<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (nflfan04)</div><div class='quotemain'>see, i knew itfd be a good idea to take civics this semester.... E4L, i thought you actually had a brain bush in 04. Kerry has no idea how to run a war, hell probably have this huge thing set up, tthen change his mind. plus how are people voting for him? he said hes got this huge plan at the debates, but he wont tell us what it is. how do we know hes even got a plan? the guy will have no idea what hes doing and hell screw this country up</div> Right on Brother, YOU ARE A GREAT AMERICAN.
Some point from my perspective? The value of the oil on Iraq is miniscule compared to the value of all oil in the world. That doesn?t make it immaterial, but not much more than a piece of the ever complicated enigma that is Iraq and the US policy toward her. Pat Robertson says that President Bush told him that there would be no U. S. casualties in Iraq. As hard as it is for me to do, I believe Pat on this one. 10 out of 10 (or the reduced count of 3 out of 10) terrorists support Kerry? I wonder who took that poll? Our current situation in Iraq is Bill Clinton?s fault for not having the ?sack? to rekindle the war in Iraq? Clinton?s predecessor pulled out of the first Gulf War without displacing the ?tyrant?. It was stated that despite several terrorist attacks against American?s (and on American soil) Clinton did nothing. Perhaps my definition of nothing is different then his? It was also stated that we had ?only? lost 1200 troops in Iraq. I hope that didn?t come across the way he intended. BTW, I think that the official count is 1111 as of today. RIP and thanks. The removal of tyranny in all its guises is a noble idea. The tricky part is practicing nobility while removing the despot. I don?t believe that all downtrodden people have created or perpetuated their own mire. Agreed, everyone in this country has the opportunity to uplift himself or herself, but the opportunity to get the original foothold is not equal for all (despite what the Declaration of Independence says, I find it hard to believe that that is what they thought considering the slave trade). We have been moving in the direction of equality for a long time, and I think that we will continue on that path for a long time more. I was a little taken aback by the comment that we can?t do anything about North Korea because of their armaments? I grow weary of the idea that a Kerry win invites terror, while a Bush win defeats it. Rhetoric and scare tactics, or truth in advertising? How does anybody know? Reagan?s greatest legacy was his steadfast decision to wear down the Soviet Union until it collapsed upon itself as the great lie that it (USSR) was. Cost a hell of a lot of money though? The argument that someone who voices an opinion against the war or U. S. policy in general is somehow less patriotic, is stale and flawed. It?s no better than the argument that being against the war is being against the troops. ROTR had a great line about pulling strings at the backs of necks. And, it obviously works for people from either side of the aisle. Bush = Anti-Christ? Assuming that there is such a character, Bush was extremely popular post 9-11 and it has only been lately that his ratings have dipped. The assumption that someone who doesn?t like or support ?your guy? is an idiot is shortsighted at best, and you may be shortchanging yourself of the chance to hear an intelligent opposing view. The role that Halliburton has played in Iraq is a necessary one. It is unfortunate that they are the only company with the experience and resources to handle the job, but that?s the way it is for now. It is further unfortunate that the only company qualified to handle the job has nonetheless managed to over-bill for services, intentional or not. I?m hoping for unintentional. Despite opinions to the contrary, I think that oil spill are a problem, and not merely an inconvenience. I?m not sure whether BF1 is claiming that oil spills aren?t bad, or just not as bad as the evil environmentalists say. Clean air and water is not overrated. Junk science is an argument we have heard from business on virtually every environmental issue. What makes it junk science? We need trees and clean oceans to process cleaner air. We need clean water supplies to keep us alive and to protect food sources. Acid rain is, and has been, a problem that doesn?t stay within our borders. Coal fired plants still operate in this country. Can anybody tell me what is good about that/those?? Now I?m pretty much caught up on the thread. Hoping for more incite from all of you (well maybe most of you). Haven?t this much passion about politics in quite a while. It?s healthy for the country. I don?t think I wrote anything offensive, but my apologies in advance if I did.
