| ActiveMac | Anonymous | Create a User | Reviews | News | Forums | Advertise |
|
|
|
User Controls |
|
New User |
|
Login |
|
Edit/View My Profile |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ActiveMac |
|
Articles |
|
Forums |
|
Links |
|
News |
|
News Search |
|
Reviews |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
News Centers |
|
Windows/Microsoft |
|
DVD |
|
ActiveHardware |
|
Xbox |
|
MaINTosh |
|
News Search |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ANet Chats |
|
The Lobby |
|
Special Events Room |
|
Developer's Lounge |
|
XBox Chat |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ's |
|
Windows 98/98 SE |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Windows Me |
|
Windows "Whistler" XP |
|
Windows CE |
|
Internet Explorer 6 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Xbox |
|
DirectX |
|
DVD's |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TopTechTips |
|
Registry Tips |
|
Windows 95/98 |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Internet Explorer 4 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Windows NT Tips |
|
Program Tips |
|
Easter Eggs |
|
Hardware |
|
DVD |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Latest Reviews |
|
Applications |
|
Microsoft Windows XP Professional |
|
Norton SystemWorks 2002 |
|
|
|
Hardware |
|
Intel Personal Audio Player 3000 |
|
Microsoft Wireless IntelliMouse Explorer |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Site News/Info |
|
About This Site |
|
Affiliates |
|
ANet Forums |
|
Contact Us |
|
Default Home Page |
|
Link To Us |
|
Links |
|
Member Pages |
|
Site Search |
|
Awards |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Credits |
 |
U.S. Celebrates 227th Birthday | |
|
||
| Time: 16:32 EST/21:32 GMT | News Source: Associated Press | Posted By: Robert Stein | ||
|
America celebrated its 227th birthday by opening a new museum for the Constitution in its birthplace, marking the centennial of aviation and giving a red-white-and-blue welcome to troops returning home to Kansas from Iraq. In Dayton, Ohio, President Bush climbed a flag-draped stage flanked by military jets to praise the work of U.S. troops and celebrate the 100th anniversary of flight in the hometown of the Wright brothers. | ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 457 Last | Next |
The time now is
7:15:47 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #1 By 135 (208.50.204.91) at 7/4/2003 7:42:53 PM |
|
News from my hometown. :(
http://www.startribune.com/stories/1762/3971956.html |
| #2 By 13998 (217.122.34.74) at 7/4/2003 8:24:55 PM |
|
What you are now realising was obviously seen by the rest of the world before the war started and that was the reason of the resistence. However, I can understand Americans. The TV channels simply brainwash. Since the discussions about the war started I stopped watching CNN. It became the voice of Bush administration rather than an independent news source.
This is not mathematics. Two wrongs does not make one right. Saddam administration was wrong, so was Bush's. Anyway... Happy birthday from West Europe! This post was edited by RickNL on Friday, July 04, 2003 at 20:30. |
| #3 By 61 (24.92.223.112) at 7/4/2003 8:45:14 PM |
|
First, just because weapons have not yet been found does not mean that they do not exist.
Second, Saddam did in fact pose a threat to surrounding countries as well as to his own people. The pacifist mentality is pretty dumb when you actually think about it. There may be relative peace now, but in the future, if you do not take care of a threat, it will come back in a much bigger battle than what would have been needed had you acted earlier. |
| #4 By 13998 (217.122.34.74) at 7/4/2003 9:35:38 PM |
|
To your surprise CPUGuy, none of the surrounding countries supported this war. It is no one's business to protect the surrounding countries while they are not willing to be protected.
