righturnonred

I think you and I both know that's not a very fair criticism. On the contrary, not many presidents in the past have done the same. Richard Nixon was the last president to visit US troops in a war zone during Vietnam, and Bush was the first US president in history to ever visit Iraq, let alone during wartime. Lets face it, Rove is a genius, and I'm not going to deny that the Bush team was cognisant of the poltical implications accociated with such a move. However, I find it difficult to believe that Bush's sigular or primary motive here was political. You just don't understand Bush the way fellow conservatives do.

I really don't see what difference it makes whether homosexuality is genetic or not. A person's propensity for developing a myriad of diseases is influenced by genetics including heart disease, obesesty, diabetes, asthma, alchoholism, mental disorder, etc. It just brings us back to the paramount question which is: Is homosexuality beneficial in the course of human evolution? The answer, IMHO, is no. Another interesting facet of this discussion is the fact that, apart from humans, homosexuality exists nowhere else in nature, although some animals occasionally engage breifly in homosexual behavior.

Whether or not someone believes homosexuality is right or wrong is not the issue here. The issue is that the former lesbian lover of a born-again christian, recovered homosexual, adoptive mother has no legal right to have custody of or teach this child ANYTHING. The lesbian woman is not a biological parent nor a legal gaurdian of the young child and therefore should get lost. The judge is a certified wackjob. What is there to argue about here?

Productivity is a funtion of output per worker hour. Wages have increased, not decreased. While increases in productivity can sometimes result in stalled hiring, expanded worker hours means that increased productivity alone it incapable of sustaining increased levels of production. The result is job creation. In essence, hiring results because growth is greater than productivity gains. No offense, but this is dumb statement. Any intellecually honest person makes a distinction between slavery and work. Of course, if you want to look at it from this transcendental perspective, I guess I'm nothing more than a high paid slave. I supose this goes without saying but, just because a machine preforms mundane, undesireable tasks does not mean it is providing a replacement for slave labor. Actually, slavery wasn't all that productive. Slaves were very expensive to purchase and required high overhead to maintain.

Not as if it really makes any differencee but isn't he getting into this a little late? The deadline for the first primary caucuses has already passed. History has shown that candidates who skip them are doomed to failure, not withstanding that fact that we're talking about Nader here. The only one who could pull it off is Hitlery but she's not dumb enough to run against a successful, war time president.

Having problems with the board in previous post... I agree this is not smart policy. That is why this is such a difficult situation. On the one hand, we want cheap goods for import and big markets for export, but on the other hand, we need to avoid contributing to China's growth as a regional/global military power. While this is possible, I don't think it's very likely to happen that way. It's more likely that China's leadership will retain universal power while integrating elements of a free market system into their economy. We're unlikely to see democratic reforms in China without foriegn military intervention or revolution. I really hope that's the case. But the rhetoric and posturing I see coming from Chinese civilian and miliary leaders makes me very pessimistic to such an outcome. It is just an undeniable fact that China views us unequivocally as an enemy, regardless of how we see them.

Yes, China is relatively poor compared to the US, who isn't? However, fifty years down the line, the Chinese economy will be on par with that of the US but unlike us, China most certainly has intentions of establishing world dominion. Japan, Taiwan, Australia certainly, but Russia NO! Chinese-Russian Alliance Bashing China on trade, erecting tariffs, stimulating trade sanctions and causing trade disruption is not smart politics nor economics.

I not going to be able to say anything to please you here Farrius. Everything in that post is the result of twisted perceptions and outright fabrications. None of it really has any basis in fact. It's the perfect example of how individuals who possess pure hate for America twist reality to conform to their view of the world. Its unfortunate that you have been indocrinated to actually believe such garbage. Now we know where you get your funny ideas.

Riff, There are certainly times when the US could have done things better, worked to improve the lives of ordinary afghanis for instance. And although US policy has never been perfect, I believe you are inappropriately placing blame on the United state for ultimately fighting the forces that cause the suffering of tens of millions. Our responsibilty was to halt Soviet expansion, not to rebuild counties ravaged by that empire. Bottom line, the US is not responsible for the madrasas that educates young muslims to hate Christians and Jews. The US did not cause Saddam to use WMD or to invade or terrorize his neighbors and his own people. The US is not responsible for the backward, perverted nature of Islam in general. You are part of the "blame America first" crowd and you fail to recognize that the US has been an undeniable force for good in this world dating back decades. Place the blame for human suffering where it belongs, with the evil regimes and dicators the caused it in the first place. What difference does it make? If a nation benifits from US foreign policy, it means that nation has interests in common with the United States. The ultimate aim of American foreign policy has been to ensure the survival and growth of our principles of democracy and freedom, principles that many nations, like S. Korea, have in common with the US. Your argument that the US can only do good if its actions do not benifit itself defies logic.