I think the biggest problem with political discussions is that people tend to over-emphasize their point by making bold, useless statements....much like both candidates themselves. [quote name='Send Em Back Al'] The value of the oil on Iraq is miniscule compared to the value of all oil in the world. That doesn?t make it immaterial, but not much more than a piece of the ever complicated enigma that is Iraq and the US policy toward her. .[/quote] I would agree it is a very important part of the Iraq situation, especially now. I cannot believe it would be the basis for any invasion, like some believe. [quote name='Send Em Back Al'] Pat Robertson says that President Bush told him that there would be no U. S. casualties in Iraq. As hard as it is for me to do, I believe Pat on this one. [/quote] I would say the Bush & Co underestimated how much insurgent fighting would take place after the removal of Saddam. I don't know how you (Bush, not you Chip) can say that there would be no casualties when that is virtually impossible with the ground attack needed. If you can consider something successful while losing even one life, I would say the first part of the war was successful. Backing out of it has been more difficult both in terms of policy and of lives spent. [quote name='Send Em Back Al'] 10 out of 10 (or the reduced count of 3 out of 10) terrorists support Kerry? I wonder who took that poll? [/quote] I believe it was Trident....sometimes you have to take stuff less literal I guess, although I would tend to agree. They haven't had a chance to dislike Kerry as much, so it actually does make sense in a weird way. Should Kerry be elected, he would probably be the new least-liked guy...unless he and all other Americans stay on US soil. [quote name='Send Em Back Al']Our current situation in Iraq is Bill Clinton?s fault for not having the ?sack? to rekindle the war in Iraq? Clinton?s predecessor pulled out of the first Gulf War without displacing the ?tyrant?. [/quote] I would say the Clinton comment was overdoing it a little, but I wouldn't give the comeback high grades either. Let's just say we have picked three different ways to address the Iraq situation, and if we have learned anything, we should be getting smarter and closer to finding the best way to go about doing things. [quote name='Send Em Back Al'] It was stated that despite several terrorist attacks against American?s (and on American soil) Clinton did nothing. Perhaps my definition of nothing is different then his? It was also stated that we had ?only? lost 1200 troops in Iraq. I hope that didn?t come across the way he intended. BTW, I think that the official count is 1111 as of today. RIP and thanks.[/quote] Clinton and GW reacted completely different and in hind-sight, they probably both secretly wish they had different reactions or at least better information to make decisions on. I don't think anyone thinks of only 1200 as a good thing. [quote name='Send Em Back Al']The removal of tyranny in all its guises is a noble idea. The tricky part is practicing nobility while removing the despot.[/quote] Maybe I can only say this as a filthy American, but I believe our war tactics as a whole prevent us from really "winning" a clean fight of this kind. Outside of rogue people and a few bad incidents, I truly believe we fight with a certain ethics in mind. We don't videotape beheadings of men or women or intentionally single out children for the potential of harm. Practicing nobility is all relative. The media really has a play in any war starting with Vietnam. They, as well as the enemy, have a big role in defining and grading nobility. If the public knew what was going on during WWII like we do now, it would have been tough to stay with that so long. Unfortunately, we are a spoiled country now, and since its tough for us to draw the line between issues involving foreign policy and homeland security, its tough to decide together what to do with issues like this. [quote name='Send Em Back Al'] I don?t believe that all downtrodden people have created or perpetuated their own mire. Agreed, everyone in this country has the opportunity to uplift himself or herself, but the opportunity to get the original foothold is not equal for all (despite what the Declaration of Independence says, I find it hard to believe that that is what they thought considering the slave trade). We have been moving in the direction of equality for a long time, and I think that we will continue on that path for a long time more.[/quote] Equality is a funny word in today's society, isn't it? What do we deserve and when do we lose our right to deserve the same things as others. Good topic for the barber shop. [quote name='Send Em Back Al']I was a little taken aback by the comment that we can?t do anything about North Korea because of their armaments? [/quote] Tough not to succumb to political pressure. Easy to flip-flop. Even if you believe Bush was justified in going into Iraq, where do you draw the line? Now, if you are Bush, do you bite off another piece and become the world police when you have less support than you used to? I think our leadership has to come up with a better plan based on learning from past mistakes before we blitz again....risk or not. [quote name='Send Em Back Al']I grow weary of the idea that a Kerry win invites terror, while a Bush win defeats it. Rhetoric and scare tactics, or truth in advertising? How does anybody know? [/quote] VERY GOOD COMMENT. I'm turned off by the tactics of both camps/parties. I have always believed that the President (from any party) gets too much credit for good things and too much criticism for bad