are boarding a plane where almost everybody will have a gun and is willing to use it, what are the chances they will be able to take control of the plane. Get rid of the Metal detectors and the long waits at the airport. I think they should be looking for bombs and chemical weapons. Handling a terrorist is easy. Don't let them terrorize you. Fight them to the death. Chances are they will kill you anyway. I say die on your own terms not theirs. It should be a person's civic duty to intervine in criminal activity and should be protected by law from any wrongful death that occurs. Crimes are less likely to happen if the person committing the crime knows that there will be resistance. However, only having a couple of people with firearms and keeping them in a locked location sounds pretty Fing stupid. They now know that there are guns on the plane, the pilots have them and they are in a locked location that takes a certain amount of time to retrieve. Therfore they have X amount of time to infiltrate the cockpit to retrieve the weapon. Either everybody has them, or nobody has them. Rich, I certainly agree. If you have a concealed carry permit that should enable you to carry that firearm everywhere. However there are certain places where I think you must disclose that you have that weapon. (Government buildings, etc) but still be allowed to carry it or check it with a guard and have it returned upon departure. Because really the reason for having it is to protect yourself while walking from the building to your car or home.