The Dems will site it as an example of how President Bush is using the war for political purposes. Predictably, this is their modus operandi. God Bless the troops on this Thanksgiving.

Yeah, that's right. Every problem is always the fault of big bad America who speads their wicked influences around the world. You poor ignorant sap. Instead of posting these dopey one liners, why don't you actually try defending your confused view of the world. For starters, answer this: Why don't you tell me exactly how past US actions have resulted in the growth of Islamo-Facist terror around the world. Don't just pull some bull out of your ass, I want historical examples. If you can't handle this, then stay quiet and let one of your colleauges take a stab at it.

I ask that you reevaluate your benevolent view of China. Clearly, China's military would pose little threat to the US if a confrontation occured to today. However, China is closing that gap at a frightening pace and this should not be underestimated. Stolen technology from US corporations and national labs in conjunction with high voume technology transfers from Russia have allowed China to make great strides in areas such as anti-satelite laser systems, airial refueling, ballistic missle guidance, anti-ship missle technology (Russian Sunburn), submarine warefare, nanotechnology, sensor jaming, and miniturization of nuclear weapons among other things. It should be understood that while you may not view China as hostile entity, virtualy every military, poltical, and economical move in China is made within the context of a forward thinking strategy specifically designed to challenge and degrade American dominance, first regionally, then globally. If your interested in gaining another perspective on China, the obvious starting place is "The China Threat" written by Washinton Times national security reporter Bill Gertz. Its a sobering read as his conclusions are supported with declassifed intellegence and other government documents, including PLA white papers obtained from Chinese sources.

Another peice of goody to come through news wires: Durable-Goods Orders Up Sharply Cut spending: definately yes Tarriff barriers, I believe, are only a temporary measure, in the domestic steel industry anyway. Bush is buying for time to allow these operations to moderize so they can compete with subsidized European steel companies. China: of course China represents one of the biggest consumer markets in the world, but the communist nation is potentially very dangerous as it is moderizing at an exponential rate. While it is vital to get China to open up their markets to American goods, it's also very important to keep them in a box. While maybe not on the par of Kim Jung il, China's leadership, especially among military ranks, is extremely beligerent. Double digit increases in military expenditures over the past 10 years sends a clear message that China plans to directly challenge the US, probably in the next 5 to 15 years, most likely over Taiwan.

Calm down Riff, I never made any determination of guilt or innocence. I'm merely making the point that the shifting allegiances of nations over the course of time due to changing geostrategic circumstances does not constitute hypocricy. No, No, and No. I don't know how you could have come to these absurd conclusion based upon what I have said. Incredible. Amazingly, this is not the stupidest thing I've heard all day on this forum. Farrius is trying to say that because the US supports a particular nation while it's an ally and then opposes the same nation once it becomes an enemy, this renders the US guilty of hypocracy. This is nonsense. What course of action would you suggest when a strategic ally morphs into a strategic adversary? The problem here is that you liberals have these fluffy conceptions about how to conduct foreign policy and ensure the future success of the United States amidst a dynamic, chaotic world. So you can quit pooh-poohing me for having a realistic approach to world affairs.

I am almost certain that if the scientific community were to actually study the medical aspects of homosexualty, they would discover that this condition is a mental disorder with biological root causes. I find it rather inconsistent that while transexuality is classified as a mental disorder, homosexuality is not, presumably for reasons of poltical correctness. The two have very similar properties yet the latter is untouchable in the field of disease research. I'm willing to bet that if given the opportunity, most homosexuals would prefer overwhelmingly to be treated for their condition and returned to normalcy. Instead, our culture has grown to encourage these individuals to embrace their malady, which is a disservice to society and to those afflicted.

There is no hypocracy here. Alliances between nations have been forged and broken throughout history as circumstances change. The US alligned itself with the USSR to achieve the common goal of defeating Nazi Germany in WWII, then almost over night repositioned itself in diametric opposition to Soviet power. This is not hypocrasy. Japan Alligned itself with Nazi Germany for the common purpose of defeating the US in WWII, only to become one of Americas stauchest allies years later. This is not hypocracy. The US allied itself with the Mujahiddeen in Afgahnistan to oppose the imperialistic Soviet occupation of that country. After the fall of the Soviet Union, the US later finds itself in oppostion to the government in Afghanistan as a state sponsor and supporter of terror. This is not hypocracy. The US allied itself with Saddam's regime in Iraq to oppose the spreading influence of Islamic fundamentalism in Iran. Later, Iraq becomes an enemy of the US by manufacturing, and using WMD, and for the invasion and pillaging of its neighbor. This is not hypocracy. Your notion of "once in support, always in support" is completely bogus, and so is your bonehead application of history in context to events that occur today.