things that happen. He is the leader of this country, but.... At this point, I will base my feelings more on the person than the statistics. I feel I have a better shot of guessing that anyway. [quote name='Send Em Back Al'] The argument that someone who voices an opinion against the war or U. S. policy in general is somehow less patriotic, is stale and flawed. It?s no better than the argument that being against the war is being against the troops. [/quote] I don't mind the argument so long as it isn't Monday Morning Quarterbacking. Going for it on 4th down is always brilliant or stupid...and isn't it both obvious yet funny that it depends on whether it works or not. Bottom line is that I only have the background and facts that some kind of media gives me...flawed or not. I refuse to believe Kerry or Bush would go into a war for the fun of it. Both agreed it was a good idea at one time. Fix the intelligence if it was flawed, but make sure you don't blame a "good" decision based on poor facts. Everyone is human. However, you do need to make sure you have your ducks as much in a row before making any decision like this. [quote name='Send Em Back Al'] Bush = Anti-Christ? Assuming that there is such a character, Bush was extremely popular post 9-11 and it has only been lately that his ratings have dipped. The assumption that someone who doesn?t like or support ?your guy? is an idiot is shortsighted at best, and you may be shortchanging yourself of the chance to hear an intelligent opposing view. [/quote] True, assuming the guy doesn't just happen to be an idiot by coincidence anyway [quote name='Send Em Back Al'] The role that Halliburton has played in Iraq is a necessary one. It is unfortunate that they are the only company with the experience and resources to handle the job, but that?s the way it is for now. It is further unfortunate that the only company qualified to handle the job has nonetheless managed to over-bill for services, intentional or not. I?m hoping for unintentional. [/quote] This is probably the best unbiased, non-partisan quote I have seen on this subject. I agree that this was probably an non-political situation, albeit it may end up proving that most Americans are money-hungry and will take advantage where they can [quote name='Send Em Back Al']Despite opinions to the contrary, I think that oil spill are a problem, and not merely an inconvenience. I?m not sure whether BF1 is claiming that oil spills aren?t bad, or just not as bad as the evil environmentalists say. [/quote] All drilling does not lead to large oil spills. Any oil spill is not good. However, as usual, the two sides tend to paint extreme pictures at different ends of the spectrum. [quote name='Send Em Back Al']Now I?m pretty much caught up on the thread. Hoping for more incite from all of you (well maybe most of you). Haven?t this much passion about politics in quite a while. It?s healthy for the country. I don?t think I wrote anything offensive, but my apologies in advance if I did.[/quote] Very good comments. Sorry it didn't make it to the barber shop, but perhaps that's a blessing in disguise. Maybe if a thread like this started earlier here, more people would have checked it out before the election.
Thanks Al for the summary...allow me to use your points to pontificate my own viewpoints. [quote name='Send Em Back Al']The value of the oil on Iraq is miniscule compared to the value of all oil in the world. That doesn?t make it immaterial, but not much more than a piece of the ever complicated enigma that is Iraq and the US policy toward her.[/quote] The argument often raised is that we went to war with Iraq for their oil. I highly doubt this. The economic benefit is far less than the cost of the war, even in the greater picture. In my opinion, there are a few indisputable facts about Iraq: 1. It WAS a threat (just ask the pilots enforcing the no fly zone...or ask Israel if they were afraid) 2. They DID have ties to Al Queda (sorry E4L...do you research on this. Iraq had no connection with 9/11, but many connections with Al Queda) 3. Things ARE better in Iraq. There may be problems now, but what did you expect after 30+ years of tyranny? It takes time...even America was a tough place after we won our independence. 4. It IS related to the war on terror. Honestly people...look at a freakin map and learn about the politics of the middle east. If you want to disrupt terrorism, root it out at its source. If you can't see these few facts then I have to say that you are a bit short-sighted. Granted, you have the right to be short-sighted and are no less an American for being so, but you are short-sighted all the same. [quote name='Send Em Back Al']Pat Robertson says that President Bush told him that there would be no U. S. casualties in Iraq. As hard as it is for me to do, I believe Pat on this one. [/quote] I am surprised that you believe Pat on this one...he also told everyone that God used the word "Messy" (that is a direct quote from God). [quote name='Send Em Back Al']10 out of 10 (or the reduced count of 3 out of 10) terrorists support Kerry? I wonder who took that poll?[/quote] There was a story recently about terrorists who were happy that they were effecting the elections in Kerry's favor. They don't like Bush...just look at Bin Laden's tape released today. [quote name='Send Em Back Al']Our current situation in Iraq is Bill Clinton?s fault for not having the ?sack? to rekindle the war in Iraq? Clinton?s predecessor pulled out of the first Gulf War without displacing the ?tyrant?.