# Who's the frontrunner for the GOP in 2008?



## R y a n

Peering past Bush, GOP looking to '08

2,000 Republicans meet to discuss agenda, presidential hopefuls

MEMPHIS, Tennessee (AP) -- Restless Republicans are already looking beyond the embattled presidency of U.S. President George W. Bush to the 2008 campaign.

Nearly 2,000 Republican activists opened a weekend conference Friday to hear from presidential prospects and share strategies on a conservative agenda that many believe Washington has forsaken.

The delegates were voting in an informal "straw poll" to test the popularity of White House hopefuls including those in attendance -- Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, Sen. John McCain of Arizona, Sen. George Allen of Virginia, Sen. Sam Brownback of Kansas, Gov. Mike Huckabee of Arkansas and Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist of Tennessee.

But the balloting is not expected to have a lasting impact unless Frist, who has packed the Southern Republican Leadership Conference with supporters, hurts his presidential aspirations with a poor showing. McCain planned to urge his backers to write in Bush's name as a show of support, a move that could further dilute the straw poll's significance.

The dynamic to watch is how far the speakers and conference attendees distance themselves from Bush or the Republican-led Congress while urging the party to return to its conservative values.

Despite controlling the White House and Congress for most of the past five years, many Republicans feel both have fallen short on a number of issues including tax reform, fiscal responsibility, immigration, Social Security and family values.

"A big problem with our base is our spending," said Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, who is sometimes mentioned as a presidential prospect. "My time at this convention will be spent talking about a Republican Party that (Republican activists) are familiar with -- a party of controlling the size of government and reforming the government."

"If we don't have a program that reforms taxes and controls spending different from the Democrats, a lot of people will sit out the next election as Republicans," he warned. "We're dangerously close ... to having a deflated base."

Brownback, a favorite of social conservatives, said runaway spending is a problem for Republicans but so is a failure to produce innovative plans on health care, energy, the environment and rebuilding the American family.

"I think people are searching for new ideas on serious problems that move us together rather than apart," he said of Republican activists. "I think they want somebody who can put forward ideas that have a reasonable chance of broad-based support."

That doesn't speak well for Bush or the Republican leaders in Congress. "People are kind of, `Well, I wonder what other people can do,' " Brownback said.

Oklahoma congressman Tom Cole said such talk is part of the natural cycle of politics. Second-term presidents always compete for attention with a gaggle of would-be successors.

"We're beginning the process of that separation that goes on when we're trying to pass the baton from one administration to the next," said Cole, a former political strategist.

"There's always a painful sorting out period, but the Republican Party has to look for new leaders."

The restlessness is also fueled by polls. An AP-Ipsos survey shows that just 37 percent of people approve of Bush's performance and a mere 31 percent give the Republican-led Congress high marks.

Underscoring Graham's point about a deflated base, Bush's job approval among Republicans has dropped 8 percentage points to 74 percent since February, the poll showed. More than half of Republicans disapprove of Congress' performance.

"It's the winter of our discontent," Cole said.

Republicans fear they could lose their majorities in the House and Senate as well as the nation's governors offices.

As for the straw poll this weekend, Frist's team has worked feverishly to drum up votes. Perhaps half of the attendees are from Tennessee.

"If he loses, there's a bigger problem because he should win," said Frist adviser Jim ****.

In March of 1998, the equivalent point in the 2000 presidential campaign cycle, then-Texas Gov. George Bush narrowly won the SRLC's straw poll despite his absence from the event.

McCain and former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani are the most popular potential Republican candidates for 2008, according to most polls. Giuliani is not attending this conference.

Romney, the first presidential hopeful to speak, embraced conservative principles including opposition to gay marriage. "Every child in America has a right to a mother and father," he said. McCain was speaking Friday night.

Allen, Brownback, Huckabee and Frist speak Saturday, the day of the straw poll.

With little chance of beating Frist, Republican rivals did their best to minimize the impact of the straw poll. McCain's nod to Bush gives the front-runner from Arizona some political cover if he fares poorly in the contest.

Sen. Trent Lott of nearby Mississippi privately lobbied delegates on McCain's behalf, and publicly knocked the straw poll. It was a payback of sorts: Lott blamed Frist for his ouster as Senate majority leader in 2002.

----------------------------------------------------------

Hopefully if the Dems nominate Billary, the Republicans nominate someone who is moderate enough to slam dunk the election! Although I'm not a Republican or a Democrat, I know I hate Billary with every fiber in me. That alone will be enough to swing my vote Red! :wink:

Ryan

.


----------



## Militant_Tiger

Hopefully McCain will win the Republican nomination and the Democrats will put up Edwards or Dean.

Why do you hate the Clintons with such a fervor?


----------



## Plainsman

With those three I think America would loose no matter who wins. McCain is a back stabber that no one but liberals trusts anymore. He is a professional media kiss up.


----------



## Militant_Tiger

What is so bad about McCain? He seems to be someone who does what he thinks is right as opposed to what is fashionable. We could use an actual conservative in the White House.


----------



## Plainsman

Good Morning MT

He isn't a conservative in my book, just a liberal in lambs clothing. Why do you think the liberals like him and the media loves him? Many think him a hero and I guess so would I. However, if being a prisoner of war makes you a superior president, then there are a lot more of them out there. I think the North Viet Nam perhaps achieved their objective with his brain. 
I just don't see that the man has any integrity. Last time he lost he pouted like a baby and started backstabbing Bush. Can't get your way destroy the chance others have - this is what I see as his method of operation.


----------



## g/o

Only way republicans have a chance is with Rudy or McCain, have Frist or some other southerner as a running mate. Other wise it's hello Hillary


----------



## Militant_Tiger

Hillary cannot win.



> He isn't a conservative in my book, just a liberal in lambs clothing.


How so? He is a fiscal conservative, which is the only kind of conservation I care about at this point.



> Why do you think the liberals like him and the media loves him?


A better question is why do the Republicans hate him, my opinion is that he is a conservative of the days of yore, and these debt and spend neocons dont want that.



> Many think him a hero and I guess so would I. However, if being a prisoner of war makes you a superior president, then there are a lot more of them out there. I think the North Viet Nam perhaps achieved their objective with his brain.


Very harsh words. He doesn't use his captivity to his benefit, never flaunting it.



> Last time he lost he pouted like a baby and started backstabbing Bush. Can't get your way destroy the chance others have - this is what I see as his method of operation.


I see, so you dislike him because during the election he went against Bush. Have you forgotten about the mud the bushophiles threw at him? Any good conservative would, Bush is one of the most liberal presidents economically and militarily that we have had in decades.


----------



## Plainsman

It didn't matter if it was Bush or who won the republican primary, the distasteful thing was the spoiled child ruin the game if you can't play attitude displayed by McCain. That's all I need to know about the man. I would prefer a liberal that admits they are a liberal and are honest to a backstabbing conservative. Give me honesty and integrity every time.

Perhaps my words are harsh, but this is how I see the man. The media likes to play up his service and he may not push it but he bathes in the media.

He may be able to win, but I don't want him republican or not. And there in is the crux of this thing. He is republican, but not conservative. He may be fiscal conservative, but he is socially liberal. We don't need another Jesse Ventura. I can't see conservatives deserting their social values just to win. Perhaps to late they will learn, it really wasn't winning after all. After all this isn't about beating liberals, it is about improving our nation.


----------



## arctic plainsman

Plainsman,
I have been a real "fan" of Senator Mccain for a while, but I'm having a hard time dissagreeing with your opinions. 
Question for you, how do you think the Senator would handle our overseas affairs?


----------



## Militant_Tiger

If McCain disagreed with Bush's principles, and agreed to support him anyway, could he not be faulted for not sticking to his beliefs? Thus far I have seen no reason not to vote for him.


----------



## Plainsman

I think he would do ok with overseas affairs. At least unlike Jimmy Carter he realizes you can't kiss the enemy into submission. My problem is he acted like such a spoiled brat and was such a sore loser I wonder if on some occasions he might let temper rule rather than logic. I am just real hesitant about the guy. I do think he is like old Jesse Ventura a fiscal conservative (good), but a social liberal (real bad). My biggest problem is distrust. Once I have lost trust there isn't much left for me. 
I think he would take the republican party much further left, and both parties have been heading down that path. Since I have paid attention to political things (about 1960) both parties have been sliding left. The majority of conservatives in this nation have been waiting for a republican president to put the brakes on not punch the accelerator.


----------



## arctic plainsman

Plainsman, your thinking, especially the last sentence in your last post, is most excellent!


----------



## Militant_Tiger

> I think he would take the republican party much further left, and both parties have been heading down that path.


Where have you been!



> I wonder if on some occasions he might let temper rule rather than logic.


Has that not been the policy of the Bush administration which you support? In what way has McCain allowed his temper to rule?

I can understand being hesistant about any candidate but it sounds like you dislike him without just cause.


----------



## Plainsman

It's kind of funny you ask me where you have been, and most of my life you were not alive.

Where I have been is watching him become spiteful after the last republican primary. Where I have been is watching him kiss up to the media on his tour bus when he last run for the primaries. Where I have been is listening to his social policies.

For anyone who has watched this nation (not listened to what others interpret) for the past 50 years they will agree we have moved further left. In 1960 we didn't have gay parades, abortion, or groups like Men Boy Love Association. Watching TV today gives you the creeps. Young people, and many older, have been desensitized like rats in the laboratory. You will not be able to judge this, because you have known no other, you have no point of reference.


----------



## Militant_Tiger

Is there not another thread on this forum stating that the country is moving right? Do you view South Dakota banning abortion as a liberal move? Do you view the willy nilly wiretapping of American citizens as liberal? You are right, I haven't been around for as long as you, but evidently there has been a complete reversal of what you have seen in the last five or so years.

There were no abortions in 1960? Lets forget about that so it doesn't go off topic.



> You will not be able to judge this, because you have known no other, you have no point of reference.


With that line of logic we may as well discount all accounts of history by those who were not alive during the period which they speak of.

I also find it unusual that you would call McCain a backstabber considering he is one of the few who have supported Bush loyally, even into this period when his numbers are way down and most of his supporters have drifted away. There was an interview between he and Matthews on MSNBC just minutes ago in which he was questioned if Bush recognized his extreme loyalty towards him. Even at the cost of his own support McCain stands by his virtues.


----------



## Plainsman

I did see him support Bush on the news today. I wonder if that was from the heart, or he wants us to forget what a jerk he acted like before? I was impressed with his attitude today, but not silly enough to completely forget yesterday (last primary).

South Dakota did move right. That is what I am talking about MT, your point of reference. Your life has been so short your talking recent history. I am talking the last 50 years. Of course you can find some full of bs media type that might tell you we have moved right. I kind of doubt you will find one that goofy between the ears though. History isn't that reliable. If Hitler won world war two we would be reading about what a hero he was today. It is not nearly as reliable as first hand experience. When your 60 years old will you put more credibility in what you remember of the Bush administration, or more credibility in a book written 30 years ago by someone you don't know who explains it.

Abortion was not off topic. It is one of those liberal things that has contributed to how far left we are today. It is not the primary subject however, only an example of socially left values.

There is one thing your right about. The nation is ready to turn right.


----------



## Militant_Tiger

> Abortion was not off topic. It is one of those liberal things that has contributed to how far left we are today. It is not the primary subject however, only an example of socially left values.


You claimed that abortion was not about in the 1960s, that is wrong.



> I was impressed with his attitude today, but not silly enough to completely forget yesterday (last primary).


I would like some evidence of this.



> That is what I am talking about MT, your point of reference. Your life has been so short your talking recent history. I am talking the last 50 years.


So is it still your claim that the country has been moving left for the last 50 years, or that it has been moving left for the previous 45 years, but has completely reversed in the last 5?

I may not have had the experience that you have had, but consider that you have seen 50 years through your own filter. Frankly I often trust historical accounts more than personal ones, as they attempt to be as unbiased as possible.



> There is one thing your right about. The nation is ready to turn right.


There are two rights, a fiscal right and a social right. The nation wants so much to turn right fiscally, but so long as America remains a free nation and so long as it continues to evolve, it will not shift socially right. My two cents.


----------



## DecoyDummy

I'd say the country took a real hard left about 65 years ago ...

And since then has repeatedly taken a stronger and stronger grip on the notion that the "perceived benefits" of Socialism are a God Given and Constitutionally Protected RIGHT.

Seemingly now at a point were not even a Conservative President dares reach out to "dim the light" of American Socialism.

As a famous and astute American once said .......................

When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the Republic.
-- Benjamin Franklin


----------



## Militant_Tiger

Other than social security and welfare, where exactly is this socialism?


----------



## Plainsman

> You claimed that abortion was not about in the 1960s, that is wrong.


We didn't kill the unborn by the millions back then MT, and none legally.



> I would like some evidence of this.


Evidence of what, that I am impressed? Or his actions in the last primary? I remember it, and am not going to chase around for evidence for you, I have better things to do. Those that remember what he was like will remember the same things I do. If you don't then you choose not to remember accurately 
.



> So is it still your claim that the country has been moving left for the last 50 years, or that it has been moving left for the previous 45 years, but has completely reversed in the last 5?


There has been an ebb and flow so to speak, but the net result is we are far left of where we were in 1960.



> Frankly I often trust historical accounts more than personal ones


Of course you do it is all you have when talking 50 years.



> it will not shift socially right. My two cents.


Perhaps not, but if it regains a conscience it will move socially right.


----------



## Militant_Tiger

> I remember it, and am not going to chase around for evidence for you, I have better things to do. Those that remember what he was like will remember the same things I do. If you don't then you choose not to remember accurately


No, simply that you wish to write your own history. I honestly doubt that you have anything against McCain as a person, you simply dislike his views and as such grasp on to any reason to hate him.



> There has been an ebb and flow so to speak, but the net result is we are far left of where we were in 1960.


Says who? You seem to be conveniently skipping over conservative issues like the excess power that has been granted to the executive branch and the push for phone taps on demand and without question.



> Of course you do it is all you have when talking 50 years.


I could rely on second hand experience from those around me, but I enjoy hearing what actually happened as opposed to a stilted report as seen through the red or blue filter of the average citizen.



> Perhaps not, but if it regains a conscience it will move socially right.


America has always been about freedom, and I pray to God that it will always be. Conscience is relative.


----------



## DecoyDummy

One little diddy I'd hate to have you overlook ... is Income Tax ...

It is the genisis of American Socialism ... the first step in"Redistribution of the Wealth" ...

