Darth Buddha

Is this some kind of weird Leftist body count competition to see who can be the most oppressed, victimized? Body count isn't leftist or rightist. Body count is a cold hard statistic. Claiming that they are "rightist" or "leftist" is sheer nuttery. Seriously, if you've been to the West Bank, you know it's a hole where folks are short due to malnutrition, a place without hope, in a land that was SEIZED militarily. On the flip side, Israel has crazy security for good reason. Terrorism matters, but body count does matter too. So too does excessive "collateral damage." Blowing up an apartment building with thirty or more people just to get one terrorist seems uncivilized because it is. The Israelis are in many ways guilty of putting a conquered people in a concentration camp (in the true meaning of the word, as invented by the Brits in South Africa). Doesn't wash the terrorists hands, doesn't mean carte blanche for Hamas, but it does mean the Israelis have dirty hands too. So long as bystanders are killed at such extreme rates (by both sides) boycotting BOTH Israel AND the Hamas lead Palestinian government might not be such a bad idea. They'd settle things pretty quickly, or face economic calamity.

I don't mind if you are. Throw in "Greed is NOT always good" and I might join in the choir. But on matters that don't HURT anybody else, I really think we ought to leave folks alone. I don't think gay marriage ... though I'd prefer civil union ... is a threat to anyone. Christians will still believe what they want, and still marry the way they want. Now if somebody tried to FORCE Christians to do gay marriages, or somebody wanted to FORCE Christians to marry a different way, THEN I'd have some real issues. The day after pill prevents implantation: just like many birth control pills do. Until a fertilized egg implants in the uterus (off the top of my head I'm remembering that 30% of fertilized eggs don't implant - and I don't feel like Googling any more this eve), you can't even call a woman pregnant. Moreover, I'm a lot happier with day after than I would be with fetal abortions... especially the second trimest on kind. As a lesser of two evils, I think it's probably better if it is available. Now the gland bit? I'm not a fan of promiscuity either, but for simple common sense reasons: disease, premature emotional entanglements, the cheapening of the act in an emotional sense, etc. Not any commandment from any God. In a country where State sponsered churches are ruled out in the Constitution, I should be free to make such differentiations by my own values and ethics as much as Christians are allowed to differentiate in THEIR lives. I don't force my values on them, and wouldn't even if I were Emperor Deebs the 1st, they ought not to force their values on anybody else. Wasn't that what most religious groups that came to this country in the first place were looking for in the first place? Now I DO know some gay activists who want to strut and get into people's faces with their sexuality. You know, some of the gay parades, etc.? For example, a guy I know said he wanted to CELEBRATE his sexuality and that my discomfort was because I was a homophobe. Truth is, I don't want to hear graphic details of ANYONE's sex life, and he was man enough to understand that when I said so. On the flip side, in urban areas where homosexuals are accepted, I've seen an entirely different kind of gay parade: the attitude was "this is our parade, and we aren't here to get in anybody's face." They even invited straight groups to join in if they wanted, including a motorcycle gang. I prefer the latter approach to the former!

Is your memory that selective? You repeatedly called me a fool for crossing pens with you. I still haven't called you anything... I picked up on twit used on others. I consider being called a LEFTY a pretty dreadful name too. I'll check to see if I missed any other good examples. Moreover, an ad hominem is no worse than cases where you've engaged in straw man attack. You know, misrepresenting a post so you can belittle it. You aren't an egregious perpetrator, but you get your digs in. I'll dig again tomorrow evening. Or perhaps you are big enough to point them out yourself? (I'm not slamming there, you might well be. I'd consider it a pleasant surprise these days!)