The revised gross domestic product (GDP), released by the Commerce Department Tuesday, was a full percentage point higher than the 7.2 percent growth rate estimated a month ago. That's right folk's it's 8.2% now... Third-Quarter GDP Revised Full Point Upward

One of the most important points to be made here is: If not Haliburton, then who?

This exact reality was prophesied so accurately in George Orwell's "1984", written 50 years ago (PC = new speak). I'm sure you're familiar with it though. But, did you know there's also a movie based on the novel?!

Since you don't seem to be following the conversation Farrius, let me fill you in. First off, consider the logic of what you're saying here. The US does not fund it's own enemies. We do not fund bin Laden, we do not fund the Taliban, we do not fund Saddam. We are currently locked in a war to destroy these regimes and organizations. Whether or not the US supported said regimes years ago in order to oppose the larger threat of Soviet power/Communism IS TOTALLY IRRELEVANT. The point here is that some European nations are CURRENTLY funding enemies of the United States. Please tell me you see the HUGE difference here?

God knows you're right. A war with Iran at this time is ill advised and essentially impossible. I was speaking more in terms of political and military pressure to stimulate cooperation, covert operations, social influences, etc.

There's no personal attack there, not if you're an admirer of Ted Kennedy. It's all been said. Look, this guy comes to this forum and posts an endless rant covering every topic under the sun, contributing absolutely nothing to the discussion here. And, by the way, I thought I did counter some points, just as you countered mine but i'm not going waste my time reposting economic reports and CIA memos for the benefit of this guy. I have no trouble connecting the dots in front of us, it's just that my picture turned out drastically different from yours. While we both see 5 dots in a ring, I draw a pentagon while you draw a star. My interpretation is simple, rudamentary. While yours is unneccessarily complicated, and requires a slight stretch of the imagination. Not true. Economists Predict Strong Growth in '04 Please, the Taliban are not coming back. Well come on, lets get em. What about WTC 1993? What about middle east links to Oklahoma City. What about the terrorist cells that have been broken and attack plots that have been thwarted since 9/11?

Yeah yeah, everyone knows this, but what's your point here? The Dems are attempting to pervert the rules governing the confirmation of judicial nominees. It makes no difference how many instances they try to do it, the fact is that this action sets an irresponsible precedent. Also, the judges being blocked are not "hardcore judicial activists" like Ruth Bader Ginsgurg who held a position on the National Board of Directors for the ACLU, the single most radical left wing organization in this country. Maybe you don't understand this but being a Christian does not disqualify someone from serving on the federal judiciary. And you want to why that is, because there's a good reason? The Republicans controlled congress for most of Slick Willie's presidency and his nominations were stopped legitimately. The Dems are a MINORITY here. That's very important to understand, liberal. The Republicans never used filibuster tactics to block Clintons judicial nominees. All the Reps want is an up or down vote on these judges. You can't just change the rules when they no longer suit you. The remaining verbal garbage in your post belongs in another thread. Try to stick to the topic at hand.

I'm speechless. All I can say is... Wow! You sound unmistakably like Ted Kennedy in a druken stupor speaking on the Senate floor, red face and all. You exemplify perfectly why the Democrats are a dying breed in this country. Your hysteria and paranoia are palpable. You seriously believe what you say, don't you, all this drivel about cronyism, unelected president, mainstream media unable or afraid, tax cuts for the rich? Come on. When was the last time you picked up a newspaper? If any of this crap you've conjured where actually taking place, the "fearful" media would latch on to it like a gang of sharks reacting to the smell of blood. Economic recovery in full swing, Taliban gone, Saddam gone, 2/3 of Al Qaeda leadership killed or captured, no terrorist attacks on US soil since 9/11. It just irratates the hell out of you liberals that this president has been a resounding success. Dems are loosing govenerships left and right, and are going to experience heavy Senate losses in the South come congressional elections. Frankly, I can't say I feel sorry for ya. As a matter of fact, it's gonna feel real good to rake the liberals over the coals in the comming months and years. I've been trying hard to contact McDermott but his secretary keeps giving me the same old line, that he's too busy assembling car bombs for Iraqi insurgents.

Yeah, I agree Craig. It's a big bill and some of it is definately unwarrented. But that fact that it barely passed the House and the Dems are planning on filibustering the bill in the Senate makes me wonder how many times bigger this deal would be if the Libs could get their way. Some could make the case that Bush is moving to the left here, but I think he's just trying to take this issue away from the Dems come 04.