Consider the "EITC" ... Folks who owe no taxes can have a sizeble refund ... of money they NEVER PAID TO BEGIN WITH. Interesting little concept there huh, hard to not call that socialistic ...

"From each according to his means, to each according to his need."

I'm not going to go through a liteny of cases but that one surely proves the point.


----------



## Militant_Tiger

So how do you propose we collect taxes?


----------



## DecoyDummy

That is an entire different thread I think ... and it's been talked to death on this board as I recall ...

I didn't use that example in an effort to divert the topic to "Tax Methods" I used it as a concise example of how a current system results in "Redistribution of the Wealth ... Socialism" right out of the starting gate.


----------



## Militant_Tiger

My intent was not to divert the topic but rather to point out there is no better way to run such a program, hence the fact that it is socialist is irrelevant.


----------



## arctic plainsman

I really hope we are given Hillary C as a choice for President. I think that is going to be the best defense against a Democrat in the White House in '08. 
I'll be a little worried if Edwards, Dean, or some of the other less inflammatory Democrats win a nomination. 
Since 2000, I think gun owners have been able to largely not worry about the gun control issue. If Mccain is elected, I'll ratchet up my donations to the NRA, but if Hillary is elected, I'm just going to deposit my pay straight into their account!
Say, uh,...you guy's wouldn't mind sending me a peanut butter and jelly sandwich every once in a while if that happens will you?


----------



## DecoyDummy

MT Wrote:

"there is no better way to run such a program"

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Pretty bold and naive statement there ...


----------



## Plainsman

No MT I do dislike McCain as a person. Currently (today) he isn't that bad, but in the past he has been a spoiled child that if he can't have his way he will spoil it for others.

I don't want to write my own history, but I want to be free to remember it as it happened not skewed by a biased historian.



> I enjoy hearing what actually happened


I enjoyed hearing it as it happened, from the horses mouth, rather than later from the horses other end.



> Conscience is relative


Only if a person has no moral compass ie reference point (Bible etc).


----------



## Militant_Tiger

> Pretty bold and naive statement there ...


Then defend that position, as I asked you to do before.



> Only if a person has no moral compass ie reference point (Bible etc).


Not everyone uses the same reference point, hence why it is relative.



> I enjoyed hearing it as it happened, from the horses mouth, rather than later from the horses other end.


Certainly, but when I take it from you, I am getting a biased take on it. Because you refuse to back up your statements that he is somehow a spoiled child, I will refuse to believe it.


----------



## DecoyDummy

Anyone who thinks anything "CAN NOT BE DONE BETTER" ... Is doomed to mediocrity at best ... and eventual failure.

Might be why Democrates cling so firmly to the "Social Security" program as it currenty exists.


----------



## Plainsman

MT ask someone 20 years old who watched the post primaries. 
Your right though I am biased, I dislike poor loosers.

Look at it this way MT: your liberal I am conservative, you like McCain --see where this is going.


----------



## racer66

> Hopefully McCain will win the Republican nomination and the Democrats will put up Edwards or Dean.


We could only hope the Dem's put up Screamin Howie or Eddie. Niether one of these two idiots bring anything to the table.


----------



## Gohon

Am I the only one that finds MT's defense of McCain funny. Last time McCain was in the spot light MT was only about 10-11 years old. McCain or Hillary............ not a lot of comfort there in either case. John McCain would be to the Republicans what Jimmy Carter was to the Democrats.


----------



## Militant_Tiger

> John McCain would be to the Republicans what Jimmy Carter was to the Democrats.


A visionary and a peacemaker?


----------



## Plainsman

Carter a visionary and a peacemaker?????? No, a dimwit and a meddler. Jimmy Carter didn't have two brain cells fire at the same time. His synapses were short circuited. I can still remember him so surprised that the Russians lied to him. They lied to me, they lied to me. Duuuh Now he continues to make a fool of himself. Jimmy Carter never met a despot he didn't like.


----------



## Militant_Tiger

Plainsman it seems that you recall every figure who has gone against the conservatives as a devil, and every figure who has gone with them as a saint.


----------



## Scoonafish

I normaly stay away from posting in here...but I have say this...
Jimmy Carter was America's Neville Chamberlain. Chamberlain thought he could appease to Germany and the Nazi's, the same way Cater thought he could ignore communism. The Soviet's military was in a massive build up while Carter left out forces stagnant. Then Carter acted surprized after the Soviets invaded Afganastan. Cater (then and now) believes that we live in a world all we have to do is make nice with our enemies and they will leave us alone.

It was dangerious thinking then and it is dangerious thinking now.


----------



## Plainsman

Militant_Tiger said:


> Plainsman it seems that you recall every figure who has gone against the conservatives as a devil, and every figure who has gone with them as a saint.


Actually I don't like any of them that much, democrat or republican. Most care more about their political power than their country.

I see the media MSNBC has been running specials about their poster boy (McCain) for a couple days now. His high school days, his family, his military career. It looks like they are starting to push their boy for 2008 already. Time for another straight talk buss tour.

No, I don't see every liberal as the devil MT, but unlike you I don't see them as saints either. Not even Kennedy that the liberals worship. What I remember most about Kennedy is him allowing airplanes to be sold to the Cuban resistance fighters that were returning to Cuba. Even though their planes took of from Mexico he somehow was able to force them to remove weapons from the planes themselves. The entire invasion force died at the Bay of Pigs thanks to Kennedy. I would imagine Castro is forever grateful.

Although he (Kennedy) demanded that the Russians remove their missiles from Cuba he didn't think it was polite to look under the rubber tarps aboard the Russian ships to confirm that there were really missiles under them. I guess we were PC then too.

I don't remember Truman, but I wasn't that wild about Ike. If you want to know what happened in the real world forget the history books and talk to someone who can remember. Now that the history books are covering things I remember myself I have respect for some, and realize that some are as realistic as a childs comic book. Somewhere in the past 40 years respect for history and the truth became lost. Perhaps it has always been that way. Wouldn't it be interesting to read a Russian history book about their nation. Do you think we would believe any of it? Of course you would believe all of it. Not me.


----------



## Militant_Tiger

You are making relative mole hills into mountains, and apparently stunning victories like the Cuban missile crisis are not good enough for you. Evidently you believe that it could have done better, if the leader did not agree with your social beliefs. Even the history books are trash if they do not read out the way you like.


----------



## Plainsman

As long as we took the initiative to check out their ships I would have like a peak under those tarps. Our satellite imagery hasn't shown any missile sites since, so evidently Russia did get them out. At the time it looked like a half hearted effort. The Bay of Pigs was a disaster. Go to Florida and ask a Cuban that longs for his homeland.

If your reading history books that tell you otherwise they should be in the fiction section of the library. I suppose this is all news to you ??????????????????

MT what does your history books tell you about who took military advisors from Laos and into Viet Nam? Seriously, what do the books your reading tell you about that?


----------



## Militant_Tiger

The Cuban Missile Crisis turned out as well as anyone could have hoped for. There have been far greater Republican flops. We are involved in one right now.


----------



## Plainsman

In retrospect it did turn out not that bad. I remember having bomb drills in school. We didn't know if the Russians would back down, and Kennedy had bombers in the air. We faced rational people then, and Bush has a much larger problem now. Were lucky to have him in office during this war.


----------



## Militant_Tiger

Plainsman said:


> In retrospect it did turn out not that bad. I remember having bomb drills in school. We didn't know if the Russians would back down, and Kennedy had bombers in the air. We faced rational people then, and Bush has a much larger problem now. Were lucky to have him in office during this war.


We have an irrational and incompetent leader in office who has bungled nearly every attempt at foreign and domestic change in his presidency. This country will be far better off once we get someone who knows how to find their *** with both hands again.


----------



## Plainsman

> This country will be far better off once we get someone who knows how to find their a$$ with both hands again


.

Clinton can't run again, he already had two terms.


----------



## Militant_Tiger

> Clinton can't run again, he already had two terms.


I don't want Clinton, I just want someone who isn't totally oblivious as to what is actually going on in the world. Left or right, Democrat or Republican just give me someone competent.


----------



## DecoyDummy

It's obvious to me GWB as a very clear handle on what is going on in the World and he has the Gonads to stand on his own to feet and make the choices that need to be made.

GWB recognized the "Terror Conflict" as War ... not just criminal acts and he took action as such.

GWB knew we needed to be carrying the war to the land of the terrorists and could see Iraq was a Terrorist Sponsor and also a strategic piece of land in the region ... he could see that the UN rattling a "loli-pop" at Saddam was accomplishing nothing other than making the World body appear as a bunch school children to the World of Terror and other Totalitarian Establishments, so he brought out he "Sabers" to insure that posture would change and it has.

His respect and commitment to the office are impeccable ... and I can't imagine (and would be fearful to try to imagine) where we might be in this mess had Al Gore won in 2000.

Oh ... and I believe Federal Revenue is above projections ... on a account of "Tax Cuts."


----------



## Militant_Tiger

> GWB knew we needed to be carrying the war to the land of the terrorists and could see Iraq was a Terrorist Sponsor and also a strategic piece of land in the region ... he could see that the UN rattling a "loli-pop" at Saddam was accomplishing nothing other than making the World body appear as a bunch school children to the World of Terror and other Totalitarian Establishments, so he brought out he "Sabers" to insure that posture would change and it has.


Iraq was not nearly the largest supporter of terror in the mideast, and it could be argued that they did not support terror at all. Have you already forgotten that the purpose of the war was to "remove WMD's"? I call that a flip flop.



> His respect and commitment to the office are impeccable ... and I can't imagine (and would be fearful to try to imagine) where we might be in this mess had Al Gore won in 2000.


He has a commitment to big buisness and to himself. If Al Gore had won we may have found a peaceful means to deal with Iraq and wouldn't have 10000+ Amerian soldiers seriously injured or dead.



> Oh ... and I believe Federal Revenue is above projections ... on a account of "Tax Cuts."


If you are trying to imply that we will be pulling in enough money to deal with the national debt, we aren't.



> It's obvious to me GWB as a very clear handle on what is going on in the World


In what way? He completely misjudged how the war in Iraq would go, said that the the mission was accomplished some 2 and a half years ago, since then 2000 American soliders have died, he miscalculated how many troops it would take, didn't supply them with the right armor, he was wrong about there being WMD's in Iraq, and that is just to mention a few. No matter how much you wish he did, this man has absolutley no grasp on the real world affairs.



> and he has the Gonads to stand on his own to feet and make the choices that need to be made.


He had the idiocy to bring us into a war that will leave the area even more battered and wartorn than it was under the dictator. Consider how badly you guys would be ripping him apart if it was Clinton doing this instead. He would have been booted out of office years ago.


----------



## racer66

> If Al Gore had won we may have found a peaceful means to deal with Iraq


This goof would still be trying to figure how to get onto the internet he invented.


----------



## ND decoy

McCain is easily the early favorite but, the keep an eye on George Allen from Virginia and Chuck Hagel from Nebraska. Allen is really good at addressing the crowds and getting his message out. He also can raise as much money as anybody else in the field. Hagel can match McCain on the hero factor and has showed the guts call out Bush and his administration for being idiots.

Right now the wild card of the field has to be Rudy Giuliani. When he announces what he is going to do it should settle the field and shift the money around. The extreme right wing will raise all kinds of hell about McCain and Giuliani and start making major donations to the more conservative canidates like Allen, Hagel and Frist. Just my opinion.


----------



## Militant_Tiger

Allen comes off as kind of a dunce to me, and I don't think he could get the nomination. I think Guliani is too "east coast" for most of the country. Hagel has a chance. At this point in the race though it is way too early to call out anyone as the definate nominee. Clinton came out of nowhere late in the race.


----------



## racer66

Heard the other day that Hillary Rodham Rodham's numbers have been slipping as of late.


----------



## Militant_Tiger

racer66 said:


> Heard the other day that Hillary Rodham Rodham's numbers have been slipping as of late.


I certainly hope so.


----------



## racer66

I think Howard Dean would be good candidate for the Dem's.


----------



## R y a n

The sleeping giant for the Dems is Barack O'bama. That guy has some serious potential! He had great charisma, is extremely bright and very well spoken. When you listen to him speak he has a commanding presence that is often an "X" factor in a political race.

I think he mentioned he is not interested in the presidency for this go around, but like everything else that could change. However he is moderate enough to garner alot of support among many swing voters. He'll likely be president before his political career is over barring a scandal of some form.

Ryan

.


----------



## Militant_Tiger

I hate to be a cynic, but Obama is black, and I don't think much of this country is ready for a black president.


----------



## R y a n

Militant_Tiger said:


> I hate to be a cynic, but Obama is black, and I don't think much of this country is ready for a black president.


That's not being a cynic MT, that's racist! The country isn't color divided with offices at that high a level. Look at Condy Rice... she's a BLACK WOMAN!

Barack is extremely competent, well educated, articulate and comes from a state where Presidents can definitely be elected from. Further, he is the best of all worlds. He will generate additional votes from a segment of the population that is historically underrepresented at the polls. He's bright enough and well known enough to win the respect of most educated white Democrats.

The republicans were considering putting Colin Powell on the ballot. Was/Is he not electable then too?

Geesshhhh

Ryan

.


----------



## Militant_Tiger

> That's not being a cynic MT, that's racist! The country isn't color divided with offices at that high a level. Look at Condy Rice... she's a BLACK WOMAN!


She wasn't elected.

I like Obama, and I would probably vote for Obama, but in my honest opinion this country simply will not vote for a black president, especially after coming directly out of a failed presidency.


----------



## R y a n

Militant_Tiger said:


> That's not being a cynic MT, that's racist! The country isn't color divided with offices at that high a level. Look at Condy Rice... she's a BLACK WOMAN!
> 
> 
> 
> She wasn't elected.
> 
> I like Obama, and I would probably vote for Obama, but in my honest opinion this country simply will not vote for a black president, especially after coming directly out of a failed presidency.
Click to expand...

Hmmm... fair enough... good point.

I agree that the timing isn't right for him. I think he senses that too... and why he mentioned he'd be sitting on the sidelines for the next election. Imagine if he was the VP running mate for Billary..... That would be an interesting ticket....


----------



## Militant_Tiger

My dream ticket would be McCain/Edwards, but Hillary/Obama would be impressive too, especially if Obama maintained the power that the current VP has taken.