As for the people of Iraq... I don't think Bush would be very interested in 'protecting' these people if there were no oil there. As i said before, trying to prove that Saddam is wrong does not make Bush any better, or let's say, proving that Saddam is wrong does not necessarily prove that Bush was right. No man in good shape would support Saddam anyway. Politics is not only about being right or wrong or is not only doing the right things. It is about doing the right things at the right time with the right tools. Even if we suppose that Bush didn't fail in any areas, he certainly failed in getting the support of the world. Example... Today 75% of Turkey dislikes Americans. This should be so astonishing since Turkey is one of the few alliances in that area and Turkish people are (at least used to be) very pro-American, perhaps because American culture is closer to Turkish culture than West European culture. Before the war an avarage Turkish man would think Americans were the best, they knew the best. The next president of the United States will have a lot to fix. |
| #5 By 13998 (217.122.34.74) at 7/4/2003 9:38:56 PM |
|
Phaedrus, 20 years ago Saddam had the support of the United States government. So it was not very likely that someone could remove him from power. This post was edited by RickNL on Friday, July 04, 2003 at 21:50. |
| #6 By 13998 (217.122.34.74) at 7/4/2003 10:20:25 PM |
|
I am afraid this sounds very much like Nazi propaganda. I recalled Mein Kampf by Adolf Hitler while reading your comment.
I hope (am almost sure) that these words do not represent the way American people think. However, I totally agree that Europe talks, and America acts. I don't want to be unfair towards America and American people. In the past they did great things, such as what they did in Bosnia. While Europe was talking and talking, lecturing democracy and human rights for years and years, meanwhile watching people killed in Bosnia, it was the United States who took the initiative and saved millions there. If it was up to Europe they'd still be talking and watching. Or what they did in 1990 was totally right as well. They saved the people of Kuwait. Still these actions were taken by great politicians of the United States and do no justify what Bush is doing. This post was edited by RickNL on Friday, July 04, 2003 at 22:28. |
| #7 By 1896 (216.78.253.12) at 7/4/2003 11:13:42 PM |
|
#11 "He said he would do it. He did it. He did is successfully. Taliban? Gone. Bath'ist? Gone. North Korea? Warming up."
What did he do? In Afghanistan US troops barely control Kabul. The rest of the country is too busy cultivating opium to care about us. Iraq? It doesn't seem the situation is stable. We have put ourselves in the worst imaginable nightmare: "Urban combat". Are you old enough to remember what was Beirut in the '70s? Do you realize that the only way we could win a war against Korea is using nukes? Check some real news, watch BBC television; the CNN is pathetic, even worse then Fox. Btw no, I never voted for the Democrats till now. I will next time. |
| #8 By 135 (208.50.204.91) at 7/5/2003 12:06:36 AM |
|
CPUGuy - "First, just because weapons have not yet been found does not mean that they do not exist. "
But it does prove that the weapons capability didn't exist to a level whereby Iraq could have launched a strike with only a few hours preparedness... or even weeks of preparation. Which puts into question the claims that Iraq was an immediate threat and we should act pre-emptively. "The pacifist mentality is pretty dumb when you actually think about it. " You're confused. I'm no pacifist, never have been, never will be. The question isn't one of peace or war, it's of utilizing our forces both military and diplomatic in the best way necessary to protect our nation. It was uncertain last fall if moving on Iraq was the best move, and it's starting to look like it wasn't a good move today, nearly all the fears have become reality. Regardless, I came across this article recently and I think you should read it. http://www.marshallfoundation.org/publications_lectures/lectures.htm It's a lecture given by General Zinni USMC last fall, in which he raised the questions many of us were raising. Questions to which answers never came, instead just attacks on our patriotism. He mentions this, and relates some stories from Vietnam that maybe you should hear. And my final plug, as I'm going to the meetup.com rally next monday: http://www.draftwesleyclark.com |
| #9 By 3653 (209.149.57.116) at 7/5/2003 12:15:32 AM |
|
So sad that George W. has to look like such a mean person... when in reality he is just cleaning up the messes left behind by his predacessor. Much of this crap we are wading in (Taliban, Saddam, N.Korea) was toyed with by Clinton, with no REAL attempt to fix any of it. THANK GOD we have such a capable and committed leader in Mr. Bush.
If only these problems could have been worked on more effectively 5-10 years ago, they could have been dealt with much more humanely. But Clinton and the demos were too focused on midnight basketball, raising taxes, and taking away State's rights... and let many international problems grow much worse. Happy Birthday America. God Bless. This post was edited by mooresa56 on Saturday, July 05, 2003 at 00:17. |
| #10 By 20 (67.9.179.51) at 7/5/2003 2:04:36 AM |
|
The Constitution? What's tha... oh wait, you mean that document that our forefathers wrote when we wanted to become a free country? Oh yeah, we did away with that. We have a much better system now.