Close, but I really MEAN it is a weakness in politics. I'm certainly not drawing on the philo teeth. After all, look at Dukakis (sp?) vs. Bush in debate. His response to the question of his family being raped and/or killed was the correct philosophical response, but was an absolute failure as rhetoric. Logical and rational just aren't the required response in some venues. Dukakis was a fool not to feign offense at the very premise. Bush the first, while a pretty damned smart and rational guy but a weak speaker, would NEVER have fallen for that. He'd have thought about it, but not fallen for it. Bush II? I don't think he'd think about it, he'd just react from his gut. Sometimes, that's the right thing to do. If anyone gets the chance to see that exchange in a documentary or tape, it's worth the watch: you can almost feel Dukakis put the last nail in his campaign's coffin right there and then. Of course, I had already decided Dukakis was not competent despite his 'competence' campaign long before the debate: his inability to hold onto a significant lead over Bush demonstrated he wasn't competent. Besides, I liked most of Bush Sr.'s positions in THAT election.

Yeah, the amendment failed, as they knew it would. It's not about changing anything at this point, and given that younger generations aren't as homophobic as the elder generations. Even my generation was pretty homophobic, homophobic jokes, songs, etc. I like to remind some of my left leaning friends of the jokes they told in undergrad when they get too preachy! I wasn't either pro or con: but I did enjoy the classic sitting down right next to a gay philo major who claimed I was afraid of gays. Turned out he was damned afraid of straights! He cringed. Gotta love proof by experiment. But I digress. The younger generation is more tolerant, so the issue will eventually be settled as "what's fair for the goose is fair for the gander(s)." It's in the demographics. Maybe we'll see the elimination of the whole "hate crime" BS too, but I'm probably dreaming. It'll just swing even farther to the left and then maybe drift back to the sane middle. That's how the nitwit extremes do things these days. So it's all about dividing and inflaming. Divisiveness is JUST what we need right now, eh?

If the motive was revenge, then slaughter applies. There were plenty of pragmatic and political purposes in taking out Zarqawi. He WAS a TRUE enemy combatant, we OWED it to the Iraqi people (Shia AND Sunni) to remove such an indiscriminate killer, and his removal netted intelligence that may further aid in removing foreign fighters from the equation. Slaughter? Nope. He was elminated out of necessity.

Right. I guess this is also neocon-think? Ignore the facts (like Johnny boy's outrageous slander, and Burnsy's obvious lies) and focus only on my very same tactic in reply. Ignore your accusiing other "twits" of baiting him? I'll add it to my neocon field notes. Invasion is called liberation. Occupation is called freedom. What's fair for the goose ISN'T fair for the gander. It is REALLY tough to get through the new neocon lip service. Is there a dictionary to be had somewhere? My policy is that those who use them get them in return. Those who do open themselves up to the same. Those who don't, don't deserve that kind of treatment, and don't get it. So, how's your "twit" scored? Is that name calling or not? Burnsy too, did he namecall or not?

Damn, boy, why don't you read what I actually said regarding said education. While logic isn't what I use to earn a living, it's NOT an asset in dealing with Johnny boy, Burnsy, and their ilk. I actually mean JUST what I said: dealing with folks who lie, distort, and get their facts bassackwards are tough for me because I don't usually have to deal with such blatant examples on a day to day basis. In undergrad, I would have been docked for even acknowledging that sort of crap. In debunking neocon falsehoods and half truths, that's a REAL liability. I really DO want to get better at dealing with them, and I'm a bit out of practise. In this case, education in one field (logic) is a DISADVANTAGE in the other (pure retoric, fielding smears and lies, etc.) so I'm not pumping myself up, I'm admitting a real weakness.

Personal attack? Like calling me a FAR LEFTY? The Nazi card is usually inappropriate, but here it's just the mirror image of the FAR LEFTY card. You label me sa few MILES off to the left, so I do the same to you, on the right. I HOPE you aren't a Nazi, just as I HOPED that you might see the symmetry in accused party affiliation. Exaggeration, hyperbole, and smear in response to the same. Maybe you really DO see Arlen, Todd Whitman, and even McCain as a FAR LEFTY, in which case, I've stumbled upon the truth while trying to teach a lesson, and you are one scary peace of work.