----------



## Plainsman

MT, you don't want me to sleep tonight do you? :lol:


----------



## indsport

MT, plainsman is right about your age and lack of experience, you'll learn. However, myself, being about the same age as plainsman, who was born and grew up in the midwest until the mid 60's and then moved to the west coast, plainsman is also lacking in viewpoint based on lack of experience. Plainsman and I have discussed this more than once. My experiences in schools, society, and many other aspects of life were quite different from his, once I had moved to the west coast.

What I send as copies of posts from this forum are greeted with howls of laughter on the coasts, since my liberal friends and relatives on the coasts view MT as a conservative and the rest of the posters as even farther right. (Niece in Bellingham washington, "Are all your democrats in North dakota like Rush Limbaugh??) When I send the same posts to conservative friends (and relatives) in Arizona, the same posts are viewed with howls of laughter and Plainsman is viewed as a moderate republican and most of the posters here are viewed as moderates ("Your north dakota conservatives are too d%$n liberal" as my cousin says). As to political viewpoint, my own family has an example. My older sister, who was a member of the local democratic party here in 1964 had also moved to the west coast. Out there, her political viewpoint, social viewpoint and economic viewpoint was seen as moderate to conservative republican so she joined the republican party and was a delegate to the Republican national convention.

MT, From my perspective, this country has moved much to the right in the past 10 years. This will instantly be disputed, (of course), by conservatives saying the country has moved to the middle and hasn't moved enough to the right. However, since this forum has few if any liberals, and from what I have seen, very middle of the road liberals like yourself, don't expect many posters agreeing with you.


----------



## racer66

> very middle of the road liberals like yourself


 :lol:


----------



## Militant_Tiger

Where I am is all about perspective. Some like Zogman claim that you have to be "far right to take the middle ground". I see myself as middle of the road, as I take quite a liberal approach to some issues, and quite a conservative approach to others. Those on the other "side of the aisle" obviously disagree.


----------



## Burly1

I don't have any suggestions for another nominee, but the thought of McCain running the country scares me more than even Hillary. His years in a prison camp alone should disqualify him from having anything to do with our country's defense. Perhaps I am wrong, and if I am, I'm sure it will be pointed out to me. The primary aim of North Vietnamese prisoner of war camps was to break their prisoners mentally, and they were very good at it. No matter how normally McCain has behaved it recent years, deep seated faults could come to the surface at the most inopportune moments. The knowledge he holds, as a Senator, of classified US dealings is too much as it is. Patriot, yes. A dedicated family man, okay. A fairly competent member of the Senate? Probably. A viable candidate for President of the United States? No way. Burl


----------



## Militant_Tiger

> primary aim of North Vietnamese prisoner of war camps was to break their prisoners mentally, and they were very good at it. No matter how normally McCain has behaved it recent years, deep seated faults could come to the surface at the most inopportune moments. The knowledge he holds, as a Senator, of classified US dealings is too much as it is. Patriot, yes. A dedicated family man, okay. A fairly competent member of the Senate? Probably. A viable candidate for President of the United States? No way. Burl


Burl I couldn't disagree more. McCain stood through the torture and never betrayed his country. He is a true patriot and one of the greatest senators I have seen in my lifetime. The idea that his experience should disqualify him flys in the face of everything we hold dear as Americans. Should a rape victim not be allowed to start a family because she might at some time become mentally unstable due to her experiences? McCain knows the horrors of war first hand, and as such he is the most qualified to send us to war, unlike the president we have now who has never seen such things. I am deeply saddened by your statement.


----------



## Burly1

I'm sorry at your disappointment. My statement stands. Your comparison seeks to put the destiny of a very few against that of many millions. Neither you, I , nor the American people know without question what took place behind the closed doors of that prison camp. Any reports of what did or did not happen there are either heresay, or based on the statements of the principal. I do not question John McCains dedication or patriotism, only his ability to handle the most extreme of national crises in a rational manner. As we do not know what truly lies in the hearts and minds of all men and women, we can only judge by what is seen on the surface. John McCain has been a credible politician, if that can be truly seen as a recommendation of character, and a dedicated member of the armed forces who served his country well and to the best of his abilities. If that is enough for you, so be it. It is not, for me. Truth be told, McCain is in good company. There are currently no politicians considering the presidential race in 2008, that I would consider qualified on all counts. Perhaps my disgust with current politics in general should cause you to take my opinions with the proverbial grain of salt. Opinions are, after all, like................ Burl


----------



## racer66

> He is a true patriot and one of the greatest senators I have seen in my lifetime.


Now that's a loooooong time. :lol:


----------



## Militant_Tiger

No one knows what happened while he was prisoner, and it is not our place to know. He had no control over what happened to him. With your logic we may as well exclude anyone from politics who has been in war or had a traumatic experience as it might come back to haunt them at some point. Had he come back a nut, I could see your point. Because he has proved perfectly stable and an upright citizen since his return, it is not your place nor right to exclude him from politics.



> John McCain has been a credible politician, if that can be truly seen as a recommendation of character, and a dedicated member of the armed forces who served his country well and to the best of his abilities.


A good politican, and a good human being, what exactly do you want from your politicians?


----------



## Plainsman

Indspsort wrote:


> However, myself, being about the same age as plainsman, who was born and grew up in the midwest until the mid 60's and then moved to the west coast, plainsman is also lacking in viewpoint based on lack of experience.


Careful there indsport your going to wrench your arm patting yourself on the back. oke: This is what I mean when I say that liberals see themselves as the intellectually elite. That is why they talk about how dumb conservative candidates are vs. how smart liberal candidates are. Remember Mrs. Wild woman Kerry? She wasn't smart enough to keep her mouth shut.

Experience???? Technology today makes sure that even those living back in the sticks (That would be North Dakota I guess) are worldly knowledgeable (that would be sophisticated for you liberals). What happens on the other side of the planet is morning news while we eat our cereal. While I have traveled most of the United States I have only lived in North Dakota. Indsport while I missed living on the west coast (not really) you missed living in North Dakota. You see we have equal but different experiences. Why do liberals always think their experiences have taught them more about life. While you learned to be liberal on the west coast, I learned to be conservative in North Dakota. Not having lived on the west coast I still know their values, and doubt I would have changed just to fit in. I know why they are the way they are, and I don't want to have any part of it. So how does living their change a persons inherent family passed on values and how would it change my viewpoint?

I remember our discussion about college professors. I said they were liberal, you said they were conservative. I still maintain that they were perhaps much alike, but we see them different, because we have a different perspective. I know I am conservative, but you haven't come to grips with how liberal you really are. Most people see themselves as moderate. I know I am not, and I hate to brake the news to you , but neither are you. I seen the professors as liberal because I am conservative. I would be willing to bet you would have seen these same professors as conservative, because you are to the left of them. It's all perspective. Am I the only person that will admit what I am?


----------



## Plainsman

MT wrote:


> McCain knows the horrors of war first hand, and as such he is the most qualified to send us to war,


Rarely do I see such gross misuse of logic. That is sort of like pepper spray training. Before you can use pepper spray you must be trained. The training: they shoot you in the face with it. The idea is then you will know how much it hurts and not be so willing to spray someone. The truth is most think, I can't wait to spray some jerk. I told a trainer: This must be some dumb liberal idea, what's next I have to be shot with my 45 before I can carry it? Touchy feely vs. logic. 
Now we think because someone has been in war he is the best qualified to lead the country. I would say someone smart enough not to be captured and held as a prisoner would make a better candidate. Hero's don't die for their country, they make the other guy die for his, even better, they make a whole bunch of them die. How is that for logic?


----------



## Militant_Tiger

> Now we think because someone has been in war he is the best qualified to lead the country. I would say someone smart enough not to be captured and held as a prisoner would make a better candidate. Hero's don't die for their country, they make the other guy die for his, even better, they make a whole bunch of them die. How is that for logic?


There are some who would call you a yellow bellied rat for insulting a veteran for being captured, but I won't.

You know it is funny, because you claim that experience is the difference between you and I, and as such I don't know a damn. Funny how you would change your tune when it comes to experience in war. That is hypocritical. How is that for logic?


----------



## Gohon

> There are some who would call you a yellow bellied rat for insulting a veteran for being captured, but I won't.
> 
> You know it is funny, because you claim that experience is the difference between you and I, and as such I don't know a damn. Funny how you would change your tune when it comes to experience in war. That is hypocritical. How is that for logic?


No, not some....... just you. MT, McCains only real experience in war is that of being a prisoner of war. I once heard him say through his own lips that he wasn't a very good pilot or he wouldn't have been shot down. He is a vet, he is a ex-pow but those are not qualifications to lead the country. Just ask Kerry who found out the country wasn't interested in his salute at the convention. Now his experience in congress are qualifications that can be viewed as to his leadership abilities. My opinion after watching him from the first day in office until now is he flies off the handle to easily and often makes snap decisions without consulting or viewing the facts. That may be okay for your local mechanic but not for a President. Others may disagree.


----------



## Militant_Tiger

> No, not some....... just you.


So you agree with plainsman that any soldier captured during war time is stupid.



> He is a vet, he is a ex-pow but those are not qualifications to lead the country.


That is not the argument. Even such, he has been a sucessful senator for many years, which does qualify him to lead the country.



> My opinion after watching him from the first day in office until now is he flies off the handle to easily and often makes snap decisions without consulting or viewing the facts.


We just went through six years of that, I didn't hear you complain then. You boys really need to get your ducks in a row before you start contradicting yourselves and bashing our veterans.


----------



## Plainsman

> There are some who would call you a yellow bellied rat for insulting a veteran for being captured, but I won't.


In reality we both know you just did. Your not as subtle as you think MT.



> So essientially you agree that any soldier captured during war time is stupid.


No he isn't saying that MT. I would emagine gohon (isn't he a vet himself) and I both feel we owe a great debt to all soldiers, in particular POW's, and to the families of the dead. We were simply talking about qualifications. I thought it was ironical that you thought because someone was in war they were qualified. As you think McCain is qualified I pointed out that the ones that didn't get caught might on average be better pilots, gunners, runners, whatever.



> You boys really need to get your ducks in a row before you start contradicting yourselves and bashing our veterans.


MT you need your ducks in a row. This chastising from a fellow who said he didn't give a (&*(*T%&% if our soldiers were being shot at that is war. Statements like this will come back to haunt you MT. Now that is hypocritical.


----------



## Militant_Tiger

> I thought it was ironical that you thought because someone was in war they were qualified.


That is absolutely wrong. You shouldn't assume so much, especially if you plan on taking it as fact.



> I would emagine gohon (isn't he a vet himself) and I both feel we owe a great debt to all soldiers, in particular POW's, and to the families of the dead.


You owe them a great debt but



> I would say someone smart enough not to be captured and held as a prisoner would make a better candidate.


Yet you call them stupid for not being able to evade capture. That is no way to honor them.



> Statements like this will come back to haunt you MT.


You should practice what you preach. It seem that you have lost respect for the warriors while I have gained it. How quickly we change.


----------



## racer66

> Quote:
> Militant_Tiger wrote on Mar 10, 2005 6:36 pm " I really couldn't give any less of a damn if our soldiers are being shot at or not, that's war."


We seen how much respect you have for them.



> Posted: Thu Apr 28, 2005 6:30 pm Post subject:
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Now why would I think that the fellow is innocent? Unlike many conservatives I keep the same rules for everyone. He killed two people needlessly and hurt more, let him fry.


By the way I thought you were against the death penalty?


----------



## Plainsman

Nice try MT, but I think everyone on here knows me better than that, and you too. You simply don't want to understand what I was saying. You think McCain is so qualified because he is a vet and a POW. I simply thought it humorous stating that one who didn't get caught was perhaps more qualified than one who did. Simple deduction, no judgment of anyone involved. Now you on the other hand we all remember your attitude. You like McCain and so now for you the wind blows the other way. Handy isn't it.
It appears that if your "side" does it, it is ok, but something a conservative or republican or anyone who opposes your ideas (other side) does or says is terrible. I think this is what they call a double standard, one for MT one for everyone else.


----------



## Burly1

Now, MT, it seems that you are the one using shotgun logic here. Nobody showed disrespect to all veterans. Some have merely pointed out what they consider glaring flaws with one vet, who has ambitions toward the presidency. As every other candidate is examined under a microscope, why should Mr. McCain be any different? It is our place to know what happened in that prison camp, when we are selecting a leader for the greatest, most powerful nation in the world. If McCain is your man, great. But I will tell you you are mistaken when you presume to tell me whether or not it is my place or within my rights to exclude him from politics. To exclude the man is, within my limited scope of influence, my right. You sir, do not determine my rights. It most assuredly is my place, and the place of any and all Americans who feel the same way. That is the system. It is our right to choose. You have the right to state your own opinion. You do not have the right to determine mine. Burl


----------



## zogman

As much as I've try to stay out of any thread with MT on I can't help but speak out. :eyeroll:

In watching most of the political taking heads of the last 15 years I still beleive the smartest one is Newt Ginrich. I don't think he could be elected but he's my choice. On the Dems side Obama is way to liberal, very smooth, has good handlers. The Dems don't have a middle canidate except maybe Liberman.

MT I was a Dem until I got married and earned my first paycheck so there is still hope for you :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:


----------



## Militant_Tiger

> You think McCain is so qualified because he is a vet and a POW.


Again, you repeat your assumption, which is simply untrue.



> I simply thought it humorous stating that one who didn't get caught was perhaps more qualified than one who did. Simple deduction, no judgment of anyone involved.


Indeed, it was quite humorous to call all of the POWs of our country idiots for being captured by the enemy.



> It appears that if your "side" does it, it is ok, but something a conservative or republican or anyone who opposes your ideas (other side) does or says is terrible. I think this is what they call a double standard, one for MT one for everyone else.


You have essientially repeated my statement, and then called me a partisan. Nearly everyone here who posts regularly is a partisan, you've stated the obvious. Sticking with one side or another is called dedication, and has absolutely nothing to do with a double standard, such as your double standard with experience. More experience is needed to see the world clearly when it comes to me, but McCain is somehow no more qualified to be involved in military matters than someone who has seen combat no closer than the history channel.



> Nobody showed disrespect to all veterans. Some have merely pointed out what they consider glaring flaws with one vet, who has ambitions toward the presidency.


I did not intend to cover you as well with my statement that Plainsman and Gohon have something against POWs (which is evidently fueled by their dislike for McCain). I find your issues with McCain disturbing, but I have seen no malice on your part towards veterans with his exception.



