righturnonred

Probably the most signifcant fact regarding gun control that no one has touched on yet is that, in the US, there are an estimated 2 million defensive uses of handguns each year that effectively prevent crime. A defensive use does not have to involve shooting a perp or even discharging a weapon. Even brandishing a firearm or functioning the slide counts as a defensive use if it prevents a crime. Gun control advocates conveniently omit the tremendously positive effects of defensive hand gun use and look only at incidents in which weapons are involved in crimes or accidents. In college, I investigated the effects of handgun possession on crime rates in the United States in comparison to the UK, a nation in which handguns are outlawed. What I found was that although the US had higher instances of murder, the UK had substantailly higher rates for every other violent crime including rape, burglary, robbery, and car jackings, among others. In fact I found that crime rates are so bad in the UK, that municipal police forces were found to have been falsely classifying crime reports in an effort to artificially reduce violent crime rates. An example of this is classifying a burgarly (a felony) as trespassing (a misdemeanor). During the next year when reporting policies were reformed, violent crime rates effectively doubled from the previous year. Essentially, criminals can have a field day in a country where not even the police are armed. Criminals do not acquire hand guns legally anyway, so prohibiting law abiding citizens from owning hands guns puts everyone at risk.

I think Guilliani definately has the potential to replace Hellary. Guilliani was against a term limit for mayor. And I think he had a bout with prostate cancer at some point. I don't think you've seen the last of him though. By the way, I predict that Hillary will choose to enter the Presidential race at the last possible moment, portraying herself as the savior of the Demoratic party. She will easily win the nomination. She will then choose as her running mate, you guessed it, Wesley Clark, to offset her weekness on national defense. Then you will see the true Hillary as only few people have seen. Her bombastic speaking style pales in comparison only to Hitler's Hillary's goal is to get either herself or GWB elected in 2004. If one of the midget candidates wins in 04, she will be unable to run against an incubant Dem candidate in 08. However, if she runs against GWB in 04 and loses, which would be the case, she can kiss the Presidency goodbye forever.

Take a look at this article in the Washinton Times. It contains excerpts for Zell Miller's (D-GA) new book entitled "A National Party No More: The Conscience of a Conservative Democrat". Sen. Miller is one of the few if not the only Democrat who hasn't completely lost his grip on reality. It's a facinating read. Unfortunately, he is due to retire soon. http://www.washtimes.com/national/20031104...20610-1191r.htm

The problem here is that supporters of the Palestinian cause deny the reasons for occupation in the first place. Bombings are not a result of the occupation. The occupation is the result of bombings. Bombings stop, occupation stops. Occupation stops, bombings continue. That is the reality we're faced with. You cannot deny the true motivations of the Palestinian leadership.

Yes, I've heard the statement and it's ridiculus. Tell me how Isreal posses the biggest threat to world peace. Do they have plans to invade Europe, or just slam planes into skyscapers?

I'm not sure what your point is as it relates to radical Islam except to say that all of these represent dark points in world history. The problems that exists in Black society are cultural, not institutional as many liberals believe. According to the 2000 US Census, married black couples earn on average about 80% of married white couples. That gap is really quite small. However, the census also indicates that 70% of black children are born out of wedlock as compared to 30% of white children. This has implications for several cultural trends that have an overwhelmingly negative effect on that segment of society. Single mothers are many times more likely to live in poverty. This alone brings down the black income statistic dramatically. Just as important is the fact that young black men who grow up without fathers are much more likely to engage in criminal activity. Therefore, because blacks commit a larger proportion of crimes, they account for a larger number of arrests, convictions, and occupied prison cells as a percentage of their population. Although one cannot deny that racism in some form still exists in the US, it is not nearly as widespead as conventionally thought. Institutional racism against minorities is virtually non-existent, in fact it is whites who are often the subject of institutional racism in the form of programs like Affirmative Action. Much of the percieved racism in American society exists only in the minds of minorities who maintain an attitude of victimization. As for the causes of these cultural problems in black society, thats a entirly different subject. However, you can start by taking a look at the role models, images, language, and music in black popular culture. It's effects on young adolecents are no doubt profound.

There is no need for universal health care in the United States. It is a liberal myth that there are great numbers of people in this country who can't afford adequate health care. The largest single segment of the uninsured are young adults, who typically have no need for health care. Virtually all seniors have a health care plan and roughly 80% of them have some sort of prescription drug package. Contrary to liberal misrepresentions, no one who needs health care goes without it in this country. My girl friend, who is an RN, testifies that hospitals will absorb the costs associated with individuals who cannot afford to pay. Its called compassion, and there is a hell of lot more of here than there is in socialist Europe. If you'd rather work 20-30 hour work weeks, spend lazy afternoons lounging at the cafe, live in relative squalor, have the government confiscate 70% of your income in taxes, and provide you with mediocre health care, then thats your prerogative. Just don't thrust that pathetic existence onto me. And another thing. If there are such egregious inequalities in the United States, than why do people from all corners of globe risk their livelyhoods trying to get here? I'll tell you why, because no other place on earth offers the kind of freedom and opportunity that we have here in America. The only thing I want from the government is another round of tax cuts.