#17: As far as timing, it did seem odd, but I think that for 3 Presidents, we've needed to clean out Baghdad, but none of them had the clout or the political credit to do it. Clinton had the opportunity several times but for various reasons didn't do it (I think once or twice, it basically came down to saving his own political butt by not dragging the country through a war, etc. Not bad necessarilly, but not good either). From what I've heard, Clinton had several plans prepared for him by the DoD and he choose one of them, but couldn't execute. Bush picked it up and apparently plans were in place to execute some form of it, but there was still hesitation. Then 9/11 happened and that was the reason to go in now. I'm sure both Clinton and Bush, (if not Bush 41 as well) saw what was going on in Iraq. The attempts to restart a nuclear program, the resumption of the production of biological and chemical weapons with mobile labs, etc. Also, I think Saddam had to get rid of a lot of his existing stock with all the heat he was under after 1991, and that's what concerns me the most. My guess is that he was about to sell/give a substantial portion of his stockpile to Al Qaeda or some other loose affiliate to cause all sorts of mayhem. Another thing that troubles me is the loose Syria - Iran - North Korea - Yemen - Iraq pentagram that was formed for weapons smuggling, terrorist training, and terrorist shelter in conjunction with all the other 4 countries. Remember that N. Korean boatload of missles headed for Yemen that was seized a few months ago? Remember how Yemen wasn't cooperating with us in the investigation and insisted that they investigate it themselves? Scary stuff. For every story you hear on the news, there's probably 20-30 things you don't hear about what's really going on and who's funding whom and who's supplying whom. There are a million reasons that we should be in Iraq right now, not the least of which is to show Syria and Iran that we don't F' around and we have the capability, the power, and the will to kick some major A if we decide we need to. It's the same tact as Reagan v Soviets. You're never going to get the terrorists to do anything you want them to do unless you put your boot on their neck and let them feel the pressure. It's unfortunate that the liberals/Democrats are following the same mistakes as their predecessors in the 80's in condemning George Bush just like they did Reagan with the whole "Evil Empire" and "Trust but Verify" notions. |
| #11 By 135 (208.50.204.91) at 7/5/2003 3:13:10 AM |
|
daz - Actually it was the Declaration of Independence which our forefathers wrote when we wanted to become a free country. The Constitution was written after that happened to detail how the new government would operate.
"It's the same tact as Reagan v Soviets." Well first of all the situation is not at all like the Soviets. A government is something you can target and influence, but the problem that we have with terrorism is organized Non-Government Entities. They move around, they hide. They're immune to trade embargos. A navy blockade can stop a convoy, but it can't stop a single boat or a single man. Second of all, you give Reagan entirely too much credit. Reagan had little if anything to do with the collapse of the Soviet Union. By the time he said "Tear down this wall" it was already inevitable. The Soviet Union collapsed due to men like Lech Walesa with the Polish Solidarity movement. It collapsed because, as Clark puts it "the strongest force in the world is an idea whose time has come." Similar things happened in South Africa with the death of Apartheid, as well as in India with the overthrow of British rule. These were uprisings of ideas, peaceful resistance against the established order, an inevitability. China, same thing... the more people are given the more they want. China's hard-liner government is collapsing even as we speak. The nation is evolving into something different. Similarly with Iran. The young are demanding more. Where will this lead? It was this very same notion that led to the formation of the Sunshine policy in South Korea towards North Korea. But by making comments like "Axis of Evil", it throws these nations into a bunker mentality. Just as Americans gave up their rights with the Patriot Act in order to stop the foreign aggressors, so too will any other nation. Look at how bravely the Russians fought the Germans in WWII, despite what Stalin was doing at home to them. "It's unfortunate that the liberals/Democrats are following the same mistakes as their predecessors in the 80's in condemning George Bush just like they did Reagan with the whole "Evil Empire" and "Trust but Verify" notions. " No, the unfortunate thing is George Bush hasn't learned from history. The "Axis of Evil" speech set back US foreign policy in several parts of the world by at least a decade, it's the primary cause of our issues right now with North Korea, as well as the worsening of the situation in Cuba. I am not saying, we appease. But I am saying we corrupt from within. You realize who was the biggest proponents of economic reform in the Soviet Union? It was actually the KGB. People like Putin. Why? Because they were the only group of people in the country who had spent a signifigant amount living in western society. They saw what we had, and they wanted it back home as well. When the USSR started to collapse, the KGB just walked away from the hardliners, and without that support, everything crumbled. Globalization is how you spread liberal democracy, and it's had a far longer string of successes than ranting and raving and calling people Evil. Against terrorism you have to play both offense and defense. You go on the offensive attacking and foiling the terrorists. But you also have to go on the defensive, through merchandising and marketing. It's a game of publicity, and the last thing you want to do is give the terrorists sound bites for their advertising campaign. Bush doesn't understand the defensive part, apparently neither do you daz. And mooresa56 doesn't understand much of anything beyond finger pointing and name calling. :( |
| #12 By 135 (208.50.204.91) at 7/5/2003 3:42:38 AM |
|
JaggedFlame - "My thoughts are that the war was justified, but it came at the wrong time. The timing didn't make sense to me at all. It probably should have been done earlier. "
It's difficult. We probably should have finished off Iraq back in '91. We didn't because allies in the region feared instability. The best thing that did result was the establishment of the Kurdish controlled north. We're having fewer problems in the northern region, because they're already had an established self-rule. Clinton wasn't really allowed to do anything in Iraq, as the GOP kept distracting his administration with trumped up scandal charges. (I'm still of the opinion that the GOP as a body is guilty of Treason for these actions) As for the timing. I think it made sense. Bush wanted to invade Iraq when he came into office in 2001, but he had no way to justify it. After 9/11 things changed, and he was able to stir up some nationalism to convince people to support his goal. Basically he didn't justify the war, he just did it. History will allow us to look back with a clearer vision. Hopefully we can find a way to calm down the fighting over there, and move towards self-government. Again, I'll feel better when our sons and daughters aren't coming home in flag draped coffins. |
| #13 By 3653 (209.149.57.116) at 7/5/2003 3:53:39 AM |
|
blue, I'll just pick a few of the most blatant errors in your post. I already realize you wont change your mind, so I'll choose serenity and not waste too much time.
First, I just love how you strip Ronald Reagan of credit for the fall of the Soviets. You're right sodablue, it was all just one big damn coincidence. Hell, the Soviets would have fallen just as fast if Ronald McDonald had been in office. Jeez! "The Axis of Evil speech set back US foreign policy in several parts of the world by at least a decade" I actually agree on some level. The speech was STRONG, no denying that. But it had the perfect effect... to effectively call out our enemies. Enough of this pussy-footing around the issues. We've grown to accept that sort of international "policy" from the Clinton years... but look where it gets us in the end. It gets us a crop of well-armed America hating countries. By calling out our enemies... Bush told the world that we KNOW what is happening and we no longer choose to bury our heads and accept the shite we swallowed during the 1990s. "mooresa56 doesn't understand much of anything beyond finger pointing and name calling" And where did I name call? I referred to Democrats as "Demos". Thats not derogatory. Oh wait, perhaps it is. I know I wouldn't want anyone to call me that. "Clinton wasn't really allowed to do anything in Iraq, as the GOP kept distracting his administration with trumped up scandal charges" Yet somehow Bush managed to get the job done, with the equally distracting Democratic party fighting him the whole way. I guess it comes down to RESOLVE and CHARACTER. Thats the difference between Clinton and Bush. "trumped up"? So, you are telling me that the GOP staged the whole affair? Clinton is innocent, right? None of the adultry took place, right? I guess I have it all wrong. From my perspective, I could have sworn that a 50 year old man in a position of authority, had sex with a 25 year old woman in a subordinate position... and it all happened at the workplace. Everyone, just imagine that situation at your own office. Wouldn't that be just a bit of a distraction at work? And exactly whose fault would that be? Would it be your coworkers fault? Or would it be the old boss' fault? Exactly. This post was edited by mooresa56 on Saturday, July 05, 2003 at 03:58. |
| #14 By 20 (67.9.179.51) at 7/5/2003 6:08:33 PM |
|
#25: Really? You don't see them calling Bush a "Hitler" or a "Tyrant" or all the conspiracy theories that Bush created 9/11 so that he could rise to power as an Emporeror?
I heard a few of those against Clinton, but not on the mainstream news like I do about Bush. Besides, the stuff about Clinton was a joke. It was all a distraction to keep everyone's eye off the ball which was: all the Chinagate scandals. Know the names Charlie Linn Trie, Johnny Chung, James Riady? Probably not because while the press was purposely writing stories about Clinton's perjury, abuse of power, and obstruction of justice (all federal offenses, 2 of which are felonies, I believe), Clinton was allowing Chinese nationals, several whom were known to be in the employ of the Chinese Government and/or military, to get high-access clearences to the Pentagon classified information and areas. Not to mention access to Lawerence Livermore and Los Alamos nuclear research facilities. The difference is, there were facts proving every treasonous act Clinton committed against United States security, and so far no one has produced a shred of anything against Bush. But every day we hear Howard Dean, Gephardt, Lieberman, Kerry, et al bashing Bush and blaming him from everything from 9/11 to the fall of mankind. That kind of rhetoric was not present during the 2000 Campaign. In fact, Bush made a strict point to rarely, if ever mention clinton or "the previous administration". Look at the unprecedented fillabusters of Bush's judicial nominees. Sure, Republicans gave Clinton some hay, but by and large (I think 70-78%) of his judicial nominees went through a Republican controlled house and senate. So far, I think somewhere between 0-2 of Bush's 40 or so nominees have made it past the Democrats. That is obstructionist and counter to the philosophies of our founders. The fact is, Democrats could give a rat's ass about fairness, bipartisanship, etc. They use those words when they want Republicans to do something for them, but once Democrats get any type of power, they trash everything and replace it with a socialist agenda. "The Democrats would never sink as low as the Republicans did in order to attack the President" HUH?!?!?!!? ARE YOU NOT PAYING ATTENTION!!! READ THE PAPER, WATCH TV. High ranking Democrats are comparing Bush to Hitler or Heinrich Himmler! PAY ATTENTION |
| #15 By 61 (24.92.223.112) at 7/5/2003 6:19:25 PM |
|
Fritzly: All I can say is, thank God you are not a military leader. Just because they have nukes doesn't mean the only way that we could beat them is with nukes. Nukes are a last option sort of thing. Even if N. Korea dares to upgrade a war from convential weapons to nuclear ones does not mean we would have to use nukes to take them out.
Soda: I completely agree with the article, always have... but if you notice towards the bottom he says something very important. We must have faith in our administration to make the right decisions based on knowledge that we can not know, I beleive they have here. |
| #16 By 1896 (216.78.253.12) at 7/5/2003 7:28:27 PM |
|
CPU Guy you misunderstood the point: there is no way we can defeat N Korea without nuclear weapons. Do you people really think that some "smart bombs" can solve every problem? Wake up guys! At the end it is always the soldier that go house by house, room by room searching for enemies. I am asking you again,how are you going to defeat N. Korea? Putting troops on the ground? Fighting house by house? This Country would not accept thousands of casualties and invading N Korea would cost thousands of casualties; and what about China? Do you think they would just verbally deplore our action ? They did not do it in the '50s and they would not do it now; it would mean loose the face and this, for Orientals is unacceptable.
So you know what will happen? As soon as we will have a new President we will seat around a table with the N. Koreans, we will buy all their bombs and fix the problem. Remember that Korea does not have oil, and there aren't huge contracts to be assigned to US companies. |
| #17 By 61 (24.92.223.112) at 7/5/2003 8:30:34 PM |
|
There is no logic to your reasoning.
I think it's absolutely sick of you, and anyone else, to think that we go to war just to make a proffit. |
| #18 By 1896 (216.78.253.12) at 7/5/2003 9:11:07 PM |
|
Sure, the Crusades happened to free the Holy Land, Commmodore Perry forced Japan to open its borders to civilize them etc.
"war is merely the continuation of policy by other means." Karl Von Clausewitz. |
| #19 By 61 (24.92.223.112) at 7/6/2003 8:08:31 AM |
|
The Crusades also happened in a VERY different era.