> But I will tell you you are mistaken when you presume to tell me whether or not it is my place or within my rights to exclude him from politics. To exclude the man is, within my limited scope of influence, my right. You sir, do not determine my rights. It most assuredly is my place, and the place of any and all Americans who feel the same way. That is the system. It is our right to choose. You have the right to state your own opinion. You do not have the right to determine mine.


It is indeed not your place to question what happened during his capture anymore than it is to ask a female candidate who was raped or molested to give details about her experience. I will not tell you who you can choose, but I can tell you why it may be wrong to choose or choose against them. Certainly you would tell me that it is an improper way to choose my candidate if I chose them by hairstyle. McCains experience should not disqualify him, simply because he has proven himself completely stable since his return. Your suggestion would set a precedent such that anyone who has had a traumatic experience to be excluded from the presidency. Could you imagine if Lincoln was excluded because of the loss of his brother, sister, and mother? What if John F Kennedy was excluded because it was claimed that his war experience could cause him to crack during his presidency? Eisenhower? What if you claimed that George H. W. Bush could not serve because his aircraft was shot down and he nearly evaded capture? Andrew Jackson was held as a prisoner of war during the American Revolution, was he unfit for duty?

All the best, Tiger


----------



## Plainsman

MT quotes follow:


> Again, you repeat your assumption, which is simply untrue.


It wasn't an assumption, you said : McCain knows the horrors of war first hand, and as such he is the *most qualified to send us to war*,



> Indeed, it was quite humorous to call all of the POWs of our country idiots for being captured by the enemy.


No one, and I repeat no one said they were idiots, no one said they were sub intelligent. The only statement was a vet that didn't get caught may be more qualified. Of course you know I wasn't implying anything, but you can't pass up the cheap shot.



> Sticking with one side or another is called dedication,


No it would be called loyalty, but blind loyalty is nothing to brag about.



> I hate to be a cynic, but Obama is black, and I don't think much of this country is ready for a black president.


So he shouldn't run because you think he can't win. That might be something like a few of us thinking McCain shouldn't run isn't it. I think McCain is to far left, and much of America isn't ready for him. OK


----------



## Burly1

Where you err is that you think my opinion is there should be some kind of a law that excludes McCain because of his former POW status. I did not suggest that . I suggested that he should be excluded from consideration by people who viewed the situation as I do. Quit telling me what is or is not my place. As an individual I can determine whichever parameters I wish, to be relevant to any situation. Including choosing whether or not any given candidate is fit for office. If you want to tell people what they can or can not say, do or write, get your degree and become a grammar school principal. A lesson in life that you will learn is to never tell anyone what they can or can not do unless you are willing and able to enforce it. You ain't. In your enthusiasm for truth justice and the American way, you can suggest, you can state facts as you see them. You can not tell others what to think, say or do. Believe that. Burl


----------



## racer66

Are you even of a voting age MT?


----------



## Gun Owner

ya know, this topic is kind of moot anyways. Kinda feels like it does when you walk through the mall in October and see Christmas decorations. The time will come soon enough to see whos in the running. For now, its almost wasted effort to talk about ifs and maybes.


----------



## Militant_Tiger

> No one, and I repeat no one said they were idiots, no one said they were sub intelligent.


Actually, you did.



> I would say someone *smart enough not to be captured * and held as a prisoner would make a better candidate.


Because if you aren't smart....



> No it would be called loyalty, but blind loyalty is nothing to brag about.


Being a partisan yourself where do you get off calling me a blind loyalist?



> I think McCain is to far left, and much of America isn't ready for him.


Preliminary polls show otherwise.

http://www.pollingreport.com/2008.htm#misc

I didn't say Obama shouldn't run, I said I don't think he can win. A loss by Obama might pave the way for another black candidate, which I would be all for. You assume far too much.



> Where you err is that you think my opinion is there should be some kind of a law that excludes McCain because of his former POW status. I did not suggest that .


Precedents are not necessarialy written in stone. If it is done once, it allows others to do so far more easily.



> In your enthusiasm for truth justice and the American way, you can suggest, you can state facts as you see them. You can not tell others what to think, say or do. Believe that.


You are no more justified in excluding McCain from the running by virtue of his experience than you would be in excluding Andrew Jackson for the same reasons. You're right, I can't enforce it, but I believe that you are fundamentally wrong on this. No one will arrest you if you refuse to vote for Obama because he is black, but it makes you no less of a racist.



> Are you even of a voting age MT?


I'm 17 as we speak. I was no less vehement about my convictions at 16.


----------



## racer66

> Quote:
> No one, and I repeat no one said they were idiots, no one said they were sub intelligent.


That is not my quote MT.


----------



## Militant_Tiger

My mistake, I'll change it.


----------



## racer66

> I'm 17 as we speak. I was no less vehement about my convictions at 16





> Quote:
> Militant_Tiger wrote on Mar 10, 2005 6:36 pm " I really couldn't give any less of a damn if our soldiers are being shot at or not, that's war."


We see your conviction.


----------



## Militant_Tiger

Didn't say I was right then, I said I was vehement.


----------



## Plainsman

> Actually, you did.
> 
> Quote:
> I would say someone smart enough not to be captured and held as a prisoner would make a better candidate.
> 
> Because if you aren't smart....


Yes, but that is far from calling someone names like idiot. You simply exaggerate, because you think if you can get someone angry with me you win the argument. That is silly juvenile behavior.


----------



## Militant_Tiger

> Yes, but that is far from calling someone names like idiot. You simply exaggerate, because you think if you can get someone angry with me you win the argument. That is silly juvenile behavior.


So they are somehow substandard or "not intelligent" because they were captured, but that is not as bad as calling them names like "idiot" directly. I'm certain our nation's POWs don't enjoy being called sub-par nor stupid or inferring that they are being called anything. It seems to me that you are backpeddaling.


----------



## Plainsman

Plainsman wrote:


> No one, and I repeat no one said they were idiots, no one said they were sub intelligent. The only statement was a vet that didn't get caught may be more qualified. Of course you know I wasn't implying anything, but you can't pass up the cheap shot.


MT wrote:



> So they are somehow substandard or "not intelligent" because they were captured


MT, your disappointing me. You are straying from the truth now. All anyone has to do is go back and see that I made the statement that none are idiots, none are sub intelligent, just exactly the opposite of what you are trying to portray. Do not blame me for your destroyed credibility. Only you control that and your driving yours into the dumper right now.

I know your better than this MT, lets keep it accurate. There is no need to go to this extreme to force your opinions on people.


----------



## Militant_Tiger

> MT, your disappointing me. You are straying from the truth now. All anyone has to do is go back and see that I made the statement that none are idiots, none are sub intelligent, just exactly the opposite of what you are trying to portray. Do not blame me for your destroyed credibility. Only you control that and your driving yours into the dumper right now.


You cannot simply backpedal and act as if you did not make your initial statement of



> I would say someone smart enough not to be captured and held as a prisoner would make a better candidate.


You cannot make a secondary statement and act as if the initial one did not exist, I've documented it wll enough that no one is going to be fooled by your attempt to cover it up. Your dislike of McCain caused you to make a broad, uneducated and mean spirited statement. Fess up to your problems.


----------



## Plainsman

Wrong again MT. I think McCain is a crybaby dipstick, why would I bother beating around the Bush. It is no use arguing about McCain anyway, he isn't going to take the primary, because many people think the same way I do about him. 
You stated I called vets idiots which I did not. But keep it up your digging your own credibility grave.


----------



## Militant_Tiger

So if one is a POW, they were not smart enough or good enough to avoid capture? You do not believe that this is an insult to veterans?

Much like John Kerry, no amount of flip flopping is going to help you now.


----------



## DecoyDummy

Might be a little like having a crippled guy be President and impose massive "Socialism" on Americans for generations to come ...

I believe it is possibe that a given individual who is too close to a specific issue might NOT be the greatest person to be in charge of so much that affects the masses.


----------



## Plainsman

MT you try so hard to twist things. What I said is maybe someone who wasn't captured is more qualified. That doesn't equate to the other guys are stupid, that equates to on average the guys that didn't get caught were more crafty. Of course when a sam missile smacks your plane there is not much you can do about it. Also, we were talking about McCain. What did he say again about his flight capability?????? \
All that aside I am really not that concerned about it. What I am concerned about is that if he can't have his way he wants to take his bat and ball and go home.

However, it is good to see you finally agree Kerry was (is) a flip floper.


----------



## Militant_Tiger

> Might be a little like having a crippled guy be President and impose massive "Socialism" on Americans for generations to come ...


What relation does that have?



> What I said is maybe someone who wasn't captured is more qualified. That doesn't equate to the other guys are stupid, that equates to on average the guys that didn't get caught were more crafty.


I'm simply using a little logic on you and holding your feet to the fire. You said


> I would say someone smart enough not to be captured and held as a prisoner would make a better candidate.


, which is to say that those who were captured were not smart enough to evade capture, and as such are less than smart, making them either average or stupid. In either instance your statement degrades all POWs, not just your hated John McCain. You should choose your words more wisely in the future.



> All that aside I am really not that concerned about it. What I am concerned about is that if he can't have his way he wants to take his bat and ball and go home.


Because he is not complacent with things that he believes to be wrong, he is a bad person. I call that conviction, one of the qualities of a strong leader.

It has occured to me recently that folks like yourself do not care about veterans at all. Kerry was a war hero who served admirably and saved a man's life, he was degraded. McCain was a pilot who was shot down, and when given the chance to go home, passed it on to another POW, he is being degraded. Could you possibly imagine if it was Bush who was in Kerry's position and what hell you would have risen had the liberals thrown mud at him for his record? These people do not actually care about the veterans, nor their records, unless they happen to support their cause. You may doubt me, but the proof is in the pudding. If folks such as Plainsman cared about veterans they would leave their war records at rest and just focus on their beliefs.


----------



## Plainsman

We didn't leave Kerry's war record alone. Many pointed out that he received a puple heart for a scratch treated with a bandaid.

This is the first time you have shown any respect for soldiers. I think there was a couple of posts that showed that record recently.

If you didn't understand the toungue in cheek smart crack about maybe someone who didn't get caught is more qualified you are perhaps the only one that didn't understand it. It was making more fun of your boy, not vets. Of course you really do know that don't you MT.


----------



## Militant_Tiger

> If you didn't understand the toungue in cheek smart crack about maybe someone who didn't get caught is more qualified you are perhaps the only one that didn't understand it. It was making more fun of your boy, not vets. Of course you really do know that don't you MT.


Unless by "my boy" you mean all POWs, you're just trying to put spin on a terribly ignorant and offensive statement.


----------



## Plainsman

I am surprised you keep pretending to not understand. I am also surprised you would defend POW's. I find it amusing that someone who has spoken so badly of soldiers in the past defends them now. But then it isn't defending them your trying to do is it MT?
Didn't you think the soldier in Iraq that shot the terrorist playing possum was a murderer? If we go back and search your posts we will find many degrading statements about soldiers and the military. You admonishing anyone about soldiers is extremely entertaining. Thanks for the laugh. Good night.


----------



## Militant_Tiger

> I am surprised you keep pretending to not understand.


I understand perfectly, I am just amazed that you refuse to fess up to such a ridiculous statement.



> Didn't you think the soldier in Iraq that shot the terrorist playing possum was a murderer? If we go back and search your posts we will find many degrading statements about soldiers and the military. You admonishing anyone about soldiers is extremely entertaining. Thanks for the laugh. Good night.


Are you not supposed to be better than I am? Am I not meant to be the radical ignorant liberal? If you make up your opinions with my statements as a baseline, and if you judge your actions by mine, we have a serious problem on our hands.


----------



## Gohon

> I still beleive the smartest one is Newt Ginrich. I don't think he could be elected but he's my choice.


I'll be damned............ thought I was the only one keeping an eye on old Newt. I agree with you 100%. Genrich is the most savvy politician this country has seen in a long time. I think Genrich is going to run, not because he thinks he can win as he knows very well the Democrats were so successful in making a demon of him, but because he really wants to force the candidates to discuss issues that are meaningful to the country. Ginrich for President and Zell Miller for VP.............. that would sure shake things up. :lol:


----------



## Gohon

> I'm simply using a little logic on you and holding your feet to the fire. You said


No your not, you're taking something out of context and if that isn't enough you have twice injected your own words to change the meaning. We all know you are legally a juvenile, something that will change by design but all you doing now is proving that your thinking is still very, very juvenile and trapped in 9th grade debate tactics.


----------



## indsport

Plainsman,

"Not having lived on the west coast I still know their values, and doubt I would have changed just to fit in. I know why they are the way they are, and I don't want to have any part of it. So how does living their change a persons inherent family passed on values and how would it change my viewpoint?"

I have lived over 70% of my life in minnesota, north dakota or missouri (another breed of ozark conservative that makes north dakota so called conservatives look liberal) with the remaining time on the west coast. Actually living in both locations changed my perspective and my viewpoint on some issues. As to family values, my family runs the entire gamut from far left liberal to hard right conservative ( in the 2006 election, I have at least one relative each attending their respective state conventions or caucuses as delegates to republicans, democrats, libertarians and one green socialist party). So which set of passed on family values would you like me to adopt?

"I know I am conservative, but you haven't come to grips with how liberal you really are. "

I agree, I am completely far left liberal on social issues, left on the environment, and "came to grips with it " over 30 years ago. 
But I am conservative on the second amendment, keeping government out of my life, and very conservative when it comes to fiscal responsibility and personal responsibility. My liberal side ends up voting with democrats on social issues, my conservative side used to vote republican on fiscal issues and right to privacy and unwarrented government intrusion. Sorry to say, the republican party (again as I view it today) has abandoned fiscal responsibility the last 5 years, is intruding on personal lives, and has abandoned the environment for dollars. So which party should I support again???


----------



## Bobm

> I agree, I am completely far left liberal on social issues, left on the environment, and "came to grips with it " over 30 years ago.
> But I am conservative on the second amendment, keeping government out of my life, and very conservative when it comes to fiscal responsibility and personal responsibiity


Then why in the hell do you consistantly not favor privatizing SS if you want the govt out of your life. Its the biggest screwing they give us without question.

You also consistantly favor the current tax system in general and I can go through and find many posts you've made about it. I am not going to bother however.

Neither of those positions jive with fiscal or personal responsibility.


----------



## indsport

You have hit the nail on the head. As I have posted before , I do not support privatizing social security for the current people that are in it if they do not want to leave the system. If politicians would write a bill that gives people the right to voluntarily opt out of social security, (not mandatory privatization), but at the same time, be able to guarantee me that anyone who opts out will not be able to get one dime from me or any member of the public in the future, I fully support such a move. However, as I have also posted before, it is estimated that over 30% of the baby boomers are relying on social security for a majority of their retirement. Savings rates in this country are negative. IRA's and Roth IRA's are woefully underutilized. The facts tell me that a majority of the public either can't or won't save for their retirement and I see no good logic that people who got their money from social security would be any different.

As to the current tax system, I do support parts of it, and will gladly pay money for roads, schools, environment and social programs that work and have argued in the past against the Bush tax breaks. And as in our previous posts to each other, I cannot resolve the issues with the fair tax system or any other alternative put forth.


----------



## Bobm

So it cant be changed because if it is the change won't work...

What BS. Phony logic its unanswerable and pointless to discuss


----------



## Militant_Tiger

> No your not, you're taking something out of context and if that isn't enough you have twice injected your own words to change the meaning. We all know you are legally a juvenile, something that will change by design but all you doing now is proving that your thinking is still very, very juvenile and trapped in 9th grade debate tactics.


Nay Gohon, you can't twist this one to look positive either.

Plainsman said


> I would say someone smart enough not to be captured and held as a prisoner would make a better candidate.


. Plain and simple, he insulted all those who have been captured during wartime, by insulting their skill and intelligence. That is the context for you.

The statement is ridiculous and offensive, but if he refuses to fess up to his own words, so be it. I've said my peice on this portion of the topic, anyone with their eyes open has seen what really happened.


----------



## indsport

Okay bobm,

my income tax reform. 1st eliminate all deductions and tax credits for everyone businesses, individuals, child tax credit, mortgage interest, charitable deductions, all of them. To my viewpoint, all tax breaks are just social engineering by one political party or the other to benefit a specific group at the expense of another. It would eliminate all those thousands of lobbyists since they could no longer argue that their group/business needs a tax break.

2nd, eliminate the taxes on capitol gains, dividends and interest up to some ceiling value. Example, according to irs data, if there was a $5,000 exemption on savings interest, that value would exempt over 90+ % of all the savings accounts in the US. How much would that stimulate savings and investment in the economy?

3rd, somebody else do the math. How much does our country need, given current outlays? While exempting say all those families making less than the poverty level from taxes, keep the system progressive and figure out how much business and individuals would have to pay to meet the revenue demand. Keep individual taxes progressive, but flat rate businesses.

Now what do you end up with?? A postcard for taxes and a hugely expanded savings and investment society. You say that the government would lose revenue since there would be an expanded underground economy to avoid taxes??? Fine, take all those thousands and thousands of people that do nothing but check tax returns and put them to work finding tax avoiders.


----------



## indsport

Okay for the simple explanation

I personally favor privatizing social security under the following conditions:

Anyone who takes their social security private will be personally responsible for the success or failure of their investments. Any individual can invest their social security money anyway they wish. This should be a totally free market system and anyone that says anything else is advocating for government intervention. If they take their social security money and invest it themselves, they also have to promise that they will never be able to get back in the program and they will never be able to claim any other government assistance( food stamps, welfare, whatever) in the future. If their investment in North Dakota date palm farms or any other investment goes south, sorry charlie, you are on your own go live in the street and don't look to me or the government for help.

As to the large proportion of baby boomers and others who have saved nothing and have only social security, contact your local compassionate conservative for help.


----------



## Bobm

Whats hysterical about your posts is that you've described the effect of the fair tax almost point by point :lol: :lol: :lol:

Indsport maybe there is hope for you after all :beer: I thought your were another idiot liberal.

Your dead wrong about one thing though *businesses do not and never have paid one cent in tax* and they never will.

Thats more congressional slight of hand, :******: Individuals pay the tax its just hidden so the congress can get away with additional taxes without a revolt. If all the economic idiots our public school system has produced in our country knew what they really pay in taxes they would be hunting congressmen with dogs!!

On your SS ideas, :beer: :beer: 
thats what privatization means elimination of SS at reasonable point in the not too distant future. We can't cut off th truly old that don't have time to make it up but everybody under 45 or maybe even 50 should know that the parties over and they better plan for 
something other than SS for their old age.

Damn and I thought we were disagreeing,

We even both like VW diesels, speaking of that which year was it that you said they went to the less feul efficient motor?


----------



## Plainsman

Plainsman said:


> MT wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> McCain knows the horrors of war first hand, and as such he is the most qualified to send us to war,
> 
> 
> 
> Rarely do I see such gross misuse of logic. That is sort of like pepper spray training. Before you can use pepper spray you must be trained. The training: they shoot you in the face with it. The idea is then you will know how much it hurts and not be so willing to spray someone. The truth is most think, I can't wait to spray some jerk. I told a trainer: This must be some dumb liberal idea, what's next I have to be shot with my 45 before I can carry it? Touchy feely vs. logic.
> Now we think because someone has been in war he is the best qualified to lead the country. I would say someone smart enough not to be captured and held as a prisoner would make a better candidate. Hero's don't die for their country, they make the other guy die for his, even better, they make a whole bunch of them die. How is that for logic?
Click to expand...

This has been fun for 24 hours, now lets see who besides MT can interpret this. 
First you have to love a little sarcasm, that will get you into the correct frame of mind.
Sentence one "


> Rarely do I see such gross misuse of logic


".
End sentence "


> How is that for logic


?".
OK, who can find the quote from a famous man in history in the last paragraph, and can you name him? He had a lot of respect for soldiers like myself, but just as goofy a sense of humor. The quote isn't exact I didn't feel the need to swear.


----------



## Bobm

> Hero's don't die for their country, they make the other guy die for his, even better, they make a whole bunch of them die.


Patton?

Must be something about the name George, makes them see things clearly! :wink:


----------



## Plainsman

Bingo. I suppose I have a sick sense of humor, but so did Patton. I think it was a good example of experience helping you understand. I knew only the guys over 50, or war history buffs would understand. I am guilty of playing with words once in a while. Here is another MT didn't even blink at or understand. A little naughty I guess.

MT Wrote:


> This country will be far better off once we get someone who knows how to find their a$$ with both hands again.


Plainsman Wrote:


> Clinton can't run again, he already had two terms.


----------



## Longshot

MT

You just refuse to understand the statement. Put it this way, I'm not smart enough to be a rocket scientist but that doesn't make me an idiot. NO person was called an idiot. You just want to interpret it that way to avoid making valid points.


----------



## racer66

Typical, MT trying spin.


----------



## racer66

http://www.factcheck.org/search/index.p ... le319.html


----------



## Plainsman

You know racer I would like to see the democrats run on their true agenda and what they stand for. They don't because they couldn't get elected dog catcher in any but the most liberal states, and certainly not president. They must be false, and falsely accuse the republican candidates. They do not truthfully project their platform, or the republican platform. Proof of this is the many liberals who are unwilling to admit they are liberal. They call themselves "moderate". Some really believe it. All the propaganda against the Bush SS plan was simply to scare the elderly. The sky is falling the sky is falling.

Both parties buy their votes. The difference is the republicans give it back to the people who earned it while the democrats take it away from the working stiff and give it to those who have not earned it. The liberals don't want to see a conservative plan work that would take away money they can dip their fingers into.


----------



## Longshot

I lived in AZ for 5 years and during the time McCain ran in the primaries. I was really impressed with him up until he lost and had his tantrum. I like most people in AZ were appalled by his actions and paperwork and petitions were started to have him recalled. He then changed his attitude and most everything was dropped. He was also angered by the fact that our current Republican governor at the time did not back him and did in fact back Bush. Her reason for this was that she thought he was a good senator but Bush was the better person for the presidency.


----------



## Militant_Tiger

> All the propaganda against the Bush SS plan was simply to scare the elderly. The sky is falling the sky is falling.


The public didn't think so. Evidently they are just as dumb as the POWs.



> You know racer I would like to see the democrats run on their true agenda and what they stand for.


Oh yes, because we got exactly what Bush promised us.



> Both parties buy their votes. The difference is the republicans give it back to the people who earned it while the democrats take it away from the working stiff and give it to those who have not earned it.


The Republicans give 1000 dollars in tax cuts, and you lose your job. Who could complain?



> The liberals don't want to see a conservative plan work that would take away money they can dip their fingers into.


Indeed, the conservatives are really living up to their name these days. Where have you been?


----------



## Bobm

This sums it up for me

"There is certainly no shortage of things to complain about when it comes to the Republican Party. There is very little, if any, resemblance of the congressional Republicans of 2006 as compared to the Republicans who took control of the House of Representatives in 1994. *Gone is the revolutionary zeal to reduce the power, influence and size of government and to return power and responsibility to the people. The Republicans of 1994 have been largely replaced by a party of big government and big spending.* :******: :******: :******:

Some are suggesting that the Republicans may lose their control of the House of Representatives in this year's mid-term elections. That would be absolutely fine with me. They have done little to deserve the majority position they hold. :******: If it weren't for tax cuts and their support of the war on Islamic radicalism there would be not much to say in their favor. I say that it would be fine with me if the Republicans were unseated --- except for one small matter. They would be replaced by Democrats. uke:

Some of you might have lost track of this fact, but this country, our culture, our very Western civilization is at war.

There are people out there -- a lot of people -- who are dedicated to our destruction. They have the determination to carry their plans forward, and the means to do terrible damage to all that we hold dear.

*Right now, as you're reading this, there are some very bright minds that are darkened by the culture of hate and violence that is radical Islam who are spending every waking hour, and every resource available to them, planning for further attacks on America and the West.*

We know that they want their next attack to be a real extravaganza. They want thousands -- tens of thousands -- hundreds of thousands dead if they can find a way to make it happen. In one corner of the Muslim world they may be working on a dirty radiation bomb; in another they're trying to acquire an actual thermonuclear device. Somewhere else these Muslim maniacs are trying to develop delivery systems for the chemical and biological weapons that are already within their grasp. Somewhere, most likely in Syria, there are stockpiles of the chemicals and equipment necessary to manufacture these weapons -- brought there from Iraq and hidden when Saddam's days appeared to be numbered.

Whatever else you say about George Bush, he gets absolute credit for his determination to fight the Islamic jihad. Bush was the one occupying the Oval Office when word came of the 9/11 attacks. At that moment he knew that if anyone was to lead a battle against these fanatic Islamic murderers it would have to be him. This turned out to be the most important task he would face as president, and he has more than measured up. :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer:

Others may disagree, but there is not one ounce of doubt in my mind that if Saddam Hussein had been left to his own devices by now he would have reconstituted his chemical and biological weapons program and would present an even graver threat to our national security. There is and was more than ample evidence of Saddam's quest for nuclear weapons. How far along would he be with that goal today? And, though the left absolutely hates to hear this, there was and is proof of Saddam's connections to Al Qaeda and to Osama bin Laden. Saddam is no longer a threat.

Would that be true today if Al Gore had been in the White House?
No friggin way!!!!!!!

We're at war. George Bush is our Commander in Chief. To the people of other nations George Bush is the face of our war against Islamic terrorism. In large part how the world views our efforts to contain Islamic terrorism depends on how the world views George Bush. *In this regard the Democrats have been anything but helpful. In fact, it can be said that they have been damaging, if not dangerous. *

Yesterday Michigan's ditzy Senator Debbie Stabenow took to the floor of the Senate to rail on George Bush. Next to her she had aides place a sign which said "Dangerously Incompetent." We're at war, and this Senator labels our Commander in Chief as "dangerously incompetent" before the world, and before our enemies. :******: uke:

Tell me there weren't smiles and giggles in the caves of Afghanistan and the terrorist insurgent strongholds of Iraq. uke:

Tell me that the Mad Mullahs of Iran didn't just love the show. uke: uke:

All of this because Stabenow doesn't think that Bush is spending enough money on "first responders." That, by the way, is another way of saying that Bush isn't doing enough to (a) support policemen and firemen's unions and (b) to shift the burden of funding for police and firefighters from local governments to federal taxpayers. :eyeroll:

We can add Stabenow's silly stunt to Russ Feingold's useless call for a presidential censure in the Senate. Desperate for a little attention to get his presidential campaign off the ground, Feingold evidently thought this might give him some gas. No such luck. By the way, it was President George W. Bush that signed the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform bill. Nice little payback to the president for his support for that hideous law. :eyeroll: When will republicans ever underststand no mmatter what democrats in Washington will screw them and stab them in the back :eyeroll:

If you vote for Democrats in the mid-term elections you are voting for the party that has clearly given aid and comfort to those who want to destroy us. It's not that the Democrats have no agenda. Indeed, they do have an agenda, but as Plainsman stated, it's not one they want to put in front of the American voters. *It's an agenda of bigger government, the end of political free speech, higher taxes, more income redistribution, a continuation of the war on individuality and the weakening of America.*

It's a pity that the Republicans won't identify the Democratic agenda for what it is, and stand up to fight it instead of seemingly playing along."

I wish there were a viable alternative to both of them, its like the movie dumb and dumber


----------



## Militant_Tiger

> And, though the left absolutely hates to hear this, there was and is proof of Saddam's connections to Al Qaeda and to Osama bin Laden. Saddam is no longer a threat.


Bob, I am sorry but that is absolutely untrue. Never was a connection estbalished between the two, no matter how much this administration would like you do believe it.


----------



## Bobm

Yes it is true, in fact the administration does a lousy job talking about it


----------



## Militant_Tiger

> Yes it is true, in fact the administration does a lousy job talking about it


It is absolutely false, and every credible voice on the topic has said so. Why do you choose to believe the untrue?


----------



## zogman

Mt,

List names for your credibles voices. :lol: We all could use a good laugh :toofunny:


----------



## racer66

It seems you have stepped in some more stinky stuff with your other foot MT, I will have to say your on a roll today. Here's from the 9/11 comission.

The bipartisan 9/11 Commission later cited reports of several "friendly contacts" between Saddam and Osama bin Laden over the years, and cited one report that in 1999 Iraqi officials offered bin Laden a "safe haven," which bin Laden refused, preferring to remain in Afghanistan


----------



## Militant_Tiger

http://www.9-11commission.gov/

Yuck it up. They said that Bin Laden attempted to contact Saddam once, and Saddam did not get involved with him.

An interpretation.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5223932/

And the words from the horse's mouth..

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dy ... ge=printer

And the words from the defense horse's mouth.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq ... -911_x.htm


----------



## Bobm

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Why don't you quote Michael Moore he's just as reliable.

uke:


----------



## Gun Owner

Bobm said:


> :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
> 
> Why don't you quote Michael Moore he's just as reliable.
> 
> uke:


Because he doesnt know how to make typed words smell like ham.


----------



## Militant_Tiger

Indeed Bob, the only official comission on 9/11 and the events surrounding it, MSNBC, the Washington Post and USA today are just as biased and credible as Michael Moore.


----------



## Goose Huntin' Machine

Does it really matter? The GOP lost my vote for sure. Not because I am a liberal, but rather, I am an extreme Conservative. The Republicans have moved so far to the left it is absurd. Republicans no longer hold my values, so I am forced to vote for a candidate that best represents my views. Ronald Reagan: gone but not forgotten.

Jeff Given


----------



## Gohon

Only problem with that Jeff is when there are only two main contenders a protest vote becomes nothing more than a vote for the candidate you like the least. Might make you feel good for the moment but in the long run it is a loss.


----------



## Plainsman

Jeff, I would like to vote for a third party also, but it may ensure a democratic victory. Remember Clinton, he was the only president to take office with a less than majority vote. Old big ears Ross Perot put Clinton in office by splitting the conservative vote. 
Remember when Jesse Jackson was going to run. The democratic contenders soiled their shorts when they heard that. A group of them descended like sweat talking vultures to talk Jesse out of that. They knew that another radical liberal running would ruin their chances. I'll bet they had to sell their soul to Jackson.


----------



## Militant_Tiger

> Remember Clinton, he was the only president to take office with a less than majority vote.


That record didn't last long.

When one insists on voting for one of the two major parties you simply push them to both become more extreme. If one threatens and carries through on a third party vote, you force the two main parties to come back to the middle.


----------



## Alaskan Brown Bear Killer

Doesn't really matter who the GOP front runner is because the Democrats have a integrity problem. I know I posted this before but it helps others here understand where MT's coming from.



> Posted on 04/30/2005 9:54:24 PM PDT by CHARLITE
> 
> Why Democrats Lie Sandy Berger is caught cramming top secret war-time documents down the front of his pants. Dan Rather is caught using forged documents in an effort to try and steal an election. John Kerry slanders one million of his "band of brothers" in bogus testimony before Congress and continues to lie about having been in Cambodia on Christmas eve 1968 sent there by Richard Nixon (who wasn't President yet), hearing the Vietnamese "sing Christmas carols" (the Vietnamese are Buddhists and don't celebrate Christmas) and being fired upon by the Khmer Rouge who didn't become a military force until about half a decade later.
> 
> Howard Dean attempts to spread outrageous lies about the President of the United States and the events of 9/11 only admitting after being caught that he never believed the lies he was spreading and only found them to be "interesting." Al Sharpton, of course, made his name by helping to fake the rape of a young child while Ted Kennedy clung to his family name after leaving his "female companion" to die a miserable death while he swam to shore to sober up before calling the police. The leadership of the Democratic Party gave a standing ovation to a movie that they know is nothing more than a lie-filled, hate-filled, anti-American propaganda movie while Ward Churchill's lies not only saw him hired at the University of Colorado but then tenured and ultimately promoted to the head of the department.
> 
> These are not the "odd-zealot" but the heart and soul of the Democratic Party -- from its most recent standard bearer to the newly minted head of the DNC to its leading voice in "civil rights" to its top foreign policy advisors to its House and Senate leadership and beyond. Lying is not a small part of being a Democrat -- it IS the Democratic Party.
> 
> Those who seek reasonable position -- the Joe Liebermans and the Dick Gephardts for example -- find less support amongst the leftist powers-that-be than did Saddam Hussein and Yasser Arafat. Al Gore, always the conniving politician, recognize this and reinvented himself for the fourteenth time -- this time as a spitting demagogue spewing the anti-American hate and lies that is today's Democratic Party coin of the realm.
> 
> Of course the Democrats call the Republicans "liars" but all liars call the other side liars. It's hard to take seriously charges that Bush is a liar because he agreed with Clinton who wasn't a liar, Chirac who isn't a liar, and literally every other intelligence agency on the planet with regard to Saddam's WMDs.
> 
> It is equally difficult to take seriously charges that Republicans are "liars" in a book called "Lying Liars And The Lying Lies They Tell" when that book is written by a man whose greatest political contribution prior was a movie called "Stuart Smalley Saves The World" and the book itself is so filled with lies that the author has to swear in a court of law that he never meant for anyone to think he was telling the truth (thus it was deemed a "satire" and the author saved from the myriad of libel suits).
> 
> Remember, in every court case the cop says the rapist is lying and the rapist says the cop is lying. The Nazis said the Jews were lying about the gas chambers and the Jews said the Nazis were lying. Truth is NOT always somewhere in the middle.
> 
> So why do Democrats lie? Well, for one thing, they have to. Democrats recognize that the vast majority of the American people reject their basic philosophies of redistribution of wealth, more and more power in the hands of the federal government and more and more power over America by corrupt and anti-American international forces like the French and the United Nations.
> 
> Further they recognize that they have to lie because their policies invariably fail when put into practice. The Democrats have had forty years of uninterrupted social experimentation along their lines (as well as the examples of socialist Europe and communist Russia) and cannot point to a single legitimate accomplishment.
> 
> After decades of affirmative action, "new math" and their "multicultural" experiments blacks are still disproportionately members of an "underclass," our schools are so bad we have to outsource the simplest jobs just to find people in India who don't speak "ebonics" and America is more divided, not less divided, with the left's agenda of chucking the whole "melting pot" concept in favor of "multiculturalism" and America hatred.
> 
> The left also lies because, as I wrote in a previous post, there is nothing they believe in except themselves. These are, in the words of the former feminist leader Tammy Bruce, "malignant narcissists." Being narcissists truth is defined as anything that advances their own cause.
> 
> Because of their arrogance and self-importance anyone who disagrees with them must be either stupid or racist. Lying to the former, to get them to do the "right" thing, then, is doing them a favor and lying to the latter is believed a "moral imperative."
> 
> Further, because there is nothing the leftist believes in other than self there is nothing he puts ahead of his agenda. In the old days a Walter Cronkite might well have had the same ideological bent as a Dan Rather but Cronkite's respect for his profession kept him from being an out and out liar. In the old days Hollywood's love for movies might have seen the movie-maker give the best picture Oscar to what was really the best picture. Today the award is given without regard to the quality of the film but rather to any picture that advances their leftist agenda (this year it was the pro-euthanasia "Million Dollar Baby".) Once a museum curator placed beauty ahead of ideology and thus filled the halls with exceptional works based on their aesthetic value rather than crosses drenched in urine and elephant dung smeared across the Virgin Mary's private parts.
> 
> Democrats lie because, with nothing bigger than themselves to believe in -- not G-d, not country, not democracy, not art, not truth -- truth is defined by whatever it is they say it is. Therefore the leftist believes themselves incapable of lying no matter how many times a Sandy Berger is caught cramming top secret war time documents down the front of his pants, how many forged documents Dan Rather uses, no matter how many children Al Sharpton fakes the rape of, no matter how many hateful slanders come from Ward Churchill and so on. To the Democrat any lie that advances their cause is, by definition, the truth.


----------



## Alaskan Brown Bear Killer

I think this about sums it up: 


> To the Democrat any lie that advances their cause is, by definition, the truth.


----------



## racer66

Dead on the money ABBK.


----------



## Militant_Tiger

Indeed CHARLITE is a reputible source.



> Doesn't really matter who the GOP front runner is because the Democrats have a integrity problem. I know I posted this before but it helps others here understand where MT's coming from.


Indeed, there is quite an integrity problem with Bush and the Iraq war, Tom Delay and Duke Cunningham.



> To the Democrat any lie that advances their cause is, by definition, the truth.


Like the claim that there were WMDs? Don't think yourself so high and mighty.


----------



## Alaskan Brown Bear Killer

> Like the claim that there were WMDs? Don't think yourself so high and mighty.


MT do you have evidence to the contrary? Then let's here it. Don't say CLAIM (like it's a lie) when you can't dissprove it! The Iraqis hid aircraft under the sand too. where's Bin laudin? Just because we can't find him yet, doesn't mean we won't. Like the quote said:



> To the Democrat any lie that *advances their cause *is, by definition, the truth.


 :beer:


----------



## Militant_Tiger

> MT do you have evidence to the contrary? Then let's here it. Don't say CLAIM (like it's a lie) when you can't dissprove it! The Iraqis hid aircraft under the sand too. where's Bin laudin? Just because we can't find him yet, doesn't mean we won't. Like the quote said:


Because if you wish to prove the existence of something, the burden rests on you, not the person who does not believe in its existance. That is like if you told me that pink flying elephants exist simply because I have no evidence to the contrary. The lack of evidence is precisely why there are no WMDs.

Where exactly did the Iraqis have aircraft under the sand? Sounds like bollocks to me.


----------



## Gun Owner

Militant_Tiger said:


> Where exactly did the Iraqis have aircraft under the sand? Sounds like bollocks to me.


You should google stuff like this before you open your mouth. At the very least, ask the question without implying there is no possible way for it to be true....

http://xpda.com/junkmail/junk155/buriedJets.htm

I recall hearing somewhere that a buried aircraft was found to be equiped with sprayer nozzles for dispersing liquid poisons, but I cant find it right now, so I wont expect you to take it as fact.

Since you are here.... Go to google. search "buried Iraqi Jets" "US Terrorist arrests" and "sleeper cell"


----------



## Militant_Tiger

Didn't say it wasn't true, I reserved judgement and said it sounded fishy. Evidently it was true.


----------



## Gun Owner

And just for the fun of it....

Bollocks is a cute word, but not one traditionally found in American language. As such, you probably didnt know that it means to screw up, goof up, get wrong, etc not B.S., horse puckey, hog wash, or anything like that which you used it to mean.

If you wanna use creative language to boost the way your posts sound, at least use the right words.


----------



## Militant_Tiger

Hence why I used bollocks, I said it sounds fishy. Are you going to go into the syntax of my sentences or argue a point?


----------



## Alaskan Brown Bear Killer

NO WMD's is Bollocks then ! :lol:


----------



## Alaskan Brown Bear Killer

http://www.cia.gov/cia/public_affairs/s ... 22003.html

MT,
READ this and become informed! :eyeroll:


----------



## Militant_Tiger

> Despite evidence of Saddam's continued ambition to acquire nuclear weapons, to date we have not uncovered evidence that Iraq undertook significant post-1998 steps to actually build nuclear weapons or produce fissile material. However, Iraq did take steps to preserve some technological capability from the pre-1991 nuclear weapons program.


You might consider reading it yourself before you post it.


----------



## Alaskan Brown Bear Killer

Militant_Tiger said:


> Despite evidence of Saddam's continued ambition to acquire nuclear weapons, to date we have not uncovered evidence that Iraq undertook significant post-1998 steps to actually build nuclear weapons or produce fissile material. However, Iraq did take steps to preserve some technological capability from the pre-1991 nuclear weapons program.
> 
> 
> 
> You might consider reading it yourself before you post it.
Click to expand...

I did read it; was trying to help you become informed so you wouldn't continue giving out missleading info. :beer:



> We have discovered dozens of WMD-related program activities and significant amounts of equipment that Iraq concealed from the United Nations during the inspections that began in late 2002. The discovery of these deliberate concealment efforts have come about both through the admissions of Iraqi scientists and officials concerning information they deliberately withheld and through physical evidence of equipment and activities that ISG has discovered that should have been declared to the UN. Let me just give you a few examples of these concealment efforts, some of which I will elaborate on later:
> 
> A clandestine network of laboratories and safehouses within the Iraqi Intelligence Service that contained equipment subject to UN monitoring and suitable for continuing CBW research.
> 
> A prison laboratory complex, possibly used in human testing of BW agents, that Iraqi officials working to prepare for UN inspections were explicitly ordered not to declare to the UN.
> 
> Reference strains of biological organisms concealed in a scientist's home, one of which can be used to produce biological weapons.
> 
> New research on BW-applicable agents, Brucella and Congo Crimean Hemorrhagic Fever (CCHF), and continuing work on ricin and aflatoxin were not declared to the UN.
> 
> Documents and equipment, hidden in scientists' homes, that would have been useful in resuming uranium enrichment by centrifuge and electromagnetic isotope separation (EMIS).
> 
> A line of UAVs not fully declared at an undeclared production facility and an admission that they had tested one of their declared UAVs out to a range of 500 km, 350 km beyond the permissible limit.
> 
> Continuing covert capability to manufacture fuel propellant useful only for prohibited SCUD variant missiles, a capability that was maintained at least until the end of 2001 and that cooperating Iraqi scientists have said they were told to conceal from the UN.
> 
> Plans and advanced design work for new long-range missiles with ranges up to at least 1000 km - well beyond the 150 km range limit imposed by the UN. Missiles of a 1000 km range would have allowed Iraq to threaten targets through out the Middle East, including Ankara, Cairo, and Abu Dhabi.
> 
> Clandestine attempts between late-1999 and 2002 to obtain from North Korea technology related to 1,300 km range ballistic missiles --probably the No Dong -- 300 km range anti-ship cruise missiles, and other prohibited military equipment.
> In addition to the discovery of extensive concealment efforts, we have been faced with a systematic sanitization of documentary and computer evidence in a wide range of offices, laboratories, and companies suspected of WMD work. The pattern of these efforts to erase evidence - hard drives destroyed, specific files burned, equipment cleaned of all traces of use - are ones of deliberate, rather than random, acts. For example,
> 
> On 10 July 2003 an ISG team exploited the Revolutionary Command Council (RCC) Headquarters in Baghdad. The basement of the main building contained an archive of documents situated on well-organized rows of metal shelving. The basement suffered no fire damage despite the total destruction of the upper floors from coalition air strikes. Upon arrival the exploitation team encountered small piles of ash where individual documents or binders of documents were intentionally destroyed. Computer hard drives had been deliberately destroyed. Computers would have had financial value to a random looter; their destruction, rather than removal for resale or reuse, indicates a targeted effort to prevent Coalition forces from gaining access to their contents.
> 
> All IIS laboratories visited by IIS exploitation teams have been clearly sanitized, including removal of much equipment, shredding and burning of documents, and even the removal of nameplates from office doors.
> 
> Although much of the deliberate destruction and sanitization of documents and records probably occurred during the height of OIF combat operations, indications of significant continuing destruction efforts have been found after the end of major combat operations, including entry in May 2003 of the locked gated vaults of the Ba'ath party intelligence building in Baghdad and highly selective destruction of computer hard drives and data storage equipment along with the burning of a small number of specific binders that appear to have contained financial and intelligence records, and in July 2003 a site exploitation team at the Abu Ghurayb Prison found one pile of the smoldering ashes from documents that was still warm to the touch.
> I would now like to review our efforts in each of the major lines of enquiry that ISG has pursued during this initial phase of its work.
> 
> With regard to biological warfare activities, which has been one of our two initial areas of focus, ISG teams are uncovering significant information - including research and development of BW-applicable organisms, the involvement of Iraqi Intelligence Service (IIS) in possible BW activities, and deliberate concealment activities. All of this suggests Iraq after 1996 further compartmentalized its program and focused on maintaining smaller, covert capabilities that could be activated quickly to surge the production of BW agents.
> 
> Debriefings of IIS officials and site visits have begun to unravel a clandestine network of laboratories and facilities within the security service apparatus. This network was never declared to the UN and was previously unknown. We are still working on determining the extent to which this network was tied to large-scale military efforts or BW terror weapons, but this clandestine capability was suitable for preserving BW expertise, BW capable facilities and continuing R&D - all key elements for maintaining a capability for resuming BW production. The IIS also played a prominent role in sponsoring students for overseas graduate studies in the biological sciences, according to Iraqi scientists and IIS sources, providing an important avenue for furthering BW-applicable research. This was the only area of graduate work that the IIS appeared to sponsor.
> 
> Discussions with Iraqi scientists uncovered agent R&D work that paired overt work with nonpathogenic organisms serving as surrogates for prohibited investigation with pathogenic agents. Examples include: B. Thurengiensis (Bt) with B. anthracis (anthrax), and medicinal plants with ricin. In a similar vein, two key former BW scientists, confirmed that Iraq under the guise of legitimate activity developed refinements of processes and products relevant to BW agents. The scientists discussed the development of improved, simplified fermentation and spray drying capabilities for the simulant Bt that would have been directly applicable to anthrax, and one scientist confirmed that the production line for Bt could be switched to produce anthrax in one week if the seed stock were available.
> 
> A very large body of information has been developed through debriefings, site visits, and exploitation of captured Iraqi documents that confirms that Iraq concealed equipment and materials from UN inspectors when they returned in 2002. One noteworthy example is a collection of reference strains that ought to have been declared to the UN. Among them was a vial of live C. botulinum Okra B. from which a biological agent can be produced. This discovery - hidden in the home of a BW scientist - illustrates the point I made earlier about the difficulty of locating small stocks of material that can be used to covertly surge production of deadly weapons. The scientist who concealed the vials containing this agent has identified a large cache of agents that he was asked, but refused, to conceal. ISG is actively searching for this second cache.
> 
> Additional information is beginning to corroborate reporting since 1996 about human testing activities using chemical and biological substances, but progress in this area is slow given the concern of knowledgeable Iraqi personnel about their being prosecuted for crimes against humanity.
> 
> We have not yet been able to corroborate the existence of a mobile BW production effort. Investigation into the origin of and intended use for the two trailers found in northern Iraq in April has yielded a number of explanations, including hydrogen, missile propellant, and BW production, but technical limitations would prevent any of these processes from being ideally suited to these trailers. That said, nothing we have discovered rules out their potential use in BW production.
> 
> We have made significant progress in identifying and locating individuals who were reportedly involved in a mobile program, and we are confident that we will be able to get an answer to the questions as to whether there was a mobile program and whether the trailers that have been discovered so far were part of such a program.


----------



## Alaskan Brown Bear Killer

Here's something interesting for you MT:



> Saddam's cousin Ali Hassan al-Majid, who led the campaigns against the Kurds in the late eighties, was heard on a tape captured by rebels, and later obtained by Human Rights Watch, addressing members of Iraq's ruling Baath Party on the subject of the Kurds. "I will kill them all with chemical weapons!" he said. "Who is going to say anything? The international community? Fuk them! The international community and those who listen to them."


----------



## Militant_Tiger

Notice the date of your article: October 2003. A considerable amount of information has come out since then.

Title: CIA's final report: No WMD found in Iraq
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7634313


----------



## Alaskan Brown Bear Killer

> Notice the date of your article: October 2003. A considerable amount of information has come out since then.


When did the war start? after 2003? or before?

We'll have to agree to dissagre; I believe they had WMD's and there's enough proof for me, I was there. You didn't believe we found Aircraft under the sand either till you saw the Pic's. Sorry I don't have any pictures to prove it! :eyeroll:


----------



## Militant_Tiger

> We'll have to agree to dissagre; I believe they had WMD's and there's enough proof for me, I was there.


This is really what gets me. When there is insufficient evidence to prove your point, you fabricate it.



> You didn't believe we found Aircraft under the sand either till you saw the Pic's. Sorry I don't have any pictures to prove it!


It sounded like hokum and I was wrong. Even the CIA says that there were no WMDs. Don't take my word for it.


----------



## Alaskan Brown Bear Killer

It sounded like hokum and I was wrong. *Even the CIA says that there were no WMDs.* Don't take my word for it.

This is really what gets me. When there is insufficient evidence to prove your point, you fabricate it.

REALLY!

So when did the CIA say there were no WMD's? 
That's your quote!


> When there is insufficient evidence to prove your point, you fabricate it.


----------



## Militant_Tiger

> "After more than 18 months, the WMD investigation and debriefing of the WMD-related detainees has been exhausted," wrote Charles Duelfer, head of the Iraq Survey Group, in an addendum to the final report he issued last fall.
> 
> "As matters now stand, the WMD investigation has gone as far as feasible."


----------



## Alaskan Brown Bear Killer

You didn't answer the question.
So when did the CIA say there were no WMD's?



> This is really what gets me. When there is insufficient evidence to prove your point, you fabricate it.


----------



## Militant_Tiger

Check my last post...


----------



## Alaskan Brown Bear Killer

The CIA NEVER said that there wasn't any WMD's. 
They said something to the effect that they haven't found any yet.



> Small team still in place
> Leaving the door to the investigation open just a crack, the U.S. official said a small team still operates under the U.S.-led multinational force in Iraq, although the survey group officially disbanded earlier this month. Those staying on continue to examine documents and follow up on any reports of weapons of mass destruction.
> 
> In a statement accompanying the final installment, Duelfer said a surprise discovery would most likely be in the biological weapons area because clues, such as the size of the facilities used to develop them, would be comparatively small.
> 
> Among unanswered questions, Duelfer said a group formed to investigate whether WMD-related material was shipped out of Iraq before the invasion wasn't able to reach firm conclusions because the security situation limited and later halted their work. Investigators were focusing on transfers from Iraq to Syria.
> 
> No information gleaned from questioning Iraqis supported the possibility, one addendum said. The Iraq Survey Group believes "it was unlikely that an official transfer of WMD material from Iraq to Syria took place. However, ISG was unable to rule out unofficial movement of limited WMD-related materials."


We haven't found Bin ladin yet either, doesn't mean that he doesn't exist. :eyeroll: 
We'll I'll just agree to disagree with you, no further response nessisarry! 8)


----------



## Militant_Tiger

> The CIA NEVER said that there wasn't any WMD's.


Did you completely avoid the MSNBC link I posted and the paragraph I pulled out of it?



> We'll I'll just agree to disagree with you, no further response nessisarry!


You remain persistent, and wrong.


----------



## Alaskan Brown Bear Killer

Prove I'm a lier! :******:


----------



## Militant_Tiger

I don't think you are a liar, I think that your view is too clouded to accept the truth.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7634313
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/04/ ... 0922.shtml
http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=704510

Finally, Fox News: "Iraq WMD Inspectors End Search, Find Nothing"
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,154574,00.html


----------



## Alaskan Brown Bear Killer

WOW! now I believe! :eyeroll:


----------



## Militant_Tiger

Of course you don't. If facts don't match your preconcieved notion, you toss them out.


----------



## Alaskan Brown Bear Killer

Militant_Tiger said:


> Of course you don't. If facts don't match your preconcieved notion, you toss them out.


Sounds like you!  
Now apologize and move onto someone else. :lol:
Please quit turning every thread to WMD, that wasn't even the topic!


----------



## Robert A. Langager

Alaskan Brown Bear Killer said:


> Militant_Tiger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course you don't. If facts don't match your preconcieved notion, you toss them out.
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds like you!
Click to expand...

AMEN!


----------



## Militant_Tiger

If that is so, how do you explain my concessions when I am shown that my previous belief was incorrect? Take for instance my belief that aircraft were not buried in Iraq.

It seems that your preconceptions about me ignore reality. How appropriate.


----------



## Alaskan Brown Bear Killer

MOVE ON! You got smacked down


----------



## Gun Owner

The problem MT, is that even though you've been shown to have major misconceptions regarding certain facets of your arguments you refuse to allow those facts to influence your overall judgement.

You admit you're wrong, and thats commendable. But unless you are willing to let go of your preconcieved notions of why things are the way they are, you wont learn anything.


----------



## R y a n

Gun Owner said:


> The problem MT, is that even though you've been shown to have major misconceptions regarding certain facets of your arguments you refuse to allow those facts to influence your overall judgement.
> 
> You admit you're wrong, and thats commendable. But unless you are willing to let go of your preconcieved notions of why things are the way they are, you wont learn anything.


Ultimately MT this is part of your issue. You have to be open to changing your entire views on certain positions. You have admitted that some of your talking points were in error. Therefore it would be wise to reconsider the entire basis for your positions.

Consider it mounting evidence that some of your core beliefs should be re-examined. All of these little "points" should begin to add up to a different answer for you....


----------



## Militant_Tiger

> Consider it mounting evidence that some of your core beliefs should be re-examined. All of these little "points" should begin to add up to a different answer for you....


Because there were planes buried in Iraq and Saddam may have had contacts with Osama in 1999, this means that my entire system of beliefs should be changed? The nerve of some people.


----------



## Gun Owner

Look we arent saying you shouldnt believe you are a human simply because of some different facts. Many ideals which you hold dear are still valid. But you have to admit that if one of us points out glaring errors in your arguments, that weakens your arguments. And if your argument is weakened, maybe its time to go back and recheck the rest of the facts you think you know.


----------



## Militant_Tiger

Certainly, if the issues are related. You are essientially telling me to rethink my views on Freud because I'm ignorant about foosball.


----------



## Gun Owner

No, but when discussing hidden weapons in Iraq, finding planes in the sand that you did not know existed would certainly go a long ways towards showing you that indeed, weapons were hidden.

The desert is an easy place to hide things. How long did Tutankhamun stay buried in the sands of Egypt?

I live in the desert, if you dig a hole, put something in it, back fill the hole, and walk away without making some sort of marker, you will NOT find it again.


----------



## Militant_Tiger

> No, but when discussing hidden weapons in Iraq, finding planes in the sand that you did not know existed would certainly go a long ways towards showing you that indeed, weapons were hidden.


The act of burying weapons does not denote the burying of WMDs. If only one could wish those weapons there, eh?


----------



## Alaskan Brown Bear Killer

> The act of burying weapons does not denote the burying of WMDs. If only one could wish those weapons there, eh?


That just doesn't make ANY sense :down:


----------



## R y a n

Militant_Tiger said:


> No, but when discussing hidden weapons in Iraq, finding planes in the sand that you did not know existed would certainly go a long ways towards showing you that indeed, weapons were hidden.
> 
> 
> 
> The act of burying weapons does not denote the burying of WMDs. If only one could wish those weapons there, eh?
Click to expand...

HUH? MT....you are telling me that you can't make the simple connection to the possibility that if they found planes in the sand....where they should never be... that WMD would not also be a possiblity of being hidden in similar fashion?

Are you out of your living mind? That should be the easiest most obvious connection to EVER make!

Wow! You need to consider certain probabilities if you stand any chance of gaining some grains of credibility here... I'm more liberal than most on this board, and *EVEN I* can see the connection....


----------



## Robert A. Langager

Alaskan Brown Bear Killer said:


> The act of burying weapons does not denote the burying of WMDs. If only one could wish those weapons there, eh?
> 
> 
> 
> That just doesn't make ANY sense :down:
Click to expand...

Is that the Chewbacca defense?


----------



## Militant_Tiger

> HUH? MT....you are telling me that you can't make the simple connection to the possibility that if they found planes in the sand....where they should never be... that WMD would not also be a possiblity of being hidden in similar fashion?


It is a possibility, but no moreso than it was before the discovery of the planes.



> Wow! You need to consider certain probabilities if you stand any chance of gaining some grains of credibility here... I'm more liberal than most on this board, and EVEN I can see the connection....


And I'm Bill O'Reilly, nice to meet you.



> Is that the Chewbacca defense?


Is it a wookie, or is it an ewok?


----------



## Robert A. Langager

Militant_Tiger said:


> Is that the Chewbacca defense?
> 
> 
> 
> Is it a wookie, or is it an ewok?
Click to expand...

*Why would a Wookiee, an eight-foot tall Wookiee, want to live on Endor, with a bunch of two-foot tall Ewoks? That does not make sense! But more important, you have to ask yourself: What does this have to do with this case? Nothing. Ladies and gentlemen, it has nothing to do with this case! It does not make sense! Look at me. I'm a lawyer defending a major record company, and I'm talkin' about Chewbacca! Does that make sense? Ladies and gentlemen, I am not making any sense! None of this makes sense! And so you have to remember, when you're in that jury room deliberatin' and conjugatin' the Emancipation Proclamation, [approaches and softens] does it make sense? No! Ladies and gentlemen of this supposed jury, it does not make sense! If Chewbacca lives on Endor, you must acquit! The defense rests.*


----------



## Alaskan Brown Bear Killer

8) :rollin:


----------



## Militant_Tiger

Oh, I miss South Park in its glory days.


----------



## Alaskan Brown Bear Killer

South Park :lost:


----------



## R y a n

I just noticed your ridiculous quote....



> HUH? MT....you are telling me that you can't make the simple connection to the possibility that if they found planes in the sand....where they should never be... that WMD would not also be a possiblity of being hidden in similar fashion?





Militant_Tiger said:


> It is a possibility, but no moreso than it was before the discovery of the planes.