[/quote] Bush Sr. should have finished the job, or rather extended the job to include removing Saddam. Clinton tied his own hands with the Lewinski affair. Politically he didn't have the ability to act quickly as he was under careful watch from his opponents. I respect Clinton as a politician, but the Lewinski thing was a horrible, horrible move. [quote name='Send Em Back Al']It was stated that despite several terrorist attacks against American?s (and on American soil) Clinton did nothing. Perhaps my definition of nothing is different then his? It was also stated that we had ?only? lost 1200 troops in Iraq. I hope that didn?t come across the way he intended. BTW, I think that the official count is 1111 as of today. RIP and thanks.[/quote] Clinton did do something, but not enough. How can this be said? By 9/11. The 1111 soldiers who lost their lives lost their lives defending America from a stated enemy. I personally know some soldiers who have fought in both Afganastan and Iraq...they view it as the same war. They also view their involvement as a privelage. In terms of war, we have suffered very few deaths. Granted, we have suffered 1111 deaths too many, but their death does not make this the wrong war. If anything, it should inspire us in the true mission of Iraq. [quote name='Send Em Back Al']I was a little taken aback by the comment that we can?t do anything about North Korea because of their armaments?[/quote] I was taken aback by the thought that we couldn't do anything about North Korea at all. What is funny is that the same people who criticize Bush for going to war with Iraq for supposedly not exhausting all other options are wondering why we just don't go to war with North Korea. Yet here Bush shows us his patience in letting diplomacy work. Maybe he knew a little about the history of diplomacy with Iraq. [quote name='Send Em Back Al']I grow weary of the idea that a Kerry win invites terror, while a Bush win defeats it. Rhetoric and scare tactics, or truth in advertising? How does anybody know?[/quote] We can't say that Kerry won't win the war, but we do know that Bush is winning the war on terror. There is a great book just released by a democrat who intended to bash Bush in this book, but realized just how much Bush is doing. He points out that many of the victories we have had are not publisized so that we can continue to work with our allies...if you want more info on this, let me know. [quote name='Send Em Back Al']Reagan?s greatest legacy was his steadfast decision to wear down the Soviet Union until it collapsed upon itself as the great lie that it (USSR) was. Cost a hell of a lot of money though?[/quote] Reagan also brought a lot of pride back to Americans...although the Miracle on Ice certainly helped. [quote name='Send Em Back Al']The argument that someone who voices an opinion against the war or U. S. policy in general is somehow less patriotic, is stale and flawed. It?s no better than the argument that being against the war is being against the troops.[/quote] Agreed. Although this cuts both ways. People like the Dixie Chicks complained when people destroyed their CD's and vowed never to listen to them again. Free speech goes both ways...if you say something stupid, I have every right to ignore you in the future. I went to a Wilco concert the other day. Jeff Tweedy (sp?) decided to preach from his soap box on why Bush was evil. I probably won't go to another concert of his for a while because I simply don't want to hear that. He still has the right to say it, but I also have the right to spend my money on people who are interested in music, not politics. [quote name='Send Em Back Al']Bush = Anti-Christ? Assuming that there is such a character, Bush was extremely popular post 9-11 and it has only been lately that his ratings have dipped. The assumption that someone who doesn?t like or support ?your guy? is an idiot is shortsighted at best, and you may be shortchanging yourself of the chance to hear an intelligent opposing view.[/quote] I've heard people say Bush is the Anti-Christ, that he's no better than Hitler, so on and so forth. Before believing this, realize that you are taking an extreme viewpoint. I agree that assuming that someone is an idiot if they don't like your guy is short-sighted, however, I am still looking for an intelligent reason to vote for Kerry (not that it matters for me anymore, my vote has been cast). [quote name='Send Em Back Al']We need trees and clean oceans to process cleaner air. We need clean water supplies to keep us alive and to protect food sources. Acid rain is, and has been, a problem that doesn?t stay within our borders. Coal fired plants still operate in this country. Can anybody tell me what is good about that/those??[/quote] Yes yes, that is important. But there are many other things that are more important in my mind than the environment. Ok...I think I'm done.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (vikingfan)</div><div class='quotemain'> Clinton did do something, but not enough. How can this be said? By 9/11. The 1111 soldiers who lost their lives lost their lives defending America from a stated enemy. I personally know some soldiers who have fought in both Afganastan and Iraq...they view it as the same war. They also view their involvement as a privelage. In terms of war, we have suffered very few deaths. Granted, we have suffered 1111 deaths too many, but their death does not make this the wrong war. If anything, it should inspire us in the true mission of Iraq. </div> exactly... we havent lost nearly as many soldiers in this war as we have in others. compare this to wars such as WWII or WWI. in 3 years of war, losing only 1111 people is not that much. yes it is too much because every person means something, but not enough to let Kerry become president and make this country a disaster