Try picking something that is relavent to make an argument with. |
| #20 By 135 (208.50.204.91) at 7/6/2003 12:16:56 PM |
|
mooresa56 - "First, I just love how you strip Ronald Reagan of credit for the fall of the Soviets. "
That's because Ronald Reagan was not responsible for the fall of the Soviets so there is no credit that can be stripped. The fall was the culmination of 70+ years of a path, that was inevitable. Reagan had as much to do with that as Wilson, Harding, Coolidge, Hoover, Roosevelt, Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford and Carter. "Enough of this pussy-footing around the issues. We've grown to accept that sort of international "policy" from the Clinton years... but look where it gets us in the end." I shall remind you that September 11th occured during Bush's Presidency. A Presidency which was at first characterized by a disdain for international politics. A Candidacy which was characterized by a call for isolationism. Bush in 2000 was claiming that Clinton had been doing too much. The month prior to 9/11 when FBI agents here in Minneapolis had captured one of the members of the team, and were trying to signal the higher echelon that something was afoot. Where was Bush? He'd taken an unprecedented MONTH LONG VACATION! "North Korea is a real and present danger, and will be dealt with. Anyone who thinks otherwise is fooling themselves, and hasn't been watching Bush, and didn't (or refuses to) understand the previous paragraph. " Really? That's not what Bush was saying in 2001. He turned his back on the negotiations that the US had been having with North Korea during the Clinton administration. Thumbed his nose at the whole issue. His father had to call him and remind him of the importance. YOU BET YOUR DARN SWEET TOOTY THAT NORTH KOREA IS A DANGER! WE'VE KNOWN THAT FOR 50 YEARS! "George Bush is working to prevent a meltdown and save the lives of your grandchildren" I don't know what kind of real aid is going to come of this AIDS pledge. You claim he's offering 10 times what the Europeans have, maybe so. But I have a hard time trusting your claim considering Bush has a history of saying one thing, and then doing quite another. Look at his environmental record so far, as an example. Are we going to finally do something about AIDS? The Republicans have been claiming for years that Africa's problem is that they have sex, and if they'd just stop having sex they wouldn't have a problem with AIDS. Now you're telling me that position has changed? Or are we spending $15 billion on abstinence training? I'd like to believe otherwise, prove it to me with actions, not words. "And where did I name call? I referred to Democrats as "Demos". Thats not derogatory. Oh wait, perhaps it is. I know I wouldn't want anyone to call me that. " All this blather where you blame Bushes failings on Clinton. I've yet to see you once admit the truth in accordance with the facts. "Yet somehow Bush managed to get the job done, with the equally distracting Democratic party fighting him the whole way. I guess it comes down to RESOLVE and CHARACTER. Thats the difference between Clinton and Bush. " You mean Bushes lack of Character? Yes, I agree. "So, you are telling me that the GOP staged the whole affair? Clinton is innocent, right?" Let's talk about Whitewater. You claim the charges weren't trumped up... Where are the convictions? Want to explain to me why the initial independent prosecutor was yanked when he couldn't find anything and instead Starr was put in place, who then proceeded to investigate every possible little thing that came up, no matter what relevance it had. But no, you want to talk about Monica. Why? Because everything else that was investigated turned out to be trumped up charges. Hmm, kind of like the claims of WMDs in Iraq. Are you beginning to see the pattern, yet? |
| #21 By 135 (208.50.204.91) at 7/6/2003 12:33:48 PM |
|
daz - "I heard a few of those against Clinton, but not on the mainstream news like I do about Bush. Besides, the stuff about Clinton was a joke. It was all a distraction to keep everyone's eye off the ball which was: all the Chinagate scandals. "
