Bush Indictment in Vermont

[mkemse]

There is no need to reply to all your data. It would be too long a process by which time the usefulness of our discussion would be lost. It is common knowledge that the war in Iraq exist on a legal based vote of Congress and the Security Council of the United Nations. The presidential candidates do not debate that. Hillary admits she voted for the war but then changed her mind after public opinion turned against the war. Her morarl courage comes from the logic used by Liberals. She checked the polls to determine her beliefs, like a Liberal where her values are based on changing truth or expedience. Do you not agree with that?

President Bush was authorized by Congress to go to war with Iraq and by the Constitution of the USA. It's just that Liberals do not have to stand by their principles or values because in there way of thinking truth is ever changing. So when the going gets tough it is easy for the Liberals to back out of their commitment and blame Bush. Liberals committed to the war effort just like Bush. It is not patriotic to desert our soldiers in war just because you do not like the war. Therefore, to appear to be patriotic, Liberals falsely come up with this slogan that Bush lied. If Bush lied, so did a whole lot of Liberals.

Now, this is what makes sense not that gobbledygook stuff you copy out of a book and expect everybody to fall for your Liberal interpretation of facts.

Have a Wonderful Weekend

[Thorne]

President Bush was authorized by Congress to go to war with Iraq and by the Constitution of the USA.

That's all well and good, really, but the war ended with the surrender of the last remnants of the Iraqi military and the capture, and eventual execution, of Saddam Hussein. So why are our soldiers still there? What's happening in Iraq now, and has been for years, is guerilla fighting and police work. Sure, the Iraqi police and army needed to be properly trained. That cannot be done in Iraq! They should have been brought over here, piecemeal, and trained, then sent back home to train more. The American soldiers are now standing in the middle of a virtual civil war, a war which they cannot possibly win without obliterating a large portion of the population.

No, the only reason we are still there is because of the oil. If there were no oil in Iraq it's doubtful we would ever have invaded, and once we had it's doubtful we would have remained there once the Iraqi military was destroyed.

[wmrs2]

That's all well and good, really, but the war ended with the surrender of the last remnants of the Iraqi military and the capture, and eventual execution, of Saddam Hussein. So why are our soldiers still there? What's happening in Iraq now, and has been for years, is guerilla fighting and police work. Sure, the Iraqi police and army needed to be properly trained. That cannot be done in Iraq! They should have been brought over here, piecemeal, and trained, then sent back home to train more. The American soldiers are now standing in the middle of a virtual civil war, a war which they cannot possibly win without obliterating a large portion of the population.

No, the only reason we are still there is because of the oil. If there were no oil in Iraq it's doubtful we would ever have invaded, and once we had it's doubtful we would have remained there once the Iraqi military was destroyed.

Much of you say here, I agree. However, the surge is working and we may be able to do what you think should be done before too long. The Iraq government need to improve and hopefully is, We'll see. In the meantime Obama said on CNN news that if Al Quadia established a stronghold in Iraq that he would send the troops back in. So, who knows what will happen with the war.

As for the oil, I have not seen any of it yet. With gas prices as they are, I wish George would send it on over, if he is going to. Iraq should pay us back with oil, at least that much, since you can not put a price on our soldiers or freedom. We agree on this much and that's good.

[mkemse]

And please offer actualy documentation as I have, NOT theory Theory is NOT fact it is assumption

[mkemse]

Also a Friendly Reminder with all the ATTention to this THREAD

Remember everyone Daylight Savings Time Returns Saturday Night/Sunday morinig at 3am this is a reminder not a Politcal statement as to who made change, just a Reminder

[John56{vg}]

Wow.

The conservative water carrier follows all the tenets of his ilk by not supporting ANY of supposed facts, acting superior, patronizing and obfuscating any points made by his detractors, and by playing word play games.

Just like Bush trying to change the definition of torture and sticking to his guns despite tons of proof to the contrary.

Please Mr. wmrs, instead of patronizing and feeling superior to eveyone, please support your statements with any facts you may have.

Please?

:-)

[wmrs2]

Wow.

The conservative water carrier follows all the tenets of his ilk by not supporting ANY of supposed facts, acting superior, patronizing and obfuscating any points made by his detractors, and by playing word play games.

Just like Bush trying to change the definition of torture and sticking to his guns despite tons of proof to the contrary.

Please Mr. wmrs, instead of patronizing and feeling superior to eveyone, please support your statements with any facts you may have.

Please?

:-)

You don't appear to want facts. Looks like you need somebody to insult, especially if it is a person who happens to respect the President of the USA. If it is facts you want, Google on the terms I have used and read them yourself. Any thing I would give you, you would use it to insult me. It is the philosophy of the Liberal that says truth is relative, changes, and rejects the traditional American code of ethics.

I don't care if you doubt what I claim to be truth or not. Please do your own thinking instead of following the Party line. While your at it, see if you can justify to yourself those terrible things you say about the President which things are proof that you think the laws of respect and honor change. Arguments you expect others to respond to with facts and resources are all around you and you can not see them. For one, read the Constitution of the USA where many of the self evident, eternal, and unchanging truths are listed. Then understand that the USA is a country of law not something that changes to meet the lust and desires of Liberal Democrats that hate Bush.

[Thorne]

Please do your own thinking instead of following the Party line.

Might I suggest you do the same? I have heard nothing from you EXCEPT the party line.

[John56{vg}]

You are expressing nothing but your own opinion wmrs.

I asked if you have any facts to back up your assertions. And even IF what you say is true, which I deny, Just having flawed systems of logic do not a comparison make. Many things are asserted on faith or on very flawed logic, doesn't make those two things alike.

And IF we are talking lies here, Bush and company have changed positions when the feeling suited them, MANY times during their administration. And LIES, I mean their all administration is based on lies or ommission or commission and of simply changing the meaning of words like torture and terrorism.

So I dispute your claim that the conservative theorist does not change position.

And I am still waiting for some sort of support for these spurious claims. I have seen none.

[wmrs2]

You are expressing nothing but your own opinion wmrs.

I asked if you have any facts to back up your assertions. And even IF what you say is true, which I deny, Just having flawed systems of logic do not a comparison make. Many things are asserted on faith or on very flawed logic, doesn't make those two things alike.

And IF we are talking lies here, Bush and company have changed positions when the feeling suited them, MANY times during their administration. And LIES, I mean their all administration is based on lies or ommission or commission and of simply changing the meaning of words like torture and terrorism.

So I dispute your claim that the conservative theorist does not change position.

And I am still waiting for some sort of support for these spurious claims. I have seen none.

More facts will not help you read and comprehend better. You can not reply to what we have provided you. How are you going to handle more facts, self evident facts which are listed in the Constitution of the USA. Argue with the Constitution if you think I am too superior to you. ...... I did not read anywhere in the threads any person said the conservative did not change positions. There is no sin in changing positions but truth does not change to meet your position. See, that simple self evident fact has missed you comprehension so you attack me because of your limited ability to think. No! You don't need more facts. You need a better system of logic.

[John56{vg}]

that's anothing thing common to the neo-con apologists. Insulting everybody then complaining that THEY are the wrong ones.

I understand from your comments you do not have any back-up for your claims.

So be it. debate over I guess.

I assure you my reading comprehension is quite high. And at least I spell everything correctly. IT is Cheney not Chaney my friend.

[wmrs2]

that's anothing thing common to the neo-con apologists. Insulting everybody then complaining that THEY are the wrong ones.

I understand from your comments you do not have any back-up for your claims.

So be it. debate over I guess.

I assure you my reading comprehension is quite high. And at least I spell everything correctly. IT is Cheney not Chaney my friend.

Yes, I have always been a poor speller. That's why I use spell check but then I still seem to miss spell a few words. No one is perfect and few have perfect reasoning. The only one that I can think of is Jesus Christ.

The word anything is spelled "anothing" and "neo" is miss spelled according to my spell check or maybe it is how you use it. On the spell check Cheney is a miss spelling and Chaney is cited as correct spelling. Anyway, a lot of words would slip by me as being spelled correctly without my spell check. However, this makes you statement, "And at least I spell everything correctly" look sort of careless.

In your reply to me you failed to capitalize "that's" but I know you knew better, it was a simple mistake, not a lack of intelligence. I have made that mistake myself, so it would be unfair of me to tell you that at least I always used perfect grammar. I think it would also be rude. What do you think about it my friend?

[mkemse]

Yes, I have always been a poor speller. That's why I use spell check but then I still seem to miss spell a few words. No one is perfect and few have perfect reasoning. The only one that I can think of is Jesus Christ.

The word anything is spelled "anothing" and "neo" is miss spelled according to my spell check or maybe it is how you use it. On the spell check Cheney is a miss spelling and Chaney is cited as correct spelling. Anyway, a lot of words would slip by me as being spelled correctly without my spell check. However, this makes you statement, "And at least I spell everything correctly" look sort of careless.

In your reply to me you failed to capitalize "that's" but I know you knew better, it was a simple mistake, not a lack of intelligence. I have made that mistake myself, so it would be unfair of me to tell you that at least I always used perfect grammar. I think it would also be rude. What do you think about it my friend?

I learned sometime back that spell check is NOT 100% correct, so i would say let's not blame anyone, it simply is not worth the debate every post i have ever read and even stories on this site all have miss spelled words it is called human error and we are all humans, and i do the best i can i suffer for dyslexia so i have no faith in spell check at all yes many of my words are mispelled i will admit to that, but i at least try to get my point acorss at the expenses of embarasing myslef, i certainly hope that is the least issue i have to deal with the rest of my life it surebeats long and

[wmrs2]

I learned sometime back that spell check is NOT 100% correct, so i would say let's not blame anyone, it simply is not worth the debate every post i have ever read and even stories on this site all have miss spelled words it is called human error and we are all humans, and i do the best i can i suffer for dyslexia so i have no faith in spell check at all yes many of my words are mispelled i will admit to that, but i at least try to get my point acorss at the expenses of embarasing myslef, i certainly hope that is the least issue i have to deal with the rest of my life it surebeats long and

mkemse, I always want to be polite to you. But you have gone to far here in making excuses for your short comings. I am painfully aware that spell check is not 100% correct but is still much better than you or I spell. You do not do the best you can or you would use spell check and grammar check if it is on you CP. You can hardly read what you write because you do not honor any of the laws of grammar.

I know you can do better because I have read some things you have written and these have been excellent. The kind of mistakes you make are not due to dyslexia but carelessness.

A friend asking you to try harder.

[wmrs2]

John56 is worried also that I do not have a backup for may claims. In America a public education is provided for all citizens, in theory at least. Much of what we talk about is considered common knowledge, such as we all know it is a fact that George Washington was our first president. I can not tell you what book this common knowledge came from, yet, commonly educated people have no problem with accepting this fact when I present it as such. However, in a history class, a strange behaving student argued that Benjamin Franklin was the first president. That caused an argument and, in that case, the teacher asked this strange behaving person to provide documentation to back up his theory. He did. The teacher disagreed but acknowledged there was some truth or facts to backup his belief that Ben was the first president. A few facts, however, do not make an acceptable theory; all we students went on believing that G. W. was the first president.

I don't need to respond to everything with documentation for you to understand the truth about most common things in American history. We Americans have a public, common education. We know common facts. Having gone through the 8th grade in school, there is nothing that has been in this debate that you should not understand from an 8th grade education level. If there are words and terms that you do not understand, Google it.

By the way, Liberals in politics is a relative new animal. It has been a long time ago but I don't remember my 8th grade teacher mentioning Liberal as an American political term. The first time I really noticed Liberals was in the election of 1968. All I know is that the Liberals did not want to be called Liberal. For some reason those who were branded as Liberals were quickly beaten. It seemed that most people thought Liberals were Communist sympathizers.

Today most of the vocal Democrats are Liberals and make no bones about it. I never have had a Liberal tell me what they believe that makes them a Liberal. Maybe you can tell me philosophically what a Liberal Democrat is. Do Liberals have a strange logic that puts them at odds with our national history? If so,explain it to me. I am listening and I promise not to require a long list of sources. If I disagree on a point, I will Google for my self. If you are a certain mindset, say so. What are the advantages of being a Liberal? Does being a Liberal make you more patriotic or does it have anything to do with that?

By the way, you ought to do yourself a favor and read a little more about theories. You will learn that a theory is many things depending on whether you are working in science, history, physics, sociology, medicine or just normal every occurrences. Coming from various theories are laws. Evolution is probably the most talked about theory in America. It is really important to theories in medicine but not so important to theories in politics. Some theories are so well accepted that they become laws, such as the law of gravity. We depend on this law very much every time we get up to go to work. We do not take time to document each time we leave home.

[mkemse]

John56 is worried also that I do not have a backup for may claims. In America a public education is provided for all citizens, in theory at least. Much of what we talk about is considered common knowledge, such as we all know it is a fact that George Washington was our first president. I can not tell you what book this common knowledge came from, yet, commonly educated people have no problem with accepting this fact when I present it as such. However, in a history class, a strange behaving student argued that Benjamin Franklin was the first president. That caused an argument and, in that case, the teacher asked this strange behaving person to provide documentation to back up his theory. He did. The teacher disagreed but acknowledged there was some truth or facts to backup his belief that Ben was the first president. A few facts, however, do not make an acceptable theory; all we students went on believing that G. W. was the first president.

I don't need to respond to everything with documentation for you to understand the truth about most common things in American history. We Americans have a public, common education. We know common facts. Having gone through the 8th grade in school, there is nothing that has been in this debate that you should not understand from an 8th grade education level. If there are words and terms that you do not understand, Google it.

By the way, Liberals in politics is a relative new animal. It has been a long time ago but I don't remember my 8th grade teacher mentioning Liberal as an American political term. The first time I really noticed Liberals was in the election of 1968. All I know is that the Liberals did not want to be called Liberal. For some reason those who were branded as Liberals were quickly beaten. It seemed that most people thought Liberals were Communist sympathizers.

Today most of the vocal Democrats are Liberals and make no bones about it. I never have had a Liberal tell me what they believe that makes them a Liberal. Maybe you can tell me philosophically what a Liberal Democrat is. Do Liberals have a strange logic that puts them at odds with our national history? If so,explain it to me. I am listening and I promise not to require a long list of sources. If I disagree on a point, I will Google for my self. If you are a certain mindset, say so. What are the advantages of being a Liberal? Does being a Liberal make you more patriotic or does it have anything to do with that?

By the way, you ought to do yourself a favor and read a little more about theories. You will learn that a theory is many things depending on whether you are working in science, history, physics, sociology, medicine or just normal every occurrences. Coming from various theories are laws. Evolution is probably the most talked about theory in America. It is really important to theories in medicine but not so important to theories in politics. Some theories are so well accepted that they become laws, such as the law of gravity. We depend on this law very much every time we get up to go to work. We do not take time to document each time we leave home.

I already posted a very clear defination of Theory, a theory is an Assumption or Opinion it is NOT based on fact
Theories in medication are "It SHOULD Work" but no facts as of yet to prove they do most medication out are tiral Medicine as a Science Is not exact, i have eben toldthis by doctors and phramacists, if it where exact all medications prescribed would do as they are intendedm have you ever had a docotor say to you "Let's Try this, if it does not work, we will try someting else" i have seen nothing wtiten saying Science is exact if you have again please post proff, i do notr want THEORIES, Assumption, i want facts like i have posted
I live outside chicago my Theory is by June it will be around 70-80 degreee here during the day, that is a theory, an assumption, it will not be fact til it actualy happens

[mkemse]

one last question, if the Repulican Party is a Conservativre and Non LIberal as you point out, why did they nominae John MCcain as their Candidate over far more conservative Mike Huckee or Mitt Romeny, this is not a decsion Democrats have anything to do with people in prmaries have to vote for the party them are registetrded wiih in 98% of the states, so why give "Liberal" Mccain the nomination and not Huckabee or Romey, McCain can't even get the support so far of Chrisitan Conservatives yet he has all but won the nomination, only thing missing in the fnality of itat their convention


even Limbough said he would not support MCcain, my question is why did the Conservative Repulbiacn Party Noninate McCAin and not Huckbee or Romey the Democrats have NOTHING to do with the Repunican nomiee and more then Republican have any say in The Democrtic Primaries, the Republicans also could have choosen Mitt Romey or Mike Hunckabee far more conservative the Mccain but did not
Byr under Law if you are registered as a Democrat you have to vote that way and a a Repulban thesame you can't jump party line in 99% of the Primaries

[mkemse]

If MCCain was noimnated as the best chance to beat clinton or Obamam that show that this country is not as Conservatives as people say, as liberal as Clinton and Obmam are, ifthis country is very conservatice then Obmam abd Clinton should be NONE issues to the American Voter, if they are issues tothe Repulican Party, maybe the Repubicansare not as conservative as the Punlic feels they are
Rmember you have to delclare you Partyto vote in 99% ofthe Primaroes so Democrats CANOT vote for Repul;bican Canddidtaes thus they elected MCcain over ht other because they feel thretened at the chance of "Liberals" Obmam or Clinton wiining in November, if this is not so why then McCain??

[mkemse]

So Much For Jonn MCain wanting to NOT off shorework and keep americans working and keep Amiercna Jobs American

This is Date March 8 2008 Yahoo news

WASHINGTON - Angry Boeing supporters are vowing revenge against Republican presidential candidate John McCain over Chicago-based Boeing's loss of a $35 billion Air Force tanker contract to the parent company of European plane maker Airbus.

There are other targets for their ire — the Air Force, the defense secretary and even the entire Bush administration.

But Boeing supporters in Congress are directing their wrath at McCain, the Arizona senator and nominee in waiting, for scuttling an earlier deal that would have let Boeing build the next generation of Air Force refueling tankers. Boeing now will miss out on a deal that it says would have supported 44,000 new and existing jobs at the company and suppliers in 40 states.

"I hope the voters of this state remember what John McCain has done to them and their jobs," said Rep. Norm Dicks, D-Wash., whose state would have been home to the tanker program and gained about 9,000 jobs.

"Having made sure that Iraq gets new schools, roads, bridges and dams that we deny America, now we are making sure that France gets the jobs that Americans used to have," said Rep. Rahm Emanuel, D-Ill. "We are sending the jobs overseas, all because John McCain demanded it."

Even Boeing's Republican supporters are critical of McCain.

"John McCain will be the nominee and I will support him, but if John McCain believes that Airbus or EADS is the company for our Air Force tanker program he's flat-out wrong — and I'll tell him that to his face," said Rep. Dave Reichert, R-Wash.

Rep. Todd Tiahrt, a Kansas Republican whose district includes a Boeing plant that could have gained hundreds of new jobs from the tanker program, said McCain's role in killing the earlier deal is likely to become an election issue. Both of the leading Democratic candidates for president, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, have criticized the Air Force decision.

"I think we absolutely will hear more about it," Tiahrt said. "We'll hear it mostly from the Democrats and they have every right to be concerned."

Just another example of Republicans helping Americans find jobs, and creating Jobs in the United States and not offshoring them, this is NOT a DEMOCRATIC MOVE this was a John Mccain demand and move, rather the supporting Boeing a US Based Company the maker of these tanker since 1957, instead we are sending all these jobs to France bt the year 2012 the conratc to Eurobus wil increase to a value of over $100 billlion dollars, just more jobs lost to Americans during a Repubilcan Adm.

This NOT Liberal Bias on a Story this is fact, you can't blame the Liberal Democrats for this, the Air Force under Bush made this Decision not the Democrats not the Repubicans, the decsion was left soley up to the Air Force whose Commander and Chief is George W Bush
The Air Force said that they made this decsion because labor costs are cheaper overseas, so apparently lower labor costs are more important to the Air Force then keeping American Jobs in America, and this is OUR government talking not a retail corprotation selling Blue Jeans or TV's
How Patriotic of the Air Force

BTW in Feb of this year (2008) America lost 63,000 more jobs the biggest single monthly loss of jobs in the United States since 2002. and all under the Bush Adiminstration watch

[mkemse]

BREAKING NEWS WMRS2,

I live outisde Chicago,Former Speaker ofthe House Dennis Hastert who I assume you have heard of, retired recently and tonight was a run off for his seat, the had a run off election tonight in the 14th Congressional District In Illinos, to replace Hastered, as very stanch Repuiblcan and Die Hard Bush supporter, in this election those who voted did not have to delcare their affiliation since it was a run off
This Congressionl seat has been Repubilcan since 1958, it is 75% Repubican, No Democrat has won their Since around 1958
In The Run off tonight it feautred LIBERAL DEMOCRAT Bill Foster vs. Jim Oberwies a staunch Repubican Pro Bush on everything,, they has 98% of the votes in from the 568 Distriect and for the 1st time since 1958 a LIBERAL DEMOCRAT won Dennis Hasterts seat, they did exist polls and found 70% of those who voted voted Democratic for the first time in Years or in thier life,when why they broke ranks and voted Democratic and Not Republican, they said "We can no longer Support President Bush or his failed Policies "

This is very remarkable for a Congressional District that for 50 was always Repubican and Democrats in the past even use to wrote it off because it is so heavy Republican, would you care to explain how this happened, that a LIBERAL DEMOCRAT beat out a CONSERVATIVE BUSH REPUILICAN IN A REPUBLICAN DISTRICT, another Bush Convervative Republican Losses Out To a LIBERAL DEMOCRAT in a conservative Republican District

THIS IS FACT NOT THEORY

[mkemse]

CHICAGO - A longtime Republican district fell to the Democrats Saturday when a scientist snatched former House Speaker Dennis Hastert's congressional seat in a closely watched special election.

