I would. The difference being you are rational and couch your arguements so.

I don'T see how the actions of a single criminal can be used to define a whole political party? I think your greatly jump to conclusions.



If that is true, then I don't accept those claims. Because I know the republican-controlled media would simply jump at the chance to prove that the democrat PARTY is doing those kind of highly illegal activities.

If the only thing you have is some isolated rogue-examples, then... It would be just as presposterous than to believe that the examples of republican illegal activites is the norm.

???????????????

Fox News

Sweet!   

~Zoo

lets see one media outlet versus what 500 or more. yep lots of info getting out there by these so called republican controlled media outlets.

Well, Fox News is still the strongest mass-media in the U.S.A, that can potentially (and actually) reaches way more people than a lot of other papers or t.v. programs, and it strongly GOP-oriented.

And I wasn't saying that ALL medias are republican-controlled, but some are. And those would have jumped at the opportunity to frame (with basis) the Democrat party.

Uh no. Even though they are greatly diminished, the Major Networks still far out poll anything on cable.

And I know you are going to disagree, but the reason that Fox became #1 in cable is due to the fact that at least when reporting news (not commentary), they try to be unbiased. That cannot be said for most of the other outlets.

Republican controlled media does not belong in the same paragraph. ABC, CBS, NBC, all reach more people than fox does all three are slanted left, CBS is slanted so far left they should be part of the DNC. CNN and Msnbc while not reaching even close to fox news still are slanted left, so out of the 6 major news carriers 5 are slanted left, so where do you come up with 'republican controlled media from"?

Actually, the efforts of Democrats to herd bodies to the polls on election day, as opposed to getting them properly registered in advance, and to commit voter fraud are well-documented, as far back as 1960's presidential campaign & the delivery of the presidency to Kennedy by Mayor Daley's Chicago political machine using thousands of votes from the nonexistent & the dead, not to mention as many members of the midnight choir as they could rustle up.

They subscribe to the "better to ask for forgiveness than permission" school of ethics - throw as much at the wall as possible on the assumption that more will stick that way.

truth usually is.

Lets look at it this way. How many parents you know are aware of the bad things their children do outside the house? Personally I know none since they all seem to think that their children are incapable of doing wrong. Catch my drift?

No I've not left the building. I'm still left! ok, bad joke.
Dr Guy:
Thank you for the lesson in civics. Yes, I knew it was in the Const., you caught me generalizing. The bigger picture and the point was that the rule should be changed allowing illigal alien children to be US citizens. They broke the law coming here so let's reward them by giving their children citizenship. That's brilliant. The same goes for the conjigal visits allowed in prisons. The State has to pay for some scumbag to have a baby in prison and pay for that baby.

Chales CS1 and everyone else: If there are Mexicans or whoever crossing our border then I say shoot them. And if they don't get shot, use them to build the fence, electify it, and throw them back over. Or would you rather one of them park a nuