righturnonred

No. While they will NEVER apologize, it's interesting to note that network news broadcasts and "mainstream" newspapers (in the US at least) have been hemorrhaging viewers and subscriptions for years. The leftist media is in rapid decline, further evidenced by the increasing shrillness and desperation on their part over the past months/years.

Good points Krusty. The left is consumed with the legal justifications for this war in similar fashion to how a criminal defense lawyer attempts to exonerate an obviously guilty party. It's sickening. The Left have no grasp of what this battle in the war on terror is all about. Dominated by their blind hatred for King Bushy, they'll find every opportunity to do the wrong think during the defining moment. You can beat your head against a brick wall, or better yet beat their heads against a brick wall, but it's doubtful it would do any good. The poisoning of minds on the left has reached the stage of necrosis and is probably irreversible. For them, a perverted world view and a corrupt sense of moral relativism is the name of the game. Browse through this site called Deviant Art to observe the psychosis of the left in a particularly disturbing form. Deviant Art As you can see, crude effigies, comparisons to Nazism, and depictions of a godlike UN abound. It's difficult to fathom that this is how the left actually perceives the world. Radical liberalism is truly a mental disorder.

The death penalty needs to be an option, here's why: Hussein has knowledge of, or knows who had knowledge of the location of WMD's, whether they be in country or inside Syria. I think interrogators can provide Saddam a plea deal: WMD's in exchange for life in prison. Saddam went to extrordinary lengths to preserve his own life. If this lunatic is willing to volunterily live like a vagrant in a hole in the ground for months on end, prison shouldn't seem to bad to him. Saddam on trial at the Hauge... un no. US trial? last I check, Saddam's not a citizen of the US. US military tribunal maybe, but not a criminal trial. Iraqi war crimes tribunal? Bingo. They're the ones that suffered the most under Saddam's fist. --------------------------------- Keep talkin Communist boy, everyone's listening.

No one is denying the right of the left to disagree with the policies of the Bush Administation. It's the motive and method that is reprehensible. Anyone with two brain cells to rub together should be able to recognize that the Democrats are motivated purely by political considerations. You can bet that if it were Bill Clinton executing a campaign to depose Hussein, free the Iraqi people, build democracy in the middle east, and protect America from Islamo-facist terrorism, that the left would be absolutely gung ho on board with this. Instead we have Dem congressmen like Ted Kennedy who claims that Bush and company concocted the war in Texas. Don't forget ex-congresswoman Cynthia McKenney who lost reelection for actually proposing publically that Bush knew about 9-11 before it happened and did nothing to prevent the murder of nearly 3,000 Americans. Now we have the front runner for the Dem nomination, Dean, indicating that he thinks the Bush/9-11 conspiracy is "the most interesting possiblity" he's heard! COME ON, these people are absolutely out of there minds. They're fanatical,... and dangerous. These people are willing to sacrifice the national security of the United States for political gain and it's wrong. Don't buy into their sh*t. They'd lie to you about the color of the sky if they thought it would get them elected.

The CIA has refined it's interrogation techniques over the years to be highly effective without the use of brute force to extract information. As Neal said, Sleep deprivation, psychological manipulation, coupled with the use of "truth agents" subjugates the need for harsher measures. Saddam and others with information are currently being subjected to such tactics: As for the conduct of Colonel West, his actions were absolutely appropriate under the circumstances. Clearly the military has realized this as they have reconsidered his punishment. Namby pambies should keep in mind that the life of some blood sucking militant sociopath isn't worth jack, especially when stacked up against the life of even one US soldier.

You said it Craig. We already see it happening. Two groups are currently fighting to control the agenda of the Democratic party. On one side, you have the relatively "moderate" side *cough* led by Bill Clinton, Lieberman. On the other side you have the radical left led by Howard Dean, and now Al Gore, who's endorsement of Dean is in essence his declaration of independence from the Clintonistas. Algore is a complete lunatic - ever read Earth in the Balance? I have a feeling that Al Gore intends to run for pres in 08' and will in fact run to left of Hillary! You and I know that Hillary is a radical leftist, but she's no fool and she is aware of the direction that Dean is taking the party. She will position herself accordingly. Either way, the Dems are going to be marginalized for a loooong time.

Hey Farrius, have any close, loved ones killed in 9-11? ---------------------------------------- Baghdad Jim's at it again. For those who don't know, Jim McDermott is the embarrassment Democrat represenative from my home state of Washington. So I must apolgize again on behalf of this treasonous fool. Here are his latest comments on the capture of Saddam Hussein. He'd make a good playmate for Howard Dean. Full Text: Dem Rep. Suspicious of Timing of Saddam Capture McDermott has been a problem here in Washinton for years. He is a certified nutbar and has lost complete control of his faculties. If being a dipsh*t were an impeachable offense, he'd have been gone long ago. On a side note, during my final year of college, McDermott had agreed to come speak at my school. However when he found out that his staff had committed him instead to a debate with Chris Vance (state GOP chairman), the coward refused saying that he was unable to debate an unelected offical! Disgraceful. So, in my school's infinite wisdom, they decided to uninvite Chris Vance so McDermott could come give a propoganda lecture within the safety of the left wing education establishment. Also disgraceful.

This exchange is humorus, yet utterly frustrating at the same time. Riff, your pathetic Democrat talking points just aren't going to cut it. All of your greviences have been dealt with at depth on this forum, and subsequently debunked, according to anyone not blinded by pure ideology that is. Doesn't it throw up flag when you and your liberal freinds are consistantly proven wrong on every position you take? If liberals want to continue to exist, they'd better face facts, put politics aside, and quit acting like children. Forget WMD, evidence of which will eventually be uncovered, by the way. This president is willing to do what's right and necessary in order to quash this dangerous culture of islamo-facist terror, a reality which you seem to deny the severity of. Let's not forget that your hero Billy the Clinton spent 8 years lining his pockets with green, while at the same time abeting terrorists and dictators world-wide. Clinton focused on the positive alright, and he left behind a lovely collection of problems for future adminstrations to take care of. Let's also not forget that the Clinton Adminstration, under the auspice of superior moral convictions ofcourse, relied on much of the same intellegence in 1998 to laub cruise missles at Iraq in a token attempt to show the world he was dealing with the problem. Let's not forget that it was the Clinton Adminstration, who based on the same intellegence, declared regime change as the offical US policy towards Iraq. Unfortunately, Willy lacked the orbs to risk his precious legacy on such a large political uncertainty.

Gentlemen, I have disagreements on China. Regardless of whether Greenspan thinks its justified or not, the fact remains that China's currency is unfairly valued for the purpose of lowering the price of Chinese goods on the international market. You can't tell me that the US should just simply turn a blind eye to this tremendous advantage. Greenspan says that other low-wage countries in Asia would fill the gap - then so be it, those countries are playing fairly and deserve a larger piece of US markets. I mostly agree with Neal on the status of Taiwan. While I am certainly an advocate of the "Status Quo", I think there are convincing arguments to justify Taiwanese independence. Specifically, the sovereignty of Taiwan after it's secession by Japan after the conclusion of WWII is highly disputable. China ceded the island of Taiwan to Japan at the end of the first Sino-Japanese War. In the Cairo Conference of 1943, the allied powers agreed to have Japan cede Taiwan to the Republic of China upon Japan's surrender. According to both the People's Republic of China and the Republic of China, this agreement was given legal force by the instrument of surrender of Japan in 1945. Advocates of Taiwan independence argue that because the Instrument of Surrender of Japan made no mention of the Cairo Conference, it did not transfer title of Taiwan and that when Japan renounced sovereignty of Taiwan in the Treaty of San Francisco in 1951, the sovereignty of Taiwan returned to the people of Taiwan according to the UN charter on self determination. The legal status of Taiwan is certainly disputable and is not set in stone. Legal status aside, The PRC didn't really give a hoot about Taiwan until economic and political reforms in that "renegade province" transformed it into one the most powerful industrial and technological giants in the region. Now that Taiwan is perceived as valuable, the PRC is suddenly strongly committed to the "One China" policy. For all intensive purposes, as Neal said, Taiwan is basically a independent state. Her achievements were accomplished without interference or assistance from the mainland. Therefore, it seems to me, from a moral standpoint, that the people of Taiwan have a legitmate justification and desire to protect what they've built there, specifically a free and prosperous democracy. With all that said, let's look at the political realities: Reunification is inevitable as China is becoming a regional superpower. Bush is right to warn the Taiwanese from taking further steps towards independence. A conflict with China over Taiwan is simply not worth the cost. Craig, I don't know how you come to the apparent conclusion that China harbors no animosity towards the United States and simply wishes to prosper along side us. The sheer amount of evidence just doesn't support you here. Any poltical or economic cooperation with the United States on the part of China is conducted under the guise of achiveing regional and global domination, in place of the United States. Regardless of how many economic reforms are enacted, political control will never be wrested from those who hold it now. Do freindly nations conspire to steal our most vaunted nuclear secrects? Do freindly nations develop military technologies designed specifically to nutralize American forces? Do freindly nations intercept and threaten our unarmed surveillance aircraft (operating in international airspace)? Do freindly nations publish nuclear threats against the United States in state run media? Do the militaries of freindly nations attempt to influence our political elections through illegal campaign donations? Do freindly nations help rouge states (Iraq) build improved air defenses in order to shoot down American aircraft? You're going to have to provide more proof to convince me of China's unabridged ambivalence towards the United States.

Absolutely right. However, Ross Perot gave us 8 years of Clinton. It's true that Reps as was as Dems can benefit from third party interference but I think, in general, they distract the American people, who are already incredibly apethetic, from evaluating serious, electable candidates. I too thought that McClintock was, by far, the most qualified and appropriate choice and indeed I would have voted for him if I thought he could have won. Unfortunately, Schwarzenegger's star power and noteriety made that highly unlikely. I know that Arnold falls well short of what conservatives expect from a Republican candidate however the alternative, in Bustmante, would have been disasterous for California and the country. I think that if Arnold had not been in the race, McClintock would have won by a decent margin.

omg, SO WHAT! and it's not Dick Cheney's outfit as he no longer has any interest in the company. get serious. You won't convince anyone here that the US is the bad guy so give it a rest. I'm guessing most of those vetos are related to Isreal. That is just so utterly stupid it's unbelievable. Identification of "the good guys" and "the bad guys" is so painfully obvious yet you seem to be flipped entirely upside down on the issue. It becomes more apparent to me every day that liberalism is not a political philosophy, it's a mental disorder

It's interesting that you should attribute conscience to making voting decisions. From my perspective, to vote for a candidate that doesn't have a change in hell of implimenting any part of my agenda does not constitute voting my conscience. It's impossible to achieve everything you want to achieve, therefore compromise is nessecary. What you are doing by encouraging people to vote for third party candidates is telling those people to essentially stay home on election night. It's like giving your vote to Gary Coleman for the Govenership of California; you may think he's a great guy, but you can't seriously expect him to win. Furthermore, while I believe it is a mistake to make ones voting decisions based primarily on the evaluation of a single social issue, abortion in this case, lets use it as an example: Republicans are, in large part, pro-life while Democrats are almost exclusively pro-abortion. For you to vote for Howard Phillips has effectively helped to elect a Dem candidate who's stance on abrotion is ten times worse than the Republican alternative. My point here is that while you mean well, your support of a third party candidate does not further your agenda or that of the country's. In fact, it effectively facilitates the very destructive liberal agenda that you seem to oppose to vehemently.

Craig, I'm not sure you understood my point. Let me clarify. I didn't mean to imply that God, or other supernatural being, micromanages the systems of nature, but rather that the systems of nature, down to the sub-atomic level, possess such intricate precision and perfect harmony that I must attribute a divine intellegence to it's creation. Science is merely the study of how God's grand mechanism works. I may even go so far as to say that economics falls into that category, seeing as how economics is a function of human behavior.

You have no right as an American not to be offended. That's absurd. It's this type of reasoning used by organizations such as the ACLU to encroach on the legitimate rights that citizens enjoy. You know, those little ones like freedom of speach, religion, et cetera et cetera. Every thing is going to offend someone for some reason that is incomprehensable to most clear thinking Americans. If you don't like what you hear, pay it no mind. While you don't have the right to "not be offended" you do have the right to disregard that which is offensive to you. I would never support a third party because it is tantamount to wasting my vote. There has never been a viable third party in America because that is how the founders intended it to be. Personlly, I would rather get some of what I want rather than nothing at all, which is what you get if you cast your vote for a third party candidate (in the US anyway). If it is change you desire, you are more likey to affect change through your existing party, not by abandoning it for a third party joke. Democrats are affecting change in their own party for example by embracing the far left to a much greater extent than even 10 or 20 years ago. On the other hand, Hitler was elected Chancellor of Germeny in 1933 by a plurality vote in a multiparty system.

While the US does prefer to have the cooperation of the UN, it does not need it. This desire is for purely political reasons because much of the world community attributes legitmacy to that organization. It in no way reflects an American requirement for logistical assitance. However, because the US is footing the cost to execute a campaign that clearly benefits the entire world, it would be nice if they could contribute something to this gigantic effort. Japan for instance, while understandably reluctant to commit troops to Iraq, has none the less contributed nearly $10 billion toward reconstruction efforts. That's 50% of what the US has ear marked! Some of our allies who wish to contribute fighting forces are, unfortunately, reluctant to do so because they feel they are required to receive UN rubber stamp approval for any military operation. The US however does not subscribe to the idea of, as Craig said, submitting their nation to the will of an unelected council. Although NATO is less relevant now than it was during the cold war, essentially that alliance is in existence because UN pacifism is ultimately incapable of protecting the western civilized cultures from the Evil Empires and two bit dictators that exist or have existed around the world. Realistically, US foreign policy is constructed and implimented with the following order of priorities in mind: 1) US interests (often common among US allies and non-aligned) 2) Interests of US allies 3) Interests of the non aligned (law abiding world community) 4) Interests of US enemies and detractors Many of the nations comprising the UN unfortunately fall somewhere between 3 and 4. It has in the past and will continue to do so in the future. Ironically, US military involvment in Somalia was facilitated in part by the brutal killing of defenseless UN relief workers by Adid's militiamen.

Some very interesting posts. Personally, my belief in divinity is more metaphysical than spiritual. From a logical standpoint, I cannot reconcile what I see around me, my world, with the notion that there is a lack of intellegence at work in it's conception. There is simply too much complexity, too much harmony, too much precision in nature for it to have been conjured in the absence of thought. Did Jesus actually exist? I believe he probably did. Was he the son of God? There's just no way to know for sure. Is much of the histrory contained in the Bible hogwash? Certainly. Does that book still possess great value in our society? Absolutely, but not as a historical account.

An organization is representative of the members that make it up. The Aryan Nation consists of members who hold blatently racist and militant views, therefore this is what the organization as a whole represents. With the exception of a very limited number of participants, the UN is no different. As I've said before, all you need do is watch an open session of the UN general assembly and come to your own conclusion. Without the backing of the United States, the UN as a peace keeping mechanism is worthless. For fifty years the US, and her allies, have been the sole enforcers of world order and have kept the world from the brink of destruction on numerous occasions. If the UN were to cease to exist tomarrow the world would not fall into chaos, on the contrary, it may even be made safer as result. Peace is not simply the absence of war, as is defined by the feel gooders at the UN. The former Soviet subjects had no peace. People under the brutal regime of Saddam Hussein had no peace. Ordinary populations that are starved to death by the likes of tyrants such as Mohamed Farid Adid have no peace. The famine stricken people of N. Korea have no peace. Millions upon millions of innocent people have died not because of war, but rather due to the "peace" that was permitted to endure for so long. Ronald Reagan realized that true peace is acheived only through strength, and not through complacency as advocated by Jimmy Carter.

Two thirds of Al Qaeda's leadership has been killed or captured, including some of the big wigs like Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, bin Laden's COO and 9-11 mastermind, and Abu Zubaydah, the organization's communications director. Ramzi Binalshibh, bin Laden's CFO is another. This is in addition to countless lower level lieutenants in charge of regional operations. I'd say that's not too bad at this point two years out from Sept. 11. bin Laden is an important symbolic figure, but his capture alone does not mean we will have won the war on terror nor even simply defeated Al Qaeda.

It's possible that what happend to the conservative party in Canada could also occur with the liberal Democrats in the US, specifically, a fracturing of their party and subsequent marginalization. I think it's looking more and more likely since the Democratic party, anyway, is nothing more than a loose coalition of disassociated special interest factions, none of which represent the mainstream of America. This couldn't be more accurate. Any ideas they do present are just retarded: -When Weasely Clark was asked this week what he would do to curb spending in Congress, he avoided the issue of spending all together and instead actually proposed raising taxes, on the "wealthiest" of Americans ofcourse. Uh Huh. -John Kerry's solution to our foreign policy challenges is to make a greater effort to work with our allies? Creative -When John Edwards was asked what he would do differently in Iraq, he responded that he would have the Russians and the Chinese each send a 100,000 troops, to which Tim Russert's follow up question was, "How fast can they say no"? Hillarious! Edwards is such a comedian. Seriously, what dimension do these people originate from? You might want to share this profound observation with the attendees of the recent "Hate Bush" conference in Hollywood.

You both make excellent points regarding Hillary in 08, and frankly all I can say is we'll have to wait and see. There are just too many variables to account for at this point. There is even the slight possiblity that Hillary may choose to sit out 08' if she feels the circumstances are not conducive to victory. After all, she is still relatively young and her patience is unmatched. She'll only get one shot at it. One thing that's for certain is that the Dem party will still be in disarray after another 4 successful years of Bush.

The teacher is out of touch and was out of line by scolding the child. The ACLU is criminal in my opinion and only concerned with furthering their destructive extreme leftist agenda. They have no genuine concern for this child.

The US discarded isolationism a long time ago, so what's your point? That's right. You socialist liberals are so consumed with the faulty idea that profit is evil. Why are you, personaly, so opposed to this concept? let me spell it out for you: PROFIT = INCENTIVE INTITLEMENT = NO INCENTIVE Profit makes the world go around and you'll have a great deal of trouble convincing the average person otherwise. Frankly you sound like someone who doesn't want to have to work for living. Garbage. Although people in these foreign countries don't enjoy a standard of living like we have in the US, they still benefit enormously through multinational trade and commerce. If these people weren't producing goods for global consumers, they'd likely still be living in serfdom. For the first time in history, these people have access to things we take for granted. Things such a refrigerator or a decent diet. As a matter of fact, if you'd had your way, our civilization never would have progressed beyond an agrarian society. You can flap your arms as hard as you want but you'll never leave the gound. Socialist utopia is a pipe dream.

You're right Morgan, Nader's candidacy would definately be helpful to Republicans. Unfortunately, in this respect, we can assume that his "constituency" has been significantly reduced since some of his previous voters have realized that he's a worthless condidate. This then ties into Craig's point that Nader is probably not that much farther left than Dean, who probably provides considerable appeal for Naderites. There is no doubt though that Nader certainly has the potential to damage democrats in any capacity. Actually I was suprised to learn this after reading the articale I posted. Of course, I myself, am at least five different kinds of "American". I don't really think it makes much difference. Thats right. But what is even more sinister is that she actually wants GWB to win in 2004. She'd have a hard time running against an incubant Dem president in 08'. The new book, the visit to Afghanistan, both are examples of her effort to detract attention from the dwarves.

Lets not start posting dumb quotes from political leaders because, trust me, you'll lose. I could post a hundred examples from some of your freinds like Hillary, Ted Kennedy, and lets not leave out Willy. In regards to the statement by Rumsfeld, what is there not to understand? There are things we know we know and there are things we know we don't know. If you don't register the simplicity of this statement then you have a deeper problem than a need for a translation book. Besides, although you haven't given us the context in which the statement was made, I'm sure he was responding to some dipsh*t liberal reporter who asked a question like, "Does you're failure to have any sort of plan for the invasion and occupation of Iraq mean that you have put our brave fighting men and women at unneccesary risk?" Oh, thats right, I remember now. Liberals have ultimate contempt for ideals like fairness, justice, and morality. It was foolish of me to assume otherwise.

I just ran across this interesting article concerning Nader. His chances are looking better and better by the minute. Nader Denies Appearance With Racist Muslim