Look, I'm not ceeding anything to you. I'm just not sure there is anything left to say so I'll leave it at this. I believe that the primary reason Isreal engages in a heavy handed occupation is to protect it's citizens from the crazies blowing themselves up in cafes and discos. I'm not saying that Isreal can do no bad, but under the circumstances, what would you have them do? It may be true that, in their pursuit of militants, the Isreali military uses excessive force that results in the harm of palestinian bistanders. In our view, this is not equivilant to someone walking onto a bus filled with children on thier way home from school strapped with a bomb, with the full knowledge that they intend to murder innocent people. An action does not constitute a war crime just because civilains die, however, a war crime had been committed if civilians have been intentionally targeted for execution. It's the difference between casualties and murder, simple as that. I believe that in my defense of Isreal, the only western, civilized democracy in the entire region, I am on the right side of the issue. I believe that in your defense of the Palestinians, a group of fanatics willing to martyr themsleves in the name God, you are on the wrong side of this issue. You may reply if you like, but it is clear that we are so far apart on this issue that a compromise can never be reached.

CK, Your post has touched my heart in all the right places and has convinced me that the war in Iraq has been, like Dick Gephardt said, a miserable failure. I never thought it possible, but those excerpts from a readers digest story about the greiving of loved ones over the needless death of American servicemen has fundamentally changed me. I see now that fighting for the security of the United States and, in fact, the future of mankind is not worth the loss of a minimal number of brave American Soldiers who chose to give the ultimate sacrifice to defend the country they love. I realize now that under no circumstances is war justified because it inevitably involves the destruction of property and the loss of human lives. No matter how brutal the regime or how dangerous the dictator, war is never the solution. It should be blatently obvious to anyone that the only way to effectively fight terrorism is to reason with the terrorists and to find out why we make them so mad and what it is we can do to make them happy. They're just human beings like everyone else. It's just that bombing innocent civilians is the only way they can get the rest of the world to pay attention to them, so its OK......right? I'm with CK on this one. As for Craig, Morgan, Hugo, and the rest, you're all just a bunch of racist, ignorant, right-wing bigots.

Although this analysis of the French media is no surprise to me, I find it inconceivable that so many fall victim to this kind of propaganda campaign. I often ask myself why it is that some, such as you and I, are so atuned to reality that these efforts have no effect. I just marvel at the enourmous number of "sheeple" in this world who are willing to completely base their determinations on bias, unreliable sources and hearsay. Goebbels would be proud.

Blackdog, I don't think there is anything that can be said to convince you of the truth. It is clear to any rational thinking person that the Isrealis have made concession after concession and the Palestinians respond with violence everytime. The Isrealis took the first steps in the Roadmap by withdrawing from some occupied areas. Terror groups responded with shootings and suicide bombings. The Palestinian Authority repeatedly refuses to crack down on terror. All you have to do is listen to Arafat speak in Arabic to his own people to discover his real motivations. Since the creation of Isreal, they have repeatedly been the target of unprovoked Arab attacks on all sides. It is clear to everyone except you what is going on here. Your rapist analogy is absurd. The fact that you defend the actions of these people and are some how able to equate suicide bombings with targeted strikes on militants is just disgusting. I refuse to debate someone who possesses this kind of perverted morality.

Just because there are many Jews in Hollyweird and Jewish groups contribute time and money to poltical causes does not demonstrate the existance of a "Zionist" Jew conspiracy. Jews constitute just one of countless special interent groups in the United States that lobby Congress. That is the nature of American politics. We're still not seeing your Jewish conspiracy here. What is quite clear, and evidenced directly from the mouths of countless muslims worldwide, is not a conspiracy, but a concerted effort on part of muslims to eradicate Jews from the middle east if not from the world all together. The Jews are not fighing only for land, but for their very existance.

