righturnonred

I disagree. It was the Gore camp who initiated a legal challenge. The election was close, Gore lost by a hair, so he tried to change the outcome through the court system. This is the favorite liberal tactic for circumventing the rule of law. Libs say the US Supreme Court handed the election to Bush... Bulllsh*t: Gore wanted selective recounts of ballots only is Florida counties that were Democrat strongholds. Gore wanted overseas military ballots thrown out. Gore wanted election officials to use dimpled chads to try to determine voter intent. Gore even tried to play the race card by claiming that minority voters were disenfranchised because they had more difficulty getting to the polls. Criminal on all accounts The radical liberal Florida Supreme Court wiped it's ass with the constitution in conspiring in this criminal enterprise. The US Supreme Court ruled to stop this alarmingly brazen attempt by the shameless Dems to co-opt the presidency. Several legitimate recounts were conducted and the results were varified by every voting authority and media operation that Bush rightfully won the 2000 election. Not only did he come out on top, Bush gained votes in the recounts. ENOUGH WITH THE ILLEGITIMATE PRESIDENT CRAP.

Whether or not Chretien falls in this category is up for debate, but GW's style of governing represents the antithesis of such a description. Unlike Bill Clinton who, according to Dick Morris and others, was obsessed with opinion polling, Bush refused to let his decisions be influenced by a minority of dissenters who would regard negatively his choice to undertake a necessary (albeit difficult) course of action. Bush's decision to invade and liberate Iraq was seen as a huge political risk . In fact, Bush put his entire presidency on the line to do what he felt was right. That takes courage. It's beyond me why many liberals consider the incorporation of dialogue and debate to be an unhealthy evolution in news media. Liberals should not feel as threatened by conservative talk radio as they are. Yes, it's true that conservative hosts, by and large, engage in routine liberal bashing, but it's not as if the liberals are not given a fair chance to defend themselves. While Rush, who rarely has any guests on his show, is the exception, every other conservative radio host will have liberal guests on their shows nearly daily. In fact, as someone who listens to quite a bit of AM talk, I'd say a good 80% of guests are liberals. Those liberals are allowed to defend their views to the host and to interact with the audience. For example: This afternoon, John Carlson, a local Seattle host on KVI 570, had as a guest on his show a columnist for the Seattle Post Intellegencer who wrote a moronic piece in today's paper claiming that George Bush's popularity is due to the stupidity of his supporters. In the most eloquent liberal fashion possible, he came on the air completely unprepared to defend his "profound" point of view. While I'm sure he didn't think so, he effectively made an ass of himself and in doing so squandered a golden opportunity to further justify his, IMHO, misguided view. What more could a liberal ask for than to have a captive radio audience of millions, mostly conservatives, among which to spread their message . Now whether or not those liberal guests end up looking like fools is totally in the eye of the beholder. The listeners decide who makes the most valid arguments. I'd say that's a vast improvement over being forced to listen consistantly to one side, the liberal side, spewed from Rather, Jennings, or who ever. Wouldn't you agree? Now, what I'd like to see is a liberal nitwit host like Al Franken or Michael Moore to be completely destroyed by their own guest such as Bill Kristol or the lovely Ann Coulter. You'll never see it. The reason that liberals feel threatened by conservative radio is because they don't want an equal forum for conservative ideas. They want to maintain the complete grip on the flow of information they've held for 35 or 40 years. However, those times appear to be gone for good therefore liberals should embrace the new media, the new free marketplace of ideas.

...then flip on Rather or Brokaw or Jennings and knock yourself out. The list of failed liberal talk radio hosts is long and distinguished. Names likes Mario Cuomo, Jim Hightower, Gary Hart, Alan Dershowitz and Lowell Weicker are among those who litter the wayside of AM broadcasting history. So, why it is? Why do liberals consistantly and predictably fail at talk radio? There are several reasons: 1. Apathy. The typical liberal is generally more uniformed about and disinterested in the political processes that affect their lives. This phenomenon has a similar effect in the non-fiction book industry because the typical liberal would much rather drool over American Idol rather than read a book, and it's why you see a far greater number of conservative non-fiction bestsellers in book stores. 2. Saturation. Conservative talk radio took off because there were literally millions of people who felt they were being alienated by the liberal mainstream media megaphones. These people felt they had no place to go to escape the constant liberal barage pissing on everything they believed in. Limbaugh and the like came into existance as an alternative to a liberal media monopoly which, thanks to Rush and company, prevails to a lesser extent than even just five or ten years ago. What Algore and his henchmen don't seem to understand is that there is simply no need for liberal radio. Why? Because they have everything else. If ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC, The New York Times, The LA Times and 99.9% of Hollywood can’t get their message out then maybe their message isn’t reverberating. Maybe people what diversity of opinion. Maybe the market is so flooded with their message that people are turned off. And lets not forget about state-subsidized NPR (national people's radio). Not only does their message sound exclusivley like Democrat talking points but their format is so humorless and unimaginative, it's more boring than watching paint dry. Having to buy radio stations to get liberal programing on the air is pathetic to say the least. Mark Walsh, Algore, George Soros, and whoever else may spend tens of millions or even hundreds of millions of dollars just to discover that no one wants to listen to another Dem mouthpiece.

Clearly I agree with Krusty's assessment. I must admit my first reaction was along the lines of, "how dare they", but after the feeling of disgust passed I realized that most clear thinking and honest Americans would share that sentiment. So, I say... bring it on. How deep of a hole can they dig themselves? The radical libs and their demented freinds in Hollyweird are utterly shameless. Perhaps they should follow their own advice and "move on". I might also add that this pathetic group is bankrolled by none other than billionaire George Soros, the Democrats' new soft money ban hit man.

You think the alerts are bullshit because [you think] the Bush administration is a complete farce and you use the Iraq invasion as an example. Well, you have every right to think that way even if you really have no logical jusification for it. The rest of us, however, don't see liberal induced hallucinations and ridiculously contrived conspiracies around every corner. As it's been suggested many times in the past, you'll need evidence to support your absurd claims before anyone will take you seriously. Iraq is a flimsy example to support your case and you know it. Even though no WMD's stockples have been found yet, every nation from here to the end of earth and back had credible pre-war intelligence that Saddam was indeed involved in the production of prohibited weapons. 1441 showed this consensus. Not to mention the wealth of post-war information made available by David Kay that points to same conclusions. You're just angry and upset because you liberal looney tunes have been vomitted from their positions of power in the government/media complex, and the people are starting to realize what Clinton's precious legacy was really all about. You're frustration is quite understandable.

There are several areas in which I believe Riff has it wrong: 1) You have ignored the central point of my argument which is that, "two wrongs don't make a right". No one is absolving the US of wrong doing in the past. 2) Although the US is certainly guilty of supporting dictators in the past, again, for the purpose of fighting greater evil, you translate too much responsibilty to the US for the homicidal tendencies of maniacal rulers such as Saddam. The central point here is that Saddam would have committed gross atrocities with or without US support. It is unquestionably immoral to sell guns to criminals, but if the criminal decides to take that gun and commit murders, does that make the gun dealer guilty of homicide? No it doesn't. The gun dealer is guilty of knowingly selling guns to criminals, not murder. 3) This issue at hand is not who the US has supported in the past, it's who socialist Europe supports today. This issue goes way beyond what you perceive as hypocrisy on behalf of the United State, which there is none ofcourse. The US did wrong in the past but they're doing what's right now. Europe did wrong in the past and they're doing wrong now. The US has learned from historical mistakes, Europe has not.

I don't think so. You have tried to make a comparision between a sub-human parasite committing an act of terrorism against innocent civilians and the US military using force to take out a legitmate, hostile target. Ofcourse, you substituted "family on a farm" for "legitimate, hostile target", a slight slip of the tounge I'm sure. There is no comparison at all. This in an example of a perverted mind at work. Illegal, violates basic rules of sovereignty, rubbish. This is a war, they not are criminals, they are terrorists. Extra-judicial killings!? Cold-blooded murder of civilians!? Don't you see how outrageous these statements are? Liberals are weak and hopeless. You can do whatever the hell you please professor, but it's not going to help your flimsy case one bit.