THANK YOU. I must have been half asleep when I typed that: I use the location "In the Left Hand of God" everywhere, after all. I comprehend the source of your confusion, I'll see to that right away. Yeah, right. Count how many times I part company with the left. Look at how I pan Clinton (both of them), Kerry, and Gore. See how I differ with liberal ideas about the "freedom" of recipients of aid. Check out how I side with a Christian movement THAT I THINK IS AS BAD AS ISLAMIC FUNDAMENTALISM on issues of equal treatment under the law. Moreover, just because I have a Libertarian social bent, a classic just war philosophy (out of fashion with nitwits on the left and right), and think the Neocons are a piss poor substitute for Paleocons, that doesn't make me a lefty. If Bush is your sole definition of the right, and the left is anyone who doesn't like him, then you really ARE a fascist. If I called you a liberal peacenik, would YOU not protest? Moreover, my contention is everyone who can't tell the difference between a Moderate Republican from WAY back and a FAR LEFTY is indeed a fool. The kind that likes brown shirts. Anyone who thinks pointing out the obvious downsides of a situation is a FAR LEFTY when even the White House has learned not to celebrate or declare a "turning point" when it may or may not be must be either an idiot or to the right of Rush Limbaugh (yeah, the brown shirt thing again).

Ranter? Nope. Correcting fools like you probably SOUNDS like a rant to you because you don't know better: facts aren't either of your strong points, just slander. So here's another update that might sound like a rant to a total fool: "In the Left Hand of God" is a term that goes back a millenium and has nothing to do with politics. If you are a Christian, I'd think the reference and meaning would be obvious. Here's another point to ponder: Why would I diss Al Gore, Greenpeace, Hillary Clinton, reveal that I changed party affiliation to vote AGAINST Clinton and Kerry in the primaries if I were a lefty? Finally, if some Nazi-Anti-Moderate-Republican like Johnny decides to call me a far lefty (an insult that is as bad as callilng me a neocon), what am I supposed to do? Let HIM label me falsely? I don't care if it IS his only mode of debate, that label will not stick. Now if you want to side with Nazi-Anti-Moderate-Republican-Boy against a Moderate Republican like me, that's your busines. But if I'm what you consider a far lefty, then you might consider buying a brown shirt too.

I hope it is a turning point, I just see the good with the bad. Something you apparently aren't up to. As for being on the left, I'm fairly certain I was voting Moderate Republican when you were still in diapers. If I'm a far lefty, then you must be be a skinheaded fascist who wear's a pee stained sheet on conical hat every weeekend. Come to think of it, I've voted Republican more often than not: Arlen Spector, John Heinz, Bush the First. I never voted for Clinton, and changed my party affiliation for two presidential primaries just to vote AGAINST Cllinton and Kerry in the primaries (and for General Clark as the Democratic nominee). Of course, I've been VERY lucky: in the Atlantic and Northeast states, Republicans HAVE to be moderate in order to get elected. Moderate Republicans are the best problem solvers I know. Not like their neofascist kin. Yeah, I'm some lefty. If I'm a FAR LEFTY then you have to be a nazi-skinhead by comparison to me. In a case of fair for the goose being grist for the gander, I'm gonna call you lump you with the Skinheads and Nazis from here on out. After all, if you think the folks who vote for Spector, Todd-Whitman, and other clear-headed Moderate Republicans, you'd HAVE to be a fascist to call them FAR LEFT. Lynched anybody lately? Made any human skin lampshades? Surely you've gassed somebody? If you haven't got them, I know a place that has Jack-boots, cheap (hell, you might want to buy the boots I used for Halloween '02). I don't have a brown shirt, so you'll have to dig that one up on your own. See ya round, Nazi-boy.

I'm really disappointed to hear Burns was punted, it doesn't seem fair although I don't know the details. I know I saw him being completely goaded several times recently, and I pointed it out to the twit who was doing it, maybe they were trying to get him kicked out. Right. Mourn the passed nitwit all you want. He wasn't even adequate as a nitwitted neocon foil.