Completely false, but not according to the mainstream media. Read the entire text of David Kay's recent report to Congress on the search for WMD in Iraq to get the accurate picture. Who cares, going to war was never predicated on establishing this link, although there are known links between Al-Qaeda and Ansar al-Islam, Iraq's domestic terrorist organization. Besides, Saddam has been a longtime supporter of international terrorism in general. Iraq is but a battle in the war on terrorism. A ridiculas statement. The majority of Iraqis are clearly supportive of the occupation. It is a handful of Baathist remnants and foreign insurgents causing trouble, not ordinary Iraqis. A recent household survey of Baghdad conducted by Zogby concluded that nearly 2/3 of Iraqis want US troops to remain for a year or more. Their biggest fear is the reconstitution of Saddam's regime of terror. This war is not against Islam, it is directed at the relatively small group of radical fundamentalists who have hijacked that religion. No one, except you apparently, has suggested that conducting mass genocide against 1.5 billion Muslims worldwide is the aim of this campaign against terror, or is for that fact, an idea even being entertained. Where in the Koran does it say Iraqis cannot celebrate the liberation of their own country from an evil dictator? As with the Bible, or any other religious text, an individual can derive whatever "teachings" suit them. This phenomenon was responsible for the Christian Crusades centuries ago and it responsible for the Islamic jihad, or "holy war", that is occuring today. And once again, here comes the sixty-four thousand dollar question: What course of action are liberals suggesting to rectify the situation? The American people have grown tired of baseless liberal accusations about the evil transgresions of Little King Bushy, or whatever you people refer to him as.

Absolutely. The military needs to take off the kid gloves and finish the job. However, I trust the Republican Guard about as far as I can through them. WMD intellegence needs to be uncovered as soon as possible in order to vindicate the administration. Thats not to say we neccesarily need to find weapons, but at least information about active weapons programs. That will be satisfactory for the American people. As for Islam being a "religion of peace". I don't think Nuclear is completly off base. Islam, as it stands now, has serious problems as a whole. While the number of radicals that participate in attacks is relatively small, there exist hunderds of millions of people within that faith who celebrate the attacks on Isreal and United States. From a young age, Islamic children are indoctrinated to hate the Western non-believers. Some of them eventually become radicalized enough to commit acts of barbarism in the name of God. A major problem I have with Islam as a whole is that none of them are willing to denounce the acts of terrorism. And it doesn't qualify if someone, such as Arafat, condemns in English and encourages in Arabic. Its happens all the time. No, there is a systemic problem at the very root of Islam. With that said, the majority of the world's roughly 1.5 billion Muslims are decent, peace loving people.

I remember in college, my international business professor once told the class that "bringing democracy to a islamic nation has never succeeded", to which I responded, "Where has it ever been tried". He paused and thought hard for moment. The only example he could come up with was...the Shaw of Iran? What? Those kinds of exchanges were typical. Needless to say he didn't like me very much and you can bet my grade suffered because of it. The bastard gave me a B-, how thoughtful of him.

Hugo, Save yourself the headache and stop wasting your time. This situation represents the enevitable conclusion to a debate with a liberal. At some point you just have through up your hand and say, "thats it, you can't say I didn't try" Blackdog, Yes, the Palestinians are subjected to repression at the hands of Isrealis, and yes the Isrealis should dismantle the jewish settlements. But, the Palestinians can choose to stop the repression and begin rebuilding there society. How? stop the incesent terrorist attacks. No matter how much wrong doing you percieve on behalf of the Isrealis, you cannot equate collateral casualties with the intentional slaughter of random innocent civilians. The palestinians choose not to join the human race not because they have no alternative to combat Isreali agression, but because their true goal is to literally drive Isreal into the sea. They don't want to negotiate, they don't want to live in peace with jews, they want to kill jews, they want them gone from the face of the planet, that is all. How many cease fires have been broken unilaterally by Palestinian suicide bombings? And I'm sure I've just wasted my time.

It sounds like you think "jews rule the world by proxy" and "get others to do their fighting for them". Hmm, where have I heard that recently?

I think that the motives of terrorists, while cloaked in the name of Islamic fundamentalism, are actually poltical. The upper echelons of the terrorist infrastructure uses warped interpretations of wahabism and other radical forms of Islam to brainwash socially repressed, hate filled young men into commiting violent acts in the name of Allah. It is truly cowardly. The animals are a disease and they must be exterminated, even if it must be a perpetual effort.

Like the Canadian Parliment, the US Congress does routinely vote it's self pay increase for a job left undone although there has been some backlash in recent years among the constituents of some Congressmen. These people aren't suppose to be in public service for the money. I don't know how difficult it is for you folks to obtain US citizenship but you should try. We can always use a few more Canadian conservatives. Most immigrants to the US arrive here completly unaware of the political climate and end up being endoctrinated by the left. Come fight for a system that still has a chance!

The upcoming Reagan hit piece produced by CBS is but one example that illustrates the intensifying nature of liberal media bias as those in contol become increasingly desperate as they see their power slipping away. This particular example shows that not only does their bias penatrate news reporting, but also Hollyweird and entertainment. Polls show that journalists in the news media vote overwhelmingling for democratic cadidates, some 85% percent. Its ridiculas to assume that these people possess a level of objectivity that prevents their bias views from bleeding into their reporting. The radicalized nature of Hollyweird is self-evident. Conservative television and radio broadcasters, unlike liberals, do not attempt to conceal their political leanings. And in fact they understand that it is impossible for them to be completely objective in reporting and analysing news. This is why conservatives in media are more apt to provide balance to their own views and consequently, this is what Americans find so refreshing about "new" media such as Fox News and conservative talk radio. I never implied that my views were indicative of the "mainstream". I am simply decrying that fact that because liberals in the media portray themsleves as moderate, it has the effect of marginalizing conervatives. In other words, liberal try to shift the politcal spectrum so that liberals appear moderate and conservatives appear in the margin. While certainly a conservative by definition is not moderate, the typical conservative sit much closer to the middle than the average modern liberal. Bill Kristol is a brilliant conservative, and while he has never denied the existence of liberal bias, I disagree with this statement.

Look, you can believe what you like but the reality is that the mainstream television and print media, which are by far the primary means of decimination, have an undeniable liberal slant. Some liberal news personalities admit this while the vast majority live in a state of denial. Bill Oreilly and Fox News are an aberation in television news media. Radio broadcasting, unlike liberal controlled network television, operates in a free market environment, meaning that sydicators will air what ever brings in ratings regardless of ideology. The list of failed liberal talk shows is long and distinguished. Consevatives dominate the internet, again, because it is a free market for ideas. The traditional liberal establishment controls 90% of newspapers in the America, a trend that has been unchanged for 50 years. Papers such as the Washington Times and the Wall Street Journal are some of the few exceptions. Maybe it doesn't bother you, but is irratates the hell out of me day after day to see opinions from the op-ed sections bleed into the news pages. You, as a partisan liberal, are simply unable to see the bias because from your perpective, you consider your views, which are vastly represented in the mainstream media, to be the "mainstream" of political thought in this country. In fact, your views, represented by the mainstream press, are far to the left from that of most Americans. This also serves a dual purpose of appearing to marginalize conservative views. But, these trends are rapidly changing as Americans realize that the news reported by the mainstream press is often inaccurate. This is highlighted by decreased network new viewership, and decreased subscriptions to liberal slanting newspapers. Accompanying this trend is the tremendous growth of Fox News and radio talk shows, and successful internet newpapers such as World Net Daily which are alternative sources of information. Don't be so arrogant as to tell me I'm "confused" and that I'm seeing a phantom, because it's you who can't properly determine where your views fit on the political spectrum.

This is very true. You should read some literature during the period after the end of WWII during the reconstruction of war torn Germany and Japan. It is utterly shocking to see the uncanny similarities between what comentators said about the future of reconstuction is those countries as compared to the same kind of negative speculation we are hearing today. Excluding references to Germany specifically, you could simply mistake what was written in the late 1940's for modern day columns describing the failing reconstruction efforts in Iraq. There is no doubt that success in Iraq will eventually be achived but it will take time. Bush had no qualms when he said we're in it for the long haul and that the path would not be easy.

Just to elaborate on Craig's post: The top 10% of wage earners in the US pay 50% of a ferderal income taxes. The Top 1% of wage earners pay nearly 10% of all federal income taxes. This doesn't even include factors such as death tax and capital gains tax, both of which constitute double taxation. Furthermore, if you think the top 10% is made up mostly of millionaires, you're wrong. A duel income household with combined annual earnings of just $96,000 falls within the top 10% of wage earners. The way I see it, the "rich" are already paying more than their fair share in taxes. In addition, there are millions of Americans who don't pay any income taxes at all. We don't want a system of blatent income redistribution here in America. Its bad for business as they say. Like Canada, California is also on the verge of being transformed into a proto-Marxist state (i.e. out of control taxation and spending, pseudo one party system, etc.) We'd like to beat back the flames of hell in that state if you don't mind. (no pun intended)

This is exaclty why Rush is sydicated on 600 radio stations nation wide and has an audience of roughly 20 million listeners. And this is also why liberals are totally unable to compete in the free market realm of radio broadcasting.

I don't believe this. Read my last paragraph liberal. You actually went out of your way to prove my point. You have just attacked my character because you disagree with my views. Tolerent my ass. This is exactly the reason why your party is in complete shambles. You comdemn and demonize everything and every one on the right yet you offer no solutions of your own. Typical liberal demagoguery. And stop regurgitating this liberal crap about the biggest deficit in history. The current deficit as a percentage of GDP, which anybody in a freshman ecomonics course will tell you, does not even come close to the largest in history. Listen closely smartness, you cannot compare 2003 dollars with 1990 dollars or 1980 dollars, OK? Get this through you thick skull.