MT you mean to tell me that once you find a methodology by which an enemy operates, that we shouldn't take that logic and apply for other things we are looking for? "No moreso than before the discovery!!!"

Whatever MT...nice spin... do you realize how naieve that makes you sound?



> Wow! You need to consider certain probabilities if you stand any chance of gaining some grains of credibility here... I'm more liberal than most on this board, and EVEN I can see the connection....





Militant_Tiger said:


> And I'm Bill O'Reilly, nice to meet you.


Huh? :huh:


----------



## Militant_Tiger

> MT you mean to tell me that once you find a methodology by which an enemy operates, that we shouldn't take that logic and apply for other things we are looking for? "No moreso than before the discovery!!!"


We don't know that this was their methodology, we know of one incident. The odds that the supposed WMDs are burried are no better than before this development. This is one last attempt at the Republic straw grasping to justify this unnecessary war.


----------



## Alaskan Brown Bear Killer

Militant_Tiger said:


> MT you mean to tell me that once you find a methodology by which an enemy operates, that we shouldn't take that logic and apply for other things we are looking for? "No moreso than before the discovery!!!"
> 
> 
> 
> We don't know that this was their methodology, we know of one incident. The odds that the supposed WMDs are burried are no better than before this development. This is one last attempt at the Republic straw grasping to justify this unnecessary war.
Click to expand...

Is HEAD BURRIED in the sand with WMD's  ?


----------



## R y a n

Militant_Tiger said:


> MT you mean to tell me that once you find a methodology by which an enemy operates, that we shouldn't take that logic and apply for other things we are looking for? "No moreso than before the discovery!!!"
> 
> 
> 
> We don't know that this was their methodology, we know of one incident. The odds that the supposed WMDs are burried are no better than before this development. This is one last attempt at the Republic straw grasping to justify this unnecessary war.
Click to expand...

Riiiggghhttttttt!


----------



## Militant_Tiger

Thanks for your support benny boy.


----------



## Gohon

> Thanks for your support benny boy.


Benny Boy: Noun. Slang expression used in the 50s for a male homosexual.

Term is actually quite often used today also, especially by military personnel overseas, especially in the Philippines. Odd indeed.........


----------



## Militant_Tiger

Excellent, I've been upgraded from female Islamo-fascist to homosexual 1950s military grunt.


----------



## Alaskan Brown Bear Killer

Militant_Tiger said:


> Excellent, I've been upgraded from female Islamo-fascist to homosexual 1950s military grunt.


MT, if you were a


> homosexual 1950s military grunt


that would be a boost up!


----------



## Gohon

> Excellent, I've been upgraded from female Islamo-fascist to homosexual 1950s military grunt.


Try thinking no matter how painful it may be. *You* called someone a Benny Boy, a slang term used to call someone else a homosexual that is still used today. That means you called someone a homosexual, not someone calling you one. Why does everything that calls for actually thinking on your part fly over your head........ Personally I think you knew what the words Benny Boy ment when you posted them.


----------



## Militant_Tiger

Have you considered that it is simply not that important to me? You're a joke gohon. Your inane conspiracy theories are worthless, don't expect me to philosophize over them.


----------



## Goose Huntin' Machine

TO get slightly back on topic...

I feel that by voting a third party I am atttempting to bring back the republican party to a party of conservatives. To vote republican now only emboldens and rewards their ill-behaviors...such as illegal immigration?

MT, I would have to disagree with you. When I do not vote for the Republicrats I do so trying to bring them back to the right...not towards the middle.

Jeff Given


----------



## Militant_Tiger

Neocons are so far right that they have gone left. True conservatives and liberals fall near the middle.


----------



## Goose Huntin' Machine

Militant_Tiger said:


> Neocons are so far right that they have gone left. True conservatives and liberals fall near the middle.


okay, let me get this straight. Bush is a republican on the far right? Where does Ronald Reagan, a true conservative, sit...in the middle?

I think you're wrong on your thinking...

Jeff Given


----------



## Militant_Tiger

It seems to me that the levels of conservatism and liberalism are on a circle. If you go really far left, you go right. If you go too far right, you go left. Bush claims to be a conservative, but he supports big government, as evident in his support of the NSA wiretapping without warrants.

I suppose one could argue that it is simply a line that one travels on in their conservatism and liberalism, but it is a matter of opinion.


----------



## Plainsman

> If you go too far right, you go left. Bush claims to be a conservative, but he supports big government, as evident in his support of the NSA wiretapping without warrants.


I am happy that you think to far left equals illegal wiretapping, but in all truth I think both sides do many things they shouldn't. Myself, I don't think it was illegal, and I would hope that a liberal president would do the same thing to keep tabs on the terrorists.

I do support your evident idea of big government. I don't see big government as how many employees they have, but rather how much government intrudes into my personal life.

I don't see the circle thing that you see. If I had to make an analogy of left and right I would say it is a straight line. Brake that line into 10 equal portions, with number one on the left, and five on the right. I think the liberals on this board fall into 3 to 6 depending on the issues, while the conservatives fit into 4 to 7 depending on the issues. As you can see there is a good overlap, and that is where I also think most of America fits in. After the last few elections I would say America averages a 5.5. Those in the 1's and 2's, and the 9's and 10 are all radical. Communists would perhaps be 2's and there are people I am sure more radical than them. What did you call extreme right, fascists? Well, they would be 9's with people much more radical than them.

Bush is ticking me off because he is not tough enough on the Mexican boarder. MT where is it that the liberals disappoint you?


----------



## Militant_Tiger

> Myself, I don't think it was illegal, and I would hope that a liberal president would do the same thing to keep tabs on the terrorists.


Plainsman you are intelligent enough to understand this. They already had all the power they could possibly need, why give them more at the cost of our freedoms?



> MT where is it that the liberals disappoint you?


Not standing up against the president enough as he attempts to wither away our personal freedoms. I also disagree with their gun control policies.


----------



## Plainsman

> Plainsman you are intelligent enough to understand this. They already had all the power they could possibly need, why give them more at the cost of our freedoms?


I will admit I have always understood what you were getting at. I just think much of it is exaggerated. Not by you perhaps, but that which you read. I have seen no evidence that it has taken away from any U. S. citizens civil rights. I don't think terrorists deserve the protection of our constitution, and if a terrorist is calling someone here I want to know about them also.

MT, I agree we don't want to loose our rights, but better a little discomfort for a short time than risk American lives lost ----again. There is no easy answer here, and I don't like any of the answers, but some are better than others.

I think the president has this power legally, but I would have preferred that it was set up for time of war only, and with a sunset clause. Your right about a future president perhaps abusing it. The bottom line is I currently support what Bush is doing, as long as it is linked to phone calls from or to known terrorist affiliated people.

As for all the power they needed: I think time was of the essence, and also secrecy. There are people willing to endanger us for political advantage. This is my beef with the ultraliberals in congress.


----------



## Militant_Tiger

> I have seen no evidence that it has taken away from any U. S. citizens civil rights.


By it's very nature it removes rights! We have a right to privacy unless a warrant is issued, and the president has stated specifically that he gave the thumbs up to warrantless phone taps.



> I don't think terrorists deserve the protection of our constitution, and if a terrorist is calling someone here I want to know about them also.


You are thinking simplistically. You assume that only terrorists are being monitored, but with no oversight (a court issued warrant) we dont know that. In your time have you found that the government will generally do what is right, or what is allowed?



> MT, I agree we don't want to loose our rights, but better a little discomfort for a short time than risk American lives lost ----again. There is no easy answer here, and I don't like any of the answers, but some are better than others.


They already had the capability to wiretap without getting a warrant for three days. They had all the power they could use, this is simply throwing our rights at them out of fear unnecessarily.



> I think the president has this power legally, but I would have preferred that it was set up for time of war only, and with a sunset clause. Your right about a future president perhaps abusing it. The bottom line is I currently support what Bush is doing, as long as it is linked to phone calls from or to known terrorist affiliated people.


Just because you voted for this president doesn't mean he is any less prone to abusing it. We have no idea who is being wiretapped and there is no longer any oversight whatsoever.



> As for all the power they needed: I think time was of the essence, and also secrecy. There are people willing to endanger us for political advantage. This is my beef with the ultraliberals in congress.


Plainsman the FISA court is a secret court. It hears classified information on a regular basis. A wiretap could be installed up to three whole days before getting a warrant. They needed no more power.

There are some in this country who would endanger our freedoms for power, and that is exactly what we see going on now.


----------



## Plainsman

> By it's very nature it removes rights! We have a right to privacy unless a warrant is issued, and the president has stated specifically that he gave the thumbs up to warrantless phone taps.


That doesn't mean it is U. S. citizens. If it is they are conversing with terrorists.



> You are thinking simplistically. You assume that only terrorists are being monitored, but with no oversight (a court issued warrant) we dont know that. In your time have you found that the government will generally do what is right, or what is allowed?


Neither of us have any idea either way. Also, I don't want it to continue forever, that is why I want a sunset clause. Currently I don't want him to go to a court that will shoot off their big mouth so others know what is happening (the enemies of America). Point well taken about what is right or what is allowed.



> They already had the capability to wiretap without getting a warrant for three days. They had all the power they could use, this is simply throwing our rights at them out of fear unnecessarily.


Then after three days some big mouth knows about it. I don't like that. To many willing to risk my security for their political agendas.



> Just because you voted for this president doesn't mean he is any less prone to abusing it. We have no idea who is being wiretapped and there is no longer any oversight whatsoever.


The key word there is we have no idea. I don't think he is perfect, but I think he is less prone. Remember Clinton using the FBI to spy on his political adversaries?



> Plainsman the FISA court is a secret court. It hears classified information on a regular basis. A wiretap could be installed up to three whole days before getting a warrant. They needed no more power.


You don't trust the president, and I don't trust the FISA court to keep their big mouths shut. What do we do?


----------



## Militant_Tiger

> That doesn't mean it is U. S. citizens. If it is they are conversing with terrorists.


As the president himself stated, a United States citizen is on one end. Whether they are conversing with terrorists we cannot be sure, as there is no longer any oversight from the court.



> Currently I don't want him to go to a court that will shoot off their big mouth so others know what is happening (the enemies of America).


You know that is ridiculous just as well as I do. A secret court spouting off about national secrets? That is treason, and I can't recall the last time such a thing happened. Can you? That is like not requiring the police to get a warrant before they enter a home for fear that the judge will warn the suspect. Why bother with oversight at all if you believe such a thing? Our entire system of government is based on oversight. What you suggest is closer to totalitarianism.



> I don't think he is perfect, but I think he is less prone.


Why?



> You don't trust the president, and I don't trust the FISA court to keep their big mouths shut. What do we do?


You point out the last time a FISA court member "spouted off" for political reasons, and I'll point out the last time a president abused their power.


----------



## Plainsman

> Why?


Why? I told you with my comparison to Clinton's abuse of the FBI. Hence, less prone than Clinton. I can't compare him to some imaginary future president.



> You point out the last time a FISA court member "spouted off" for political reasons, and I'll point out the last time a president abused their power.


Leaks always occur in Washington, plain and simple fact.

As far as the remainder of your questions, we simply don't agree. It is pointless to continue with them. You trust the government, but not the president. I trust the president, but not the government.


----------



## Militant_Tiger

I repeat my question, show me the last time a FISA member leaked secrets, and I'll show you the last time a president abused his power. You seem to be creating these leaks in our secret courts within your mind.


----------



## Gohon

> Have you considered that it is simply not that important to me? You're a joke gohon. Your inane conspiracy theories are worthless, don't expect me to philosophize over them


Oh grow up kid........ I simply found it odd you called someone a name, most likely thinking no one would recognize it for what it was so I posted the definition. WTF does conspiracy theories have to do with anything. The only joke around here is you, and it is joke you can't see it for yourself. You can go back to your trolling now......... you've got a couple hooked.


----------



## Plainsman

Militant_Tiger said:


> I repeat my question, show me the last time a FISA member leaked secrets, and I'll show you the last time a president abused his power. You seem to be creating these leaks in our secret courts within your mind.


MT, your the only one on this form that thinks you have that kind of inside information. It appears you try act sane for a short time to get someone to talk to you, then your overbearing bs begins. I will talk serious discussion, but not the childish bs like your last question. Sorry, I'm not going to jump through your childish hoops. Adios.

I should have known a miracle didn't occur and you grew up. The first hint:


> You are thinking simplistically.


I also noticed your innocent act after the benny boy comment.

You just can't help letting that arrogance show through can you?


----------



## Militant_Tiger

> MT, your the only one on this form that thinks you have that kind of inside information.


Thus you agree that the public has not gotten wind of any leaks from the FISA court , and as such these "politically fueled leaks" are not a problem.

Why you are so adamant about handing over your personal rights for no added security, I will never know.


----------



## Plainsman

> I will never know.


There are a lot of things you will never know.

I for one am kicking myself for thinking you had the capacity to carry on a serious conversation without resorting to condescension and arrogants. Your so impressed with yourself that you will never understand why people get sick of you.

Dumb me.



> As far as the remainder of your questions, we simply don't agree. It is pointless to continue with them.


----------



## Plainsman

Militant_Tiger said:


> I repeat my question, show me the last time a FISA member leaked secrets, and I'll show you the last time a president abused his power. You seem to be creating these leaks in our secret courts within your mind.


For a smart guy I am surprised you don't understand english.


----------



## R y a n

MT will you ever learn?

:eyeroll:


----------



## R y a n

R y a n said:


> The sleeping giant for the Dems is Barack O'bama. That guy has some serious potential! He had great charisma, is extremely bright and very well spoken. When you listen to him speak he has a commanding presence that is often an "X" factor in a political race.
> 
> I think he mentioned he is not interested in the presidency for this go around, but like everything else that could change. However he is moderate enough to garner alot of support among many swing voters. He'll likely be president before his political career is over barring a scandal of some form.
> 
> Ryan
> 
> .


How prophetic this post was back in 2006...

Go back to page 1 and 2 of this post to see it all started out good..Too bad MT came in and side tracked it..

I was looking for this for awhile. It is interesting looking back on who everyone thought would be in the hunt, and how it all panned out.

Ryan


----------



## Plainsman

Now why did you do that? You got my curiosity up so that I had to go back and read at least half of that. I thought much like you when I first seen Obama. When he gave his first national address I told my wife he would be the next democrat president candidate.

Maybe reading this was not entirely a wast of time. I found another quote from you that I liked.



> I'm more liberal than most on this board


 :rollin:


----------