Democrat Bill Foster won 52 percent of the vote compared to 48 percent for Republican Jim Oberweis. With 564 of 568 precincts reporting, Foster had 50,947 votes to Oberweis' 46,125.

Foster's special election win means he will fill the remainder of Hastert's term, which ends in January. The two will square off again in November, for a new, full term.

The 66-year-old Hastert, who lost his powerful post as speaker when Democrats took control of Congress, resigned late last year.

The race between Foster and Oberweis spawned a contentious campaign that saw both men turn to high-profile supporters to help sway voters in the longtime GOP district.

Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama made a TV ad praising Foster; Oberweis had fundraising help from the apparent Republican nominee, John McCain, and Hastert's backing.

"It is a stunning rejection of the Bush Administration, its Republican allies, and presidential nominee John McCain," said Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee Chairman Chris Van Hollen in a statement.

The district will have a rookie congressmen after years of enjoying Hastert's clout.

During his 21 years in Washington, Hastert funneled millions of dollars to the district that stretches from Chicago's far western suburbs to almost the Mississippi River.

Hastert's is one of three open seats in Illinois this year because of GOP retirements.

Reps. Jerry Weller, who represents a district from the suburban sprawl south of Chicago to the farmland of central Illinois, and Ray LaHood of Peoria are also stepping down. Democrats' chances to pick up one of those seats improved when the Republican nominee to replace Weller dropped out of the race.

Besides poking at each other with negative TV ads, Foster and Oberweis have clashed on issues from immigration and health care to the Iraq war.

During a recent TV appearance, Foster said he would be a "good vote in Congress to change President Bush's policy" on Iraq. Oberweis contended the troop surge there was working, saying: "Things are getting better in Iraq."

Oberweis also has blasted Foster for being a proponent of big government because Foster says he wants to move toward universal health care. Foster claims Oberweis' approach — he favors tax incentives to help people buy their own insurance — only works for people who are "healthy and wealthy."

I REST MY CASE THIS IS FACT NOT THEORY

[John56{vg}]

Wmrs,

Your smug rudeness to anyone who disagrees with you and then then whining when you think you have been treated ruly is kinda funny, and, as THorne has stated, EXACTLY from the neo-con pundits' and apologists' playbook. YOU are the one spouting the party line.

The FACTS are that this president has done the most to damage the constitution of anyone in the history of the presidency. He has unilaterally ordained himself OUT of the system of Checks and Balances in the Constitution. He has eliminated the Writ of Habeas Corpus the law of the land for Hundreds of years in several countries.

He has instituted signing statements that completely counter the intent of the Congress' constitutionally given job of writing laws.

He is trying to make of himself a petty dictator. He has lied and continues to lie about everything under the sun.

His surge IS NOT working as planned. There are some areas of Iraq that are safer, but the country is still fighting an occupying force, the U.S.! American soldiers, wonderful men and women. are still dying for George Bush's war. Iraq had NOTHING to do with 9/11 and Afghansistan is falling apart again, becasue Bush wants to fight a losing battle for oil in Iraq.

And you are insulting mkemse and Thorne and me and then whining when we respond to your STILL baseless claim.

Your ideas, which are NOT common knowledge and in fact are contrary to common knowledge, are still not based on ANYTHING but that you have sais them. And then said something about the fact that Liberalism and Communism is based on the same logic tstructure, sorry but this doesn NOT make senses.

If you CAN substantiate or explain your ideas without turning it on your detractors to do your work for you, maybe I could debate you. Without and with just smug observations and insults, I can do neither.

I am a journalist. I think, I research and I study history, unlike the neo-cons I don't rewrite history. I would like to respectfully ask you to give me SOMEATHING to work with. If you don't have that, which I have to conclude is the case, then no one can debate you. Which, I feel, is what you want. You don't want to be intelligently debated because you have NOTHING to support your positions.

[Alex Bragi]

Politics is always going to be a volatile topic. I'm not sure there's ever a right or wrong, or black and white, just differing opinions. It's all too often all too easy to say, or in this case post, something abrasive only later to wish you'd expressed your opinion differently.

Let's close this thread for 24 hours and take some time to cool off. Ok?