Well, i am about to "upset" some people. 1111 people dying is not a bad thing. 3000 died in the terror attack, 100s of thousands die every single year. Embryonic stem cell research and abortion kill more by themselves. N.korea has nuclear weapons, and a strong hatred of america. What are we going to do? Negotiate with them to disarm, it is all we can do. If we piss them off they could give a bomb to terrorist. Clinton was unwilling to do anything as they grew close to getting the bomb and now our hands are tied. Taking Iraq has already had more effect than just freeing the iraqi people. FACT: Libya surrendered it nuclear program in fear of U.S. retribution. Fact with afghanistan, and iraq now friendly to nuetral coutries, Iran is now pinned in and we have the power to stop thier nuclear program. Iraq did have ties to Al-Qaeda along with about 10 other terrorist organizations, read the 9-11 commision report. It states that, the media only printed it had no tie to 9-11, next line said they were tied to al-qaeda . . thank you liberal media. Junk science. Embryonic stem cell research. The scientist who claim it will save lives stand to personally profit from government funding of it. There has never been one sign that embryonic stem cells could be used as cure, or anything to prove they could potentially used as a cure. We are killing off all of the different species. The claim of the number of species we are killing off does not have any research. It was scare tactic by a scientist to get people to pay attention to it, i.e. fund his research. Global Warming - No proof, of any kind. Secondly, all estimates of increase in carbon monoxide that scientist use in thier calculations are greater then the imperical evidence of hom much it is actually increasing. Thirdly a 1 degree increase in the earth tempurature would not flood coastal communities or low lying areas, while increasing grain and rice crops in underveloped countries by as much as 30% and would feed the starving people DDT- not one scientific study that showed it killed a single bird ever. In fact they did not even do tests on the dead birds they have in those pictures. Fact: DDT would practically eliminate all the deaths of malaria in Africa. Oil spills are bad for the environment. The valdez oil spill killed less birds than are killed daily by cats in London. Wow what a consequence. The ocean eats oil, the environment is resilient. If you kill off a lot of a species, its predator will decline in numbers and then its population will bounce back, it is a cycle. Bush did not say no one would die, people die in the military in peace time, and no one educated would make such a ridiculous claim. John Kerry attacks the troops by attacking the war. He undermines the US just like he did after vietnam. The left is more guilty by saying thiings like it is a war for oil, when that is simply not the case. The media focusing on negative things is dividing the country and is the MOST evil force working against the troops. John kerry accuse the troops of war attrocities when he returned from vietnam on the floor of congress. North Vietnam was encouraged by his rhetoric and stepped up torture of POWs. They even put a statue of mr Kerry as a war hero in thier Museums.
ok.... well said... now i got a question for all Kerry supporters. did you watch the debates, any of them? if yes see next question. did you hear abouy Kerrys plan? if yes see next question what is his plan? do you even know if hes got a plan? dont you wanna know what itis before you vote? are you just telling yourself that no matter what his plan is, youre gonna vote for him? if he had a plan wouldnt you think hed tell you what his plan was? he said hes got his plan laid out on his website, yet when you visit the website, hes got many different topics. abortion, gay rights, education, but the one thing on most Americans minds this election is the War in Iraq. on his website, he does not have anything addressed on the war in Iraq. so im convinced he has no plan.
[quote name='BearsFan1']Well, i am about to "upset" some people. 1111 people dying is not a bad thing. 3000 died in the terror attack, 100s of thousands die every single year. Embryonic stem cell research and abortion kill more by themselves. .[/quote] Wow, that's some superior logic you have going there. LOL! [quote name='BearsFan1'] N.korea has nuclear weapons, and a strong hatred of america. What are we going to do? Negotiate with them to disarm, it is all we can do. If we piss them off they could give a bomb to terrorist. Clinton was unwilling to do anything as they grew close to getting the bomb and now our hands are tied. .[/quote] Kim jong II is just as flipping nuts as anyone we've seen in the last 50 years. If we do nothing, he can and may still give a bomb to a terrorist. If we can talk this lunatic out of his nukes, I will be mighty impressed. Also, I'm losing faith in our intelligence reports more and more all the time after the absolute lack of WMD's in Iraq after we invaded them. Our negotiations with Kim Jong II will do nothing to deter what goes on under the table, especially after his reaction to what we've recently done in Iraq. That did nothing but compel him to speed up his program. [quote name='BearsFan1'] Fact with afghanistan, and iraq now friendly to nuetral coutries, Iran is now pinned in and we have the power to stop thier nuclear program. .