Meltdown? Is that the best you can do? Come ON, you can do better than that. Where are your spoon fed talking points? Where is your I enjoy sharpening my teeth with folks like you: I'm schooled in philosophy and logic, so dealing with your kind of BS doesn't come natural. You're a freaking posterboy for dogmatic ignorance, lies, and irrationality. Too bad I have to go to a leftist blog to practice on your mirror images amongst lefties. Oh, and do keep your head in a dark place. Heaven forbid you use your own eyes, or your own brain. You wouldn't be of any use to me at all if you did that.

Yeah, right. They won't be happy. I think you need to check who went on that trip with Bush again. As usual, your facts are bassakwards. I sure hope that nobody noticed that Bush stayed in a U.S. fortress the whole time: they might realize that the U.S. can't provide security anywhere beyond their front door. I hope they don't notice that he had to undertake the trip without even telling his full cabinet because if the insurgency knew he was coming he wouldn't be safe. Yeah. Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain. I'm GLAD he made the trip, and I'm GLAD his meeting with the chief executive went well, but there's so much obviously WRONG with the story as well. It's all out there in the open, Johnny, in plain sight. How are people like you duped so easily?

RIIIGHT. Zarcawi is whacked after how many years? While Bin Laden is still at large? This is as much of a flash in the pan as capturing Saddam. So bask in the "glow" while you can. Bush makes a surprise visit to Iraq IN A U.S. FORTRESS. Why? Because the outside isn't secure. Not much to celebrate there either. Now Rove isn't indicted THIS TIME. Moreover, what kind of pathetic party needs to celebrate "non indictment" -- that's the sort of thing that organized crime celebrates. You'll note that the White House isn't lauding itself for that: as incompetent as they are, they STILL have more sense than you do! The more you talk, the more damage you do your dogma. In other words, KEEP TALKING, you open up so many cans of worms in your meat-fisted posting that you are a real assett to the middle. I just hope you don't turn off so many Americans that it swings the pendulum ALL THE WAY TO THE LEFT at some future point. After all, I find Hillary Clinton's positions and politics as cynical and as ill informed as Georgie! You've gone a bit beyond the facts, America1 (damn, I wish folks like you wouldn't embarass the rest of us abroad by linking your neocon mentality to patriotic sounding screen names - you don't even represent a majority opinion anymore, but in fact a rather pathetic minority). Libby is still on trial, the Abramov visits to Herr Rove are a new area of scrutiny. Rove outed a CIA operative and got away with it, but Libby could still cut a deal that fries him if the heat gets to be too much. He's still at risk in the Plame case, just not in the immediate future. Then too, the Abramov bribery is another chance at winding up in the dock. If Abramov lives up to his menacing suggestions regarding the White House, there's still PLENTY of opportunity for Mr. Rove to spend some quality time in a federal prison. Unfortunately, you're missing the point. He didn't get away with anything. He's innocent. However, it's an odd comment from you. I guess he's guilty until proven innocent, and even then, he's guilty? How very liberal of you. I can't say that I'm suprised. He's innocent? Just when was THAT announced? Oh, yeah. Never. You need a remedial course in civics too, Shady. What must our friends to the north THINK of our education system when we have the likes of you not comprehending the basics of the American legal system? Weren't you supposed to cover that in your sophomore year (of HIGHSCHOOL).

Strawman. Has any one of them actually said that, or tried to prevent others from speaking out? Now, I've no doubt that some 9-11 victim's familes have cashed in on the tragedy; but then, so has Ann Coulter. C'est la vie, I suppose. As for personal experience, well, if I want to know what it's like to lose a loved one to terrorism, I'd talk to the 9-11 victims. Similarily, if I wanted first-hand knowledge of life as a tranny cokehead mediawhore, I know who I'd call. Isn't this just a questio n of their notoriety giving them the abilty to get away with demonstrations of DHS insecurity? No qualifications were needed for that, just the balls to do it and the notoriety to not only get away with making them look like fools, but also to get it reported? I see no inherent problem if that's the rationale. After all, if Ms. Coulter weren't so infamous and blindly worshipped by the neocon nonthinking, her hatemongering wouldn't get a bit of attention either. As for me, the more she screws up, the worse off her fascist causes will be, so hand her the microphone, please!

Removing competent career people and replacing them with political hacks is apparently a Bush administration core value. Whats the net on that? Put the hack in charge of DHS and FEMA and you get the post Katrina debacle. They rolled over expert objections in the road to Iraq in both the CIA and the military by sitting on the CIA until they got the "intelligence" they wanted and ousted the new Deputy Director who is acclaimed by all and we got the Iraqi post invasion occupation debacle. Unfortunately, they've done the same thing with CDC even down to the local level, so the Bird Flu will probably make both of those FUBARS look like a tempest in a teapot. We're gonna DIE at a rate befitting a third world nation, 10% or more, because we aren't prepared, the hacks in place don't know HOW to prepare, and the Bush administration has been so focused on deficit spending to finance a war and cut taxes for the rich that there is no MONEY to prepare. Our neighbors to the North probably get by at a mere 4% fatality rate. After all, the U.S. can't even manage to procure sufficient vaccines for the seasonal flu while our neighbors to the north do just fine. There is a similar disparity in the reserves of Tamiflu and other medications that will be needed for an epidemic between the U.S. and Canada & Europe. Since it wouldn't be fair to linlk to technical articles that few laypersons could wade through, check out articles by conservative financial editor Mortimer Zuckerman that point out something conservatives might comprehend, economic impact, and this blurb by ABC news that reveals the Bush administration got in line far too late. Check out the Bush budget that wanted to cut the budget for the first line of defense, the CDC (google "CDC" and "budget cut" and you'll get a plethora of sources) by a whopping 9%! In other words, when it comes to cronyism costing the U.S. big time, we aint seen nothing yet.

What does European inaction in Bosnia have to do with insufficient justification and horrific collateral deaths in Iraq, BHS? What does it really have to do with nixing an honorary doctorate for purely political purposes? Oh, I forgot who I was talking to: it has nothing to do with it. It's tought to weed through all these wholly irrelevant, irrational, and downright ill informed tirades sometimes. I keep expecting people to have points that actually impact the matter at hand. It's clear to me that O'Conner took sides when he INTERVENED, not the other way around. After all, will he intervene if a supporter of the war is to be handed an honorary doctorate? I sincerely doubt it. Tell that to Al Qaeda and the Taliban. But then, they aren't big on the Bible so I don't imagine they would be impressed with that approach. I love folks like you: people who don't know the Bible much less the Koran. The clearer translation of that commandment is "Thou Shalt Not Murder" ... you'll note that this commandment is actually in line with the behavior the God of the Jews expected when he handed that down. You need a remedial couse... an academic one, I'd suggest. Moreover, the Koran says that you DON'T attack unless you are attacked. If you are attacked and must defend yourself, there is ANOTER set of rules. Isn't that the policy that the U.S. followed in WWII after Pearl Harbor? Isn't that the rationale for going into Afganistan after 9/11? Too bad we didn't follow that doctrine with Iraq, but that's another debate. If you really want some links to how average MUSLIMS interpret their holy book rather than the straw man you make of them, I'll dig them up. Yes, there is the Wahhabist movement, but they are no different than, say, the Christians in Nigeria.. who behead, disfigure, and neuter their Muslim "enemies." The Armenian Christians in Azerbaijan are no sweeties either, though it is only rarely reported on. Then too, consider the Croats and Serbs: willing to butcher other CHRISTIANS over the Catholic/Orthodox thing and far MORE willing to racially cleanse the BOSNIANS (who were a mixture of both faiths and Islam as well). Seems you need a remedial course in 20th century history too: your fellow Christians are just as bloody minded as the Wahhabist Muslim minority. Fundamentalists are fundamentalists - a danger any time they feel "opressed" and capable of shooting abortion doctors, butchering those of other faiths, and butchering those of supposedly the same faith. Check out Wahhabism and it's relation to our "ally" Saudi Arabia (the real source of the philosophy of jihadist terrorism). Check out the mainstream Muslim interpretation of how to react to violence against them (hey, it doesn't NEED interpretation as far as I can see, but religious funda-fanatics can come up witih some pretty half baked ideas). THEN you'll know who the enemy is, and be able to differentiate them from folks we ought to be able to get along with. Check out the bloody and sordid history of CHRISTIANITY in the 20th century while you are at it, to give you a sense of perspective. After all, if you don't make clear who you have real issues with and those whom you really don't have any major differences with, you'll just earn the emnity of ALL Islam. That's dumb. Very dumb.