The death of Vince Foster was investigated six times by various federal and local agencies. In all cases the death was ruled a suicide. This case was even investigated by 60 minutes and broadcast in Prime Time. "Probably not because while the press was purposely writing stories about Clinton's perjury, abuse of power, and obstruction of justice (all federal offenses, 2 of which are felonies, I believe), Clinton was allowing Chinese nationals, several whom were known to be in the employ of the Chinese Government and/or military, to get high-access clearences to the Pentagon classified information and areas. Not to mention access to Lawerence Livermore and Los Alamos nuclear research facilities. " Oh lordy lordy lordy! Yes, it's true! Daz seriously believes that the Arkansas Project was part of a master scheme, not by Republicans, but by the Liberal media to distract the country away from the true conspiracy! "Look at the unprecedented fillabusters of Bush's judicial nominees. Sure, Republicans gave Clinton some hay, but by and large (I think 70-78%) of his judicial nominees went through a Republican controlled house and senate. " BOOO HOOO HOOO! What a frickin whiner you've turned out to be daz. These tactics were fine when the Republicans did it, but now that it's Democrats it's unprecedented? What kind of fantasy world do you live in? You reap what you sow. "So far, I think somewhere between 0-2 of Bush's 40 or so nominees have made it past the Democrats. That is obstructionist and counter to the philosophies of our founders. " You think? Why don't you come back to us with the facts. Here's a start... http://leahy.senate.gov/press/200305/050803.html The Democratic-led Senate of 2001 and 2002 confirmed 100 Bush judicial nominees, and this year’s Republican-led Senate has confirmed 23, for a total so far of 123 ... The Democratic pace was faster and fairer than Republicans’ pace since their slowdown began in 1996. Last year (2002) was the best single year (in terms of numbers of judicial nominees confirmed) since 1994. "The fact is, Democrats could give a rat's ass about fairness, bipartisanship, etc." Hey, let's go ask our Republican colleagues what they think about fairness and bipartisanship... "Bipartisanship is another name for date rape" - Grover Norquist, top Republican strategist for President GW Bush "HUH?!?!?!!? ARE YOU NOT PAYING ATTENTION!!! READ THE PAPER, WATCH TV. High ranking Democrats are comparing Bush to Hitler or Heinrich Himmler! PAY ATTENTION" You heard it hear, first folks... Daz thinks he doesn't like Democrats because in his little fantasy world they say things bad about Bush. Sad, isn't it? This post was edited by sodablue on Sunday, July 06, 2003 at 12:35. |
| #22 By 135 (208.50.204.91) at 7/6/2003 12:44:19 PM |
|
mhfm - "You all have to realize that what we are dealing with here is not really Bush, Clinton, etc., these guys are just frontmen for the globalists. Both right and left wing are comtrolled by the global beasts and if enough people don't come to grips with what's really going on then we are all doomed. "
Hey, I can play global conspiracy cabal too. Have you ever read the book "Holy Blood, Holy Grail" by Baigent, Lincoln and Leigh. If not, you should because then you'd realize that the globalists, the Priorie de Sion, the Illuminati, whatever you want to call them, are the descendants of Christ and it is you who are doomed who do not follow their guidance. LOL! |
| #23 By 135 (208.50.204.91) at 7/6/2003 4:11:45 PM |
|
mhfm - Yes, absolutely that sounds familiar. I used that quote last spring in denouncing Bush's road to War.
Please don't agree with me, it makes me feel bad. |
| #24 By 135 (208.50.204.91) at 7/6/2003 4:47:01 PM |
|
BTW, since we're on the issue of partisanship...
The Republican effort in California to recall Gray Davis. If this moves forward it is going to change the face of the political landscape in America. The tone in Washington is going to be more heated. Ever seen a recall campaign against a President? No? You thought Impeachment was the worst that could happen, just wait. http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/6/16/142722.shtml http://www.moderateindependent.com/v1i5recall.htm BTW, I love this moderateindependent site, lot's of good commentary. First website I've seen yet that follows my point of view, points out the stupidity and elevates itself from the left-wing/right-wing bs. |
| #25 By 1896 (216.78.253.12) at 7/6/2003 6:08:52 PM |
|
mhfm why are those people so afraid of "Harry Potter" books? Are they moved by the same reasons that pushed the Catholic church to prosecute Galileo and other scientists? Beware, we got into the Age of Acquarius. Btw this is the link to a much better site that the one you listed:
http://www.lucidcafe.com/library/95nov/voltaire.html Try it, you could get "illuminated". |
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 457 Last | Next |
The time now is
7:15:47 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