[/quote] "now that we have Iran pinned in....the *power* to stop their nuclear program" Power? More like partnership in crime. No, Dick Cheney's companies will see to it that we do not mess with their business partners. I'm betting that Iran keeps their nuke program as long as Bush stays in office. ***** Iran (charter member of the Axis of Evil) thinks they have an ally in George W. Bush. The Associated Press reports: TEHRAN, Iran -- The head of Iran's security council said Tuesday that the re-election of President Bush was in Tehran's best interests, despite the administration's "axis of evil" label, accusations that Iran harbors al-Qaida terrorists and threats of sanctions for the country's nuclear ambitions. Historically, Democrats have harmed Iran more than Republicans, said Hasan Rowhani, head of the Supreme National Security Council, Iran's top security decision-making body. "We haven't seen anything good from Democrats," Rowhani told state-run television in remarks that, for the first time in decades, saw Iran openly supporting one U.S. presidential candidate over another. Though Iran generally does not publicly wade into U.S. presidential politics, it has a history of preferring Republicans over Democrats, who tend to press human rights issues. "We do not desire to see Democrats take over," Rowhani said when asked whether Iran was supporting Democratic Sen. John Kerry against Bush. ***** Just as this Administration overlooks Saudi Arabia's human rights violations, they also tend to ignore those of the other nations that they do business with. Hence, the preference for the Republican party in America. [quote name='BearsFan1'] Junk science. Embryonic stem cell research. The scientist who claim it will save lives stand to personally profit from government funding of it. There has never been one sign that embryonic stem cells could be used as cure, or anything to prove they could potentially used as a cure. We are killing off all of the different species. The claim of the number of species we are killing off does not have any research. It was scare tactic by a scientist to get people to pay attention to it, i.e. fund his research. Global Warming - No proof, of any kind. Secondly, all estimates of increase in carbon monoxide that scientist use in thier calculations are greater then the imperical evidence of hom much it is actually increasing. Thirdly a 1 degree increase in the earth tempurature would not flood coastal communities or low lying areas, while increasing grain and rice crops in underveloped countries by as much as 30% and would feed the starving people DDT- not one scientific study that showed it killed a single bird ever. In fact they did not even do tests on the dead birds they have in those pictures. Fact: DDT would practically eliminate all the deaths of malaria in Africa. Oil spills are bad for the environment. The valdez oil spill killed less birds than are killed daily by cats in London. Wow what a consequence. The ocean eats oil, the environment is resilient. If you kill off a lot of a species, its predator will decline in numbers and then its population will bounce back, it is a cycle. .[/quote] Go back to school, kid. You missed too many classes. It appears that you are simply discounting things based on what is good for business, rather than giving it any critical analysis. By the way, my father is currently recovering from major back surgery with the aid of stem cells. I'm not sure exactly how it works but they took a whole section out of his spine, replaced missing discs, and put stems cells in it to enduce growth of the bones that they took from his hip. He hasn't been home for very long, and immediately after the operation he lost feeling in his right leg. He uses a walker now and wears a turtle shell back brace. He'll be mostly lying in bed not upright for about a year. Unfortunately, his missing discs are a genetic condition, and I'm really paying attention to the whole stem cell thing a lot more now. I'll let you guys know how he recovers.
Stem cells do heal people, however they were not embryonic stem cells. Good come back on me missing classes on school, do you have any evidence to counter the facts i presented, take 7 days and do research. Find one study that disproves any of those scientific claims. Good luck to your father, i will pray for him. P.S. I turned my environmental science teachers opinion around on everyone of those issues. She did not have the facts so i brought them to her.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (BearsFan1)</div><div class='quotemain'>Stem cells do heal people, however they were not embryonic stem cells. Good come back on me missing classes on school, do you have any evidence to counter the facts i presented, take 7 days and do research. Find one study that disproves any of those scientific claims. Good luck to your father, i will pray for him. P.S. I turned my environmental science teachers opinion around on everyone of those issues. She did not have the facts so i brought them to her.</div> No thanks, man. I'm not falling into that trap. What you're doing is taking much larger issues and cherry picking them for one study that may support your one-line sentences. You're focusing too much on some small detail and making a broad brush stroke in determinning a more global value. If you saw a bird get coated with oil and not fall over immediatley, and get photos of it, that really doesn't mean anything in the bigger picture. Kind of reminds me of Rush Limbaugh's response to global warming some years ago when he compared a glass of ice water with melting ice and the level of the water inside of it! LOL! Thanks for the kind words for my father. I'm sure he will get better, although it drives him nuts to not be working all the time.