You know what? He is a respected man. Why do you think you're not hearing an anti-Murtha drumbeat? Because it's political suicide. He is the real deal, and you make yourself look stupid making a comment like "he has gone off the deep end". You want to challange what Murtha says, do it. You want to insult him then you lose. This guy is the real deal? A respected man? Murtha: "Troops are undermanned, underequipped and dying at rates higher than during World War II and the Vietnam War." Alas, poor Burnsy, he didn't even understand the implications of the word "rate". What was the daily deathcount per day in WWII amongst U.S. troops? What was the rate per man in the field? The AVERAGE rates over the entire period at war. Gotta answer those to prove him wrong - and I note he didn't provide and references to back him up, either. Dumb and clueless is no way to be: dumb is forever. Alas, poor Burnsy, he seemed to get all his facts bassackwards. How DOES he manage to get things wrong even after the administration has admitted the facts of the matter. Was he missing an entire hemisphere of his brain. So, an accurate and well-sourced accounting Murtha's own words and actions now counts as a personal attack against him? Is that how lowly we are to view him, as if he has he become a parody of himself? And this is the guy you're arguing we should view as the unvarnished, unpartisan flag-bearer of truth? Gee, an aging man misspeaks now and again and you feel it's sufficient to discredit him globally? You don't hold Bush to that standard, do you? Oh, wait, everyone KNOWS Bush is an idiot. I hate Murtha as one of the worst pork-barrel politicians going. But I have to give Murtha credit where he is right: U.S. troops have been buying flak jackets on their own because the U.S. can't equip them adequately. That's underequipped by any definition I know. But then, neocons use a different kind of dictionay, sort of like Stalin's: they call occupation freedom, they call invasion liberation, they call illegal spytapping of U.S. citizens legal wiretaps on foreign calls. Who KNOWS what sort of definitions BHS is using if he's a neocon supporter.

If you ask the wrong question, you'll always get a wrong answer. The right answer is: they are more ABLE to speak on these matters than the average joe. Think about it. I agree with your statement, however, Coulter implies that she is _more_ qualified than the 9/11 widows. I think that is the most rediculous aspect of her statement. Coulter is able because she's a right wing shock op-ed writer who is easy on the eyes: she's a novelty.

Think again, BhS, gitmo is a quagmire in and of itself with or without Iraq. With all the international pressure that is on the administration, they can't just quietly release the bulk of prisoners without looking like they are giving in. There are even some who suggest that a Supreme Court ruling against the Gitmo detainee camp would be GOOD for the administration because it would give them an out that DOESN'T look like a cave in. As for laws, I guess you've avoided the articles revealing the many laws that President Bush has decided his administration doesn't have to follow without ever telling the judiciary as he should by law and the treaties that the U.S. has ignored but then later acknowledged when the heat is on (Treaties have the force of law, it's in the Constitution). Seems to me that YOU have problems that go WAY BEYOND 'idiot talking points' - it's not just your talking points that are idiotic.