Oh boy, here we go. That's part of my point. America is a force for America...America is a force for America...America is a force for America... Yada yada.. nothing wrong with that But... America is also a force for good. I'm not sure what that's a reference to but I've read Saudi authorities discovered, in the holy city of Mecca, several bombs fashoned to look like Korans... Fellow Muslims better lay on the economic imperialism unless they want to have a bad day. Hello!!!, democracy and freedom are part of American culture, and completely absent in Islamic societies. They despise the though of woman walking the streets by herself, without a burka, a sixth century invention literally. A sick mind you have. I was careful not to confuse "final resolution" with the Nazi program of ethnic cleasing, "Final Solution". You won't bate me with semantics. Lonius, sometimes you say some truly loony things. With all do respect, that may be the dumbest thing I've ever heard before, ever. John Allen Mohammed and Lee Boyd Malvo are homegrown Islamic nutcases who commited their crimes in the name of Allah. Lets be fair. We obviously have a point of confusion that needs to be clarified here. War can be terrifying, but it of in itself doesn't not constitute terrorism. Terrorism is the the unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group intentionally directed against innocent people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons. I don't care what the hell extended relatives think it is, it's not terrorism. You must make a distintion. Stinger armed predetors take out car loads of militant bastards, not families on farms. Careful John, your're getting into Lonius territory now.

What makes you think that the US worships money to a greater extent than any other country. In France for instance, there is no faith, no nationalism, only money (or rather lack of it as the case may be). Your being unfair to the United States. This isn't about economics, it's about culture, corrupt, diseased Islamic culture. If it really is "decades of economic imperialism" that is responsible for Islamic terrorism, then why aren't people from other cultures and nationalities outside of Islam engaged in the same brutal campaign of terror? Surely, some of these other nations have been subjected to the same types of influences emanating from the West. Why don't we see South American terrorists attacking America for example? Don't try to justify Islamic terrorism with this crap about poor little Islamic countries being victimized by America. The grandiose liberal philosophy of "love them to death" is a dangerous mentality which only continues the cycle of violence. Islamo-facist radicals, as with lunatic anti-war protesters for instance, will only respond to force. Repeat this one-hundred times to yourself: America is a force for good...

To say that terror alerts largely constitute fear mongering implies that terror alerts elicit fear in the population. I do not believe this is so. And yes I did read the thread, thank you. *sigh* The terror alerts are directed more at government agencies, local law enforcement, first responders and such. However, there are things that ordinary citizen can do to contribute. Most importantly, people should generally be more observant of their surroundings. This means scrutinizing things that may be out of place or do not feel right such a suspicious car parked in the wrong place, or a package in the wrong place or that looks odd. Citizens can also be on the look out for people snooping where they shouldn't be or trying to make purchases that aren't conventional. For example, if I saw a pair of Muslim men taking photographs of a Synagogue, that doesn't seem right to me so I might give the FBI a call. Another example. If I overheard A-rabs making anti-US statements, that's a clue to me that they probably aren't on the observation deck of the Empire building to simply enjoy the view. It's not paranoia, it's just a highten sense of awareness. I got news for ya, terrorism and anti-US sentiment around the world didn't see it's genesis in 9-11. They've existed long before that. Decades of complacency has resulted in the growth of terrorism in to what we see today. What kind of messege do you think it sent to terrorist when the US pulled out of Lebenon in 1983 after the Marine barracks were bombed killing 243? What kind of message does it send when there is virtually no response to the first WTC attack in 1993? What kind of message does it send when the deaths of 18 American Rangers causes Clinton to pull out of Somalia all together? What kind of messege does it send when there is no response to the bombing of the USS Cole in 2000, which kills 17? I'll tell you what message it sends: If you give the Americans a bloody nose, they'll turn tail and run. Well, no more. It will be long and painful, but there will be a final resolution to this problem of Islamo-facist terror. You're just another liberal who doesn't understand the logic behind the Bush doctrine.

For you to refer to yourself as "Moderate Centrist" is a misnomer in the first degree as your politcal orientation, intentional or otherwise, appears quite transparent. Why is it that liberals can't admit they're liberals in the same fashion that conservatives exhibit pride in being conservative? The fact that you either cannot or will not look beyond the "sensationalism" and hyperbole employed by Ann Coulter to see the true brilliance of her message says loud and clear that her message stings you. The fact that you cannot or will not acknowledge the true reasons responsible for the widespead success of Fox News, conservative talk radio, internet newspapers, ect. speaks volumes about how you view conservativism. Maybe you can fool Connie Chung by refering to yourself in the neutral, but not these chaps. First off, the very notion of a political centrist is a fairy tale. You cannot perpetually walk a tight role on your political beliefs. You must eventually choose where you stand, and there's no grey area to stand upon. If you're truly not a liberal as you claim, here's your chance to prove it.

Uh, No. I'm not really sure what your point is though, frankly. Your boss is advocating moral relativism here by the questions he poses. Iraqi law written under Saddam has no relavence in post Saddam Iraq. For example, the IGC has placed a moratorium on the dealth penalty (I suppose this also includes summary executions). Saddam is guilty of violating universal law. I'm sorry but I feel your boss' questions are stupid and show either ignorance or compassion for Saddam. No argument there. Saddam will recieve a fair trial in Iraq before the Iraqi people. We don't need another Milosevic fiasco.

Ridiculous. Raised terror alerts do not cause wide spead anxiety and panic among the population. Typically, most people go about their business as usual except with a hightened level of vigilance. It may not be the case with you, but Americans, in particular, have a very short term memory and must be reminded at appropriate times that threats from terrorism still exist out there. What, you think the president sits at his Crawford ranch and chuckles to himself, "He he he, we sure frightened the piss out of everyone on Christmas this year"? I think not. Americans can no longer sleep throught the everpresent possibility that terrorism may happen at any given time. The terror alerts are not mean to paralyse, but rather they serve several purposes: to put ordinary citizens not on high fear, but on high alert to potential terrorist activities. Second, in post 9-11 America, the US goverment has an obligation to let the people know whats going on and that real threats exist. Foolish. This is why liberals are unfit to lead. The money is well spent if it prevents another 9-11 which would be hundreds of times more expensive than maintaining a terror alert, not to mention the potential for human loss. It is the government's prime responsibility to protect Americans in a proactive fashion. It is not good enough, as you suggest, to simply pick up the pieces after such an attack occurs. The critics may very well be right. That's why the government deliberates intensively before deciding that it's appropriate to raise the terror alert. And it looks like this was the appropriate time because a terror attack may have been thwarted, i.e. terrorists planning to board French airliners with the intent of making attacks on America decide to walk away. The terror alerts could be improved however by taloring them to specific regions or industries, if possible ofcourse. Many times though, the knowledge of threats gathered through intelligence are too general to be classified. They just can't win with you can they? They're damned if they do and they're damned if they don't, huh?

No one is disputing that the US has supported bad people and regimes in the past, albeit to counter worse people and regimes. No one is also disputing that the moral justification for tactics used by the US in the past is debatable. What all you America haters continuiously deny is that your freinds, i.e France, Germany, Russia etc., supported this man, deemed a global threat by the international community, right up until his demise. No matter how you try to spin in, the actions that the US took ten or twenty years ago is not nearly as relevant as the actions that these European nations took yesterday and continue to take today. Yes, the US supported Saddam in the past. Yes, Saddam committed atrocities while he garnered support from the US. So, do two wrongs make a right? Does that make it alright for France and Germany to support Saddam now? You can't just point your finger at the US and say, "well, they did it first!". Grow up. For more the ten years, the US has been attempting to contain and eleminate the threat that Saddam posed, and yes, the US helped to create. All the while as the international community, your slimy European freinds, made big bucks off sanctions. Well, your boss is an idiot. This is about crimes against Iraqis more than it's about some vauge ubiquitous notion such as crimes against humanity. Gimme a break, The Iraqi's deserve to administer Saddams punishment, not a bunch of *uckers at the UN who tried to protect him for 12 years. Your boss must think the Iraqis are too stupid to put together their own tribunal.

Oh yeah, Debo? Well, seeing as how you've demonstrated yourself to be the unequivocal expert on such matters, why don't you fill us in and tell us "how it is". The term neo-con, although viewed by some as derogatory, accurately describes a particular group of conservative foreign policy hardliners that draws it's origins from those who avocated staunch opposition to Soviet influence during the Cold War. You must be confused: the term neo-con means "new conservative" not "neo-convict" or "neo-con man. Frankly I not sure why this mostly inconspicuous term causes you to lose bowel control at it's mere mention. Strange indeed. And what is a "non word" anyways. The term homophobic, which literally means to possess a psychological fear of lesbians or gay men, is often used inappropriately to describe someone who holds contempt for homosexuals. It isn't a "non word" per se, but rather it's use and meaning have been perverted over time, much as the word "gay" used to mean happy before it was co-opted by the homosexual community.

Imperialism is an inappropriate term to describe the school of foreign policy advocated by "neo-cons" Kristol, Bush, Wolfowitz, etc. The United States is not interested in territorial expansion. Read the "Project For a New American Century" to gain insight into the current administration's foreign policy goals and strategies.

.Actually it's called a plurality and it's the kind of garbage that is associated with a multiparty system which is even more prone to special interest rule than what we have in the United States. The American politcal system is far from perfect but discouraging third parties goes a long way towards minimizing confusion and making representation, well, more represenative. The Democrats in the Senate technically held a plurality for a short time when jumpin' Jim Jeffords left the Republican party and became an Independant. Republicans lost the majority because of it.

here, here!

It's a very complex task to limit the power of federal, or even state and municipal judges without rewriting constitutional guidelines. The US federal appellete system does, in essence, have some measure of checks and balances - essentially, the 9th is effectively neutered by higher courts but this does create problematic gridlock in the judical system. Some states in the union have also passed mandatory minimum sentencing requirements for exactly these types of miscarages of justice that take place in the criminal courts. These laws prevent bleeding heart liberal judges from allowing rapists and murders to go free because of their misplaced sense of compassion. We also have here, in some state, a "three strikes" law which mandates a life sentence to criminals who are convicted of a third fellony within a statute of limitations. Such referendums have resulted in dramatic reductions in crime, however you see these liberal crazy people left and right writhing head over toe in attempts to repeal these laws because they limit their ability to legistate from the bench. As for further solutions, maybe under specific circumstances, such is the case with the 9th Circuit, a sitting president should be allowed to reappoint judges to certain benches where there has been an obvious abuse of power as described in legistation i would entitle the "judicial accountability act". Has a nice ring to it, doesn't it? The use of such a presidential power would be allowed only under circumstances mandated in the legistation which clearly defines abuse of power. For the sake of argument, let's define "abuse of power" as, oh say, any court or judge who, just for starters: If you're a judge trying to pull this kind of crap, you deserve to lose your bench, pure and simple.

Rudy Giuliani will challenge Hitlery for her Senate seat in 2006. Two well-placed GOP insiders say it's 'basically a done deal'. Hell yes! Good riddance b*tch. GOP sources: Rudy 'to run against Hillary'

Dean and Clark are such characters. Weasily claims that Dean asked him to be his running mate back in September before the general decided to get into the race, a claim which the Dean campaign denies. This is comical, and typical at the same time. Dean, Clark Squabble on VP Offer I can't decide who's telling the truth here. Though it seems unbelievable, given Clark's history of waffling and half truths, it wouldn't surprise me if he conjured the whole thing out of thin air. Although Dean is certainly a wackjob in own right, I can't for the life of me determine why he would deny this if it were true, I mean, who care's, so he asked Clark before he stepped in the race, big deal. Am I missing something here?