[quote name='Cowboy71']I think the biggest problem with political discussions is that people tend to over-emphasize their point by making bold, useless statements....much like both candidates themselves.[/quote] I agree, though I hope you weren?t including me in that observation. [quote name='vikingfan']Thanks Al for the summary...allow me to use your points to pontificate my own viewpoints.[/quote] Thanks VF. I will try to keep the quotes from other posts to a minimum to avoid confusing myself. I sense that both Cowboy and Mark are on the same plane with me on the war not being over oil. Way too simple, though I don?t dismiss it outright as not having <u>any</u> bearing. A strong U. S. presence in an OPEC founding member country would certainly help to influence opinions helpful to our interests on the other members. In particular, if the U. S. had bases there (Iraq), as they have had in Saudi Arabia for years... Still, only a piece of the puzzle? Another piece might just be that failed assassination attempt on GHWB(?)? As many of you know I tend to downplay the God angle in these discussions. But if both Bush and Robertson both claim to have gotten their information from the source? Somebody (or both) is/are liar, a heretic, or worse. There?s worse, right? VF questioned why I would believe Pat Robertson?s version of the story. In a general sense, I think that Pat Robertson has fewer handlers feeding him ?facts? and postures than does W? But that?s just me. BTW, I can believe that God used the word ?messy? as easily as anything else in the vein of God ?speaking? to anybody. I find it hard to believe that ANYONE can tell me that an election result will make a terrorist happy. I certainly side more with Cowboy than VF on this one. The latest and greatest is the most hated. Especially when they are the leader of the greatest, most revered and feared nation in the world. Our forays across the pond and into foreign lands does not endear us to many people of the world, especially those who despise our meddling into how they have done things for themselves. Our support of Israel is as much to blame for the hatred as anything else. As a nation we haven?t been evenhanded in dealing with other sovereign nations. We play favorites (rightly so in most cases), and that causes hard feelings. Some might say, ?Hard feelings, F*ck em!?, but that takes usback to this point, doesn?t it? Regarding the tape released earlier today. I haven?t seen it, but I did read a transcript, and the gist was that it wouldn?t matter who was president as long as policy stayed the same. I didn?t get the impression that Osama really gave a fudge who was the boss. As long as the resultant policy stayed the same, the actions by his group would continue. [quote name='vikingfan']Clinton did do something, but not enough. How can this be said? By 9/11.[/quote] So VF has decided that it makes sense to place the blame of the 9-11 attacks on the shoulders of Clinton because he didn?t do enough while in office? Interesting. A month after Clinton was sworn in as president (compared to the nearly ten months after W was sworn in), the twin towers of the World Trade Center were attacked by approximately 1000 pounds of explosives placed by terrorists. Was that the fault of George H. W. Bush? Clinton never said it was, and to my recollection, no Democrat has ever said it was either (I could be wrong, but I don?t remember anything except a rally around the flag). BTW, there were five arrests, trials, and convictions coming out of that attack within a couple of years of the attack. Cowboy makes a huge amount of sense in pointing out that the horrors of war seldom come home to roost on our television screen. However, I take exception to the conclusion that media has play in the coverage. I would argue that the access of the media, and the cowing to the requests of the administration has curtailed greatly since that era. Imbedded reporters are crap. Too soon they start to consider themselves part of the force and forget that they are there to report. I remember watching television in the 70?s. The White House apparently didn?t have as much control over the news departments in those days. If you want to challenge my memories, ask your parents. My point about acting nobly was to point out that as soon as you determine that you are better than someone, or that your idea is nobler than your opponent?s, it?s hard to not be a dick. Haven?t there been wars fought over this concept for years? In addition, ethics are relative from your position. Beheading in the middle east is certainly more common than in the west, but the reverse is true regarding the use of the electric chair. I certainly don?t wish to cast a negative light on the sacrifice of American solders in these strange conflicts of today?s times. In fact, I wouldn?t want to challenge the character or stature of any combat vet, or even support services. All are necessary and appreciated in the world of today, and make my life a lot easier to deal with since I don?t have to dodge bullets, missiles, or bombs just to go to work. VF, regarding the North Korea question? I?m not bothered by the fact that we didn?t go to war with North Korea. I?m bothered by the people who say that diplomacy won?t work in Iraq, but must in Korea. As I recall, our leader declared North Korea part of the ?axis of evil? along with Iraq and Iran. Historically we haven?t had a great deal of success on the Korean peninsula, but now that the man with the button has nukes we are going to try and talk to him. He?s crazier than his dad ever was. [For the sake of clarity and humor I will point out that I am talking about Kim Jong Il being crazier than his father Kim Il sung, and not the Georges.] We have known for 2 ? years that NK has nukes. And now we want to talk? Of course we did warn them that we wouldn?t talk till they disarmed? Diplomacy hasn?t worked in North Korea in over 50 years. We?ve empowered and armed several leaders (and some of their replacements) in the world in that time frame. [quote name='Vikingfan']We can't say that Kerry won't win the war, but we do know that Bush is winning the war on terror. There is a great book just released by a democrat who intended to bash Bush in this book, but realized just how much Bush is doing. He points out that many of the victories we have had are not publisized so that we can continue to work with our allies...if you want more info on this, let me know.