As an American, I am a real fan of my neighbors to the north. If the Republicans retain control of the government in 2009, I will undoubtedly be looking to emigrate there, as I am not fool enough to stay here if the country continues to pursue the path to totalitarian fascism. I would like to reiterate a key fact to any Canadian reading this: Bush didn't have popular support (as in winning the popular vote) in 2000 and even in 2004 the number of people NOT support Bush and the neocons was only a few percentage points behind in the General Election. I'm fairly sure those who didn't support Bush DON'T have any issues with Canada. The problem is that with the government currently dominated by neocons in all three branches of government that the nearly half of Americans who don't see things as neocons do have far less impressive bully pulpits to preach from. So just remember, almost half of Americans aren't neocons, and of those I'm sure the bulk DO NOT buy into the Canada bashing of the far right majority leaders, the president, and the nutbag talk radio shows that so many neocons substitute for individual reasoned thought. We're probably more annoyed with their smear attacks on allies than the average Canadian is.

Nope. Bush did not get the popular vote against Gore, even WITH the obvious voter fraud. I've done a rather rigorous statistical analysis of the voting data from the 2000 election, and it's so damned clear that the voters of certain Democratic strongholds didn't end up voting for who they thought they were. Hell, even Patrick Buchanan (the one who recieved most of said mistaken ballots) admits that. Finally, the "tally" of votes for Gore and Bush clearly show that Bush lost that race. I think you should go back to school for a remedial course, though I'm not sure if it is in math or history: 47.9% for Bush, 48.4% for Gore. Just to make it coloring book simple for you, 48.4 is GREATER THAN 47.9. The voting improprieties in Ohio are pretty well substantiated too, and Ohio would have lead to a popular victory, though he would have STILL been behind in the electoral college. You might want to look that up too, as it apparently not figuring in your determinations I'm fairly sure Kerry conceded because he knew contesting the election, even justly, would just undermine American faith in their government. Even though I think Bush eis an infantile neo-fascist with dreams of world domination, I have say that it would have been worse if there were another contested election. Two in a row could be the seeds of a new secession. Stolen elections have been known to have that effect, after all. There you go again, Johhny boy. Mixing up the accuracy and solidity of rationale with who is speaking. I don't care if it's a Kennedy writing it or a Bush, the argument has merit. Only a fools buy into ad hominem reasoning. Oh, sorry, I forgot whom I was speaking to. Now if you want a REAL issue regarding the Kennedy's and election fraud, check out the election that Kennedy won to get to the White House. There is ample proof that the Democrats stole that election! Given that Kennedy then walked into the Bay of Pigs with his eyes open and then escalated the Cuban missile crisis rather than give in on missiles in Turkey (as he eventually did anyway), I think that's a very bad thing. Much as I despise Nixon, he had far more international savvy, and wouldn't have let the U.S. get so close to nuclear war. See, if you'd done just a little homework you'd have actually had something worthwhile to say. It would have been a nice change, even if only this once.

It'll be on the minds of a few bible banging hypocrites who want the government to leave THEM alone but see the need to treat OTHERS differently based upon a behavior that doesn n't impede their bible banging. Now I'd like to deal things out differently: I'd like to see church land taxed (hey, if you want to buck separation of church and state, then let's do it across te table), and I'd like to see the theory of evolution added to a nationwide test that must be passed before a high school diploma is issued. I'd like to see churches that involve themselves in politics overtly lose their tax exempt status AS THE LAW SAYS THEY SHOULD. In other words, I'd like to pillory Christians for what they are until they relearn the American value of not messing with folks who are doing them no harm. Given that it took King George and centuries of religious oppression in Europe to teach them last time, I'm betting we'll need something pretty intense as a remedial course. BRING BACK THE ROMAN LIONS. After all, many archaeologists have concluded the Christians DID burn Rome, not Nero - he was targetting a terrorist religion in Rome's midst. If I have to choose between arsonist Christians and married homosexuals, I'd rather share a country with the latter, every time. So, sharkman, what think ye? Is what's fair for the goose then grist for the gander?