righturnonred

The strike on Yassin was a mistake because it will do nothing to help the situation on the ground. But I find it disingenuous of you to lambaste Bush for not bringing peace to the conflict. Peace is simply not possible while suicide attacks on Israeli citizens continue. Blown to smithereens. ...By another round of fanatical homocide bombings. How do expect the Israeli's to negotiate in the face of this kind of terror? Regardless of your attempts to make the occupation look like nothing more than front for a land grab, that simply isn't the case. Every clear thinking person knows that the occupation is a direct result of Palestinian terrorism. The new wall is a direct result of Palestinian terrorism. It is simple, if the bombings stopped, so would the occupation, but it has become evident that the radicals among the Palestinians won't be satisfied with a rational two state solution, they want nothing less than the eradication of the state of Israel. You don't get it. Hamas won't allow it, and the only ones who can put an end to Hamas are the moderates among the Palestinian people. But as long as the terrorist Arafat refuses to release his grap of power, there will be no move against the terror organizations and innocent people on both sides will continue to die. A key condition of the road map requires that the PA crack down on and dismantle the terrorist organizations carrying out attacks against Israel. That hasn't even begun to happen. You seem to see the solution so clearly. Please let me in on it.

Yeah, you sound just like Kwiatkowski. Black helicopter conspiracy theories. The first two I have no doubt, but the latter is utterly laughable. This entire five page letter is an eloquent rant by a woman pretending to be an insider who clearly has an ideological axe to grind. She provides no evidence that intelligence was altered or fabricated, but only her staunch opposition to the perfectly sane ideas reflected in the Project for a New American Century. I think she was just a liberal advocating wrong headed foreign policy who was told to screw off when the change of leadership occured. The article is interesting but completely biased. I found one part I almost agreed with: Include in there suspected WMDs, human rights violations, and state sponsored terrorism and that about sums it up. I'm sorry, but I don't think a letter written by one disgruntled former military officer is the smoking gun your looking for. I won't listen to the accusations being thrown around until a hear them coming from a bi-partisan commission.

I'm sorry, I don't have a source for you. You'll just have to take my word for it. Accusations of the Adminstration dragging it's feet on the 9/11 probe is mostly hogwash; Democrat propaganda during an election year. The chairman of the 9\11 commission has stated that he is satisfied with the cooperation he has recieved. They have seen all the classified documents they needed to see, they have had access to all the testimony they need. Don't create a scandal where none exists. You mean, the liberal families of people who died that day? Come on man, the NYT or Newsweek, or who ever the hell is was, obviously found these two or three people in advance, gave them all the same talking points, and prepared them to unleash their criticsm when the Bush ads ran. Have you seen these people make their rounds on all the shows, they all say the same exact garbage almost verbatim. All I'm asking for is some perspective here. Of course there are 9/11 victims who a offended by the images, and there are many who are not and in fact applaud their use. The Media has tried to stick it Bush by portraying this as if this is offensive to all 9/11 families. It's crap politics at it's finest. You may be surprised when this shows up in a Kerry ad down the road. Maybe you'll change your tune then.

It's absolutely ridiculous for anyone to suggest that Bush cannot evoke images of an event that defines his presidency and indeed an event by which he will be judged in November. The message is appropriate precisely because it highlights the fact that the Democrats refuse to acknowledge that 9/11 was a defining event in American history and had a tremendous impact on this country, economicaly as well as in terms of lives lost. The primary difference here is that Bush regards 9/11 as an act of war, while the Democrats view it as a criminal act. This distinction is very important when considering how to combat terrorism. Why don't the Dems invoke 9/11 to show that Kerry could offer better leadership in times of change? The liberal cries of "foul play" are totally unjustified. To show the planes hitting the towers would have been in poor taste, but to show a few seconds of ground zero footage, raising the flag? Come on, let's get real here.

No conservative in their right mind would vote for Nader. He's viewed on the right as an even bigger clown than the Democratic contenders. Nader pulls votes strickly from the Democrats. At the very most, conservatives who are frustrated with Bush will abstain, but will never cast their vote for either Nadar nor the Democratic nominee.

Yes, the Democrats are unworthy, vote for Nader.

I neither like nor dislike homosexuality. I simply can't understand why anyone would think that having an attraction to a member of same gender is anything but an abnormal impulse, whatever the cause. The plumming just doesn't work. I think homosexuality fits that description. Don't you think reproductive behavior is a vital function?Why do schizophrenics hear voices that aren't there? Why do transsexuals feel they possess the wrong gender? Why are homosexuals uncontrollably attracted to individuals of the same gender? People are born with ambiguous genitalia. Does it seem that unreasonable to you that people could be born with or develop ambiguous gender identity problems. True, but so can a hetero female who suffers from sterility, for example, however sterility is still disorder. Homosexuals can't choose who they're attracted to, it is clearly an uncontrollable impulse. Do you choose to have attraction toward females?Look, I'm not trying to be a hate monger here or tell you that "Jesus says so" or whatever. I'm just looking at it from the most logical standpoint I can, and what I see is that perhaps some of you have been afflicted by political correctness. I'm saying that a person shouldn't be discriminated against just because they have an illness, but we also can't grand nonsensical requests such as two men or two women who want to get married. I think it makes a mockery of the institution of marriage.

That's an interesting point Hardner but I don't see Homosexuals acting in this capacity in our culture, or any culture I can think of for that matter.Was this behavior actually observed, or just theorized? I don't think it was ever classified at all, rather it was ignored and not typically spoken of. Living in a culture that celebrates homosexuality undoubtably makes it easier but I know that many gays suffer psychological trauma associated with their lifestyle. I'm convinced there's a lot of gays out there that, givin the chance, would choose to be normal as opposed to abnormal. Genetics may instill some behavioral predispositions, but in higher mammals, behavior is largely learned. And I don't think that homosexuality is a learned trait, as you can't teach someone to be gay. I find it much more likely that Homonsexuality is a biological anomoly. Perhaps like other diseases, it acts as a form of population control. I don't know, but it is certainly abnormal. Again, why is transexuality consider a mental disorder and homosexuality is not when it's almost impossible to differentiate between the two conditions?

Transexuality is defined as a mental disorder. Seems to me that the differences between that and Homosexuality are so insignificant that one can't help wonder why they are viewed and treated so differently.How do you explain Homosexuality? It provides no natural advantage, in fact it is directly irreconcilable with the prime function of nature, which is to procreate. The only logical conclusion is that Homosexuality is an aberration of nature.

Of course gays aren't gay by choice. You think homosexuality is trendy? Well, maybe it is now but that's still not the reason. My theory is that it's a mental disorder of some sort. Millions of Americans live with all different varieties of mental disorders from depression to OCD to schizophrenia. Homosexuality is just one more, however it's been morphed into a cultural issue instead a clinical one. I believe that if it were approached as a disease instead of an "alternative lifestyle", it could probably be treated effectively, like other mental disorders. That's not to say that those that suffer from diseases aren't good, decent people. But it is not likely that will ever happen so,... no marriages for gays, but civil unions with equal benifits under the law. Marriage is for men and women, children, families, not for Adam and Steve to feel validated by society.

Yes, that's very coy, but you know what I mean.

I will respond. Hang tight, I've been a little swamped.

I don't know about any specific time line but I agree with KK. Over 12 years, the route of diplomacy with Iraq had run it's course. Real, multinational negotiations with N. Korea have just begun. A war with Korea would be hell and will be reserved as a last resort just as in the case with Iraq. He hasn't started any wars but I wouldn't consider him contained. Millions have starved to death as the communist leadership spends nearly a third of the nation's pathetic GDP on military expenditures annually. Additionally, N.Korea is one of the world largest exporters of prohibited missle systems and WMD technology in violation of international treaties. Diplomacy must be given a chance however, just as with Iraq, the problem will not be allowed to continue indefinately.

Well as I've said before, Bush was not responsible for the recession and for the most part he's not responsible for getting us out of it, however I believe the tax cuts are helping to reduce the severity of the recession caused by many external, internal, and cyclical factors outside the control of government in general including but not limited to 9\11, the war on terror, corporate scandals, the internet stock market bubble, and the natural business cycle. The deficits are of concern in the long term, but they have absolutely no effect on job creation or economic growth in the short term. BMG would have you blame Bush on everything from world hunger to the Africa AIDS epidemic. Unlike other leftist on this forum who gather data and facts to debate ideas, Bushmustgo contributes absolutely nothing to any discussion. Here, Here! I have challenged BMG pointedly to describe how Bush is responsible for the recession. I'm still waiting to hear his response. Surly he has an impressive justification for something he feels so strongly about.

Bushmustgo, You're a lunatic with no argument, just Democratic talking points clap trap. I'm no longer responding to your posts. Leave.