What Isreal needs is to finish the wall pronto so that country may live in peace, free from the constant threat of psychopathic killers targeting their children on schools buses. You just don't get it. There is no possibility of a negotiated settelment until the Palestinians commit themselves to reform. As it stands, they have no interest in living side by side with the Isrealis. They only wish to drive the Zionist infidels into the sea. The Palestinians must realize that they are responsible for their own suffering and that if they wish to rebuild their country they must put down their bomb vests and Kalashnikovs, and pick up hammers and shovels. The ball is clearly in their court. If the bombings stopped tomarrow, their would be two states tomarrow. Unfortunately, only one of the two parties is, at this time, interested in such an outcome. It is not part of Isreal's "grand scheme" to endure perpetual quagmire which is the intifada so they may simply make life hard for the Palestinians. Do you think that indoctrinating 5 year olds to be martyrs in an effective way to promote a healthy peace loving culture? You're a good little martyr, yes you are. Thought so.

Today was another bad day for terrorists around the world, which consequently means that it was a bad day for liberals as well. The Bush doctrine of preemption is producing results in Iran, possibly N. Korea, and now Gadhafi's Libya. I believe Syria will be next to fall in line. Unfortunately, the namby pamby weapons inspectors at the IAEA and the UN are neither qualified nor aggresive enough to ensure transparency in the weapons programs of those nations. We need coalition inspectors. While US inspectors haven't found WMD stockpiles in Iraq, they have found gobs of prohibited materials and weapons that Blix and his incompetent playmates overlooked. I still believe that preemptive military actions, while it may be ultimately neccesary, should be reserved as a final option. Aggresive inspections can be successful, and it will be a simple matter to determine if cooperation is forthcomming.

Here we go again with the US 9th Circuit Federal Court of Appeals. The liberal wacko judges of the 9th have once again overturned the decision of a lower court, this time to demand that enemy combatant, foreign nationals, being held at Guantanamo have access to the US court system. WHAT!? This kind of behavior from the 9th is not completely unexpected however, as this appellate court itself is the single most overturned in US history. Other recently overturned outragous decisions you might be familiar with: -Ruling unconstitutional any references to [God] in the Pledge of Allegiance. -Voting to postpone the California recall election at the last minute. -Overturning the death sentance of a convicted mass murderer because the prosecutor made biblical references during his closing statement. Long considered the federal court breeding ground for judicial activism, the 9th Circuit has been the federal appeals court most often overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court in recent years. The 9th Circuit accounted for both 30 percent of the cases (24 of 80) and 30 percent of the reversals (18 of 59) the Supreme Court decided by full written opinions this term. In addition, the 9th Circuit was responsible for more than a third (35%, or 8 of 23) of the High Court’s unanimous reversals that were issued by published opinions. On the whole, the 9th Circuit’s rulings accounted for more reversals this past term than all the state courts across the country combined and represented nearly half of the overturned judgments (45%) of the federal appellate courts. This is yet another example of radical liberals who occupy positions of power in this country. These judges should be impeached.

You're probably right. But I suspect your problem here is your definition of a "radical conservative". So, according to you, what is a radical conservative anyways and how big of a threat do you think they pose to America? According to this conservative, I don't think you'll find any radical right-wingers on this forum for example. The problem with those on the left is that they believe they're centrist *cough*, when in fact they're far from it. Ofcourse this has the intended consequence of attempting to maginalize typical stunch conservatives such as myself, Craig, Krusty, Hugo, and others. Generally speaking, many liberals are simply in denial about their own radicalized nature. The media is a perfect example of liberals in denial. I've stated several examples of people who fit in this category in previous posts, some of them elected officals. I'm not denying that radicals exist on the right. But the critical difference is that the leadership on the left are among the radicals themselves. You may consider Bush to a radical for example, which is silly ofcourse. The reason lefties claim such absurdities is because they themselves are radicalized and hence possess a perverted view of the world around them. Look, when people on the left start throwing out ridiculas conspiracy theories, and talking about socialist revolutions and such bullsh*t, they look like fools, pure an simple, OK? People who adopt a "blame America first" mentality are embracing radical ideology. I know this will go in one ear and out the other as my single post on this forum in incapable of reversing years of liberal indoctrination, but you'd do yourself a favor in life to brake the bonds of the liberal victim mentality. It's a long road ahead but I wish you good luck.