[/quote] [quote name='Cowboy71'] Now, if you are Bush, do you bite off another piece and become the world police when you have less support than you used to? I think our leadership has to come up with a better plan based on learning from past mistakes before we blitz again....risk or not.[/quote] That?s one of the conundrums isn?t it? If we tell you what a good job we?re doing, we won?t be able to do such a good job. It?s the old ?I?d tell you, but then I?d have to kill you.? problem. I think that it?s fairly clear that the reason that W (or the USA for that matter( doesn?t have the support he once had of the world community is a direct result of going against the popular opinion of the allies to begin with. Not sure how you can say that Bush is winning the war on terror since it seems so poorly defined. Not disputing, just asking. Equality, in my opinion, is less a concern of deserving than of earning. However, my point was more comment on opportunity. If you and I were to race 100 yds, and I had shoes and a ten yard head start, and you were barefoot? You could always be faster and better than me, but the circumstances of your starting point would still give me an advantage. Nothing against me, and kudos to my parents for buying me shoes and putting me in position to have that head start, but I would still have an advantage (at the beginning) every time we raced. Obviously taking the view that anyone is the Antichrist is extreme, particularly for me. I didn?t bring the subject up, but couldn?t help but chime in. Besides, as Pat Robertson believes, ?The Antichrist is probably a Jew living in Israel today?. I suppose that clears W. [quote name='Cowboy71']True, assuming the guy doesn't just happen to be an idiot by coincidence anyway [/quote] Now that?s funny. J I agree that all oil spills are not catastrophic, but I still don?t see any benefit in or from them. True, all drilling does not lead to spills, but most ocean drilling leads to slicks. Most surface drilling leads to pooling of surface waste. Not to mention the fuels needed to burn in order to either run the drill or the pump? The circle of life? Not really. I am aware that petrolium naturally seeps from the ocean floor, so some of it is naturally occurring. That doesn?t mean that oil is healthy for the ecosystems of the oceans, only that nature has an answer for naturally occurring quantities. And certainly the open ocean can handle things better than a coastal wetlands.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (nflfan04)</div><div class='quotemain'>exactly... we havent lost nearly as many soldiers in this war as we have in others. compare this to wars such as WWII or WWI. in 3 years of war, losing only 1111 people is not that much. yes it is too much because every person means something, but not enough to let Kerry become president and make this country a disaster</div> This war to date has cost us about 25% of the combat deaths of the revolutionary war, and about half of the deaths recorded in each the War of 1812 and the Spanish-American War. Can you remember why we were involved in either of those wars? Regarding your comparison to WW's I & II. There were nearly 21,000,000 service people involved in theater combat. One would figure that with that kind of investment, there would be some casualties. Again, another strong statement about the ruination of the country if Kerry is elected. A little substance with your grumble if you please.
I just read this whole thread. I think my eyes are about to fall out. The election can't come and go soon enough. I dread hearing the fallout when Bush wins again though... yikes.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Steelerfan_2004)</div><div class='quotemain'>I just read this whole thread. I think my eyes are about to fall out. The election can't come and go soon enough. I dread hearing the fallout when Bush wins again though... yikes.</div> Are we as a nation close to civil war? Thoughts?
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Steelerfan_2004)</div><div class='quotemain'>I just read this whole thread. I think my eyes are about to fall out. The election can't come and go soon enough. I dread hearing the fallout when Bush wins again though... yikes.</div> Why didn't you guys pick John McCain instead?
Nah, just a lot of pissing and moaning. If there was a civil war, I don't think most people would have any idea what they were actually fighting for. For the most part, I don't think most people know what they're fighting for now.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Steelerfan_2004)</div><div class='quotemain'>Nah, just a lot of pissing and moaning. If there was a civil war, I don't think most people would have any idea what they were actually fighting for. For the most part, I don't think most people know what they're fighting for now.</div> Damn. I was hoping that folks would become much more animated. We need that type of shake-up in our system. Too bad we are a nation of wimps. Another reason that the terrorists will probably succeed at hitting us again if either Bush or Kerry get elected.
I think if there were a civil war, the conservatives would crush the liberals. The left does not want to fight! It would be like the patriots playing a 7 year old football, and not going easy on them. The liberals would win in other mediums, i.e. a debate, if you take both sides how can you lose. In court, 20 what if 70% of teh country wants something thier is a liberal judge who likes your idea better so it is now law. If it came to war though, the liberals would get crushed.
I just think it's sad that NFLfan think that loosing close to 1200 people is ok, since it's less then WW1 and WW2. Thats screwed up logic. In those wars we were the savior nation coming to help our allies. In this War, I have no clue exactly what we are fighting for. What bothers me the most about Bush, is that he has divided the country squarely into 2 parts, more so then any president in a very long time. His comments towards his non-constuants are totally out of the line. How would you like to be a gay person living in a country, where you own president thinks you're a sinner. I have an idea, to make all of the republicans happy why dont we just elect a Cardinal. If you are going to vote based on your religious beliefs, then why not have a religious leader in power, and f*ck the whole separation of church and state. Nothing sickens me more then hearing people say that Bush is like having G-d in the White house. Also btw NflFan and BucsFan1, in the first 4 years of the Vietnam war we lost about 1800 solidiers, does that seem familiar??? This is not a good situation, and if Bush remains in power I dont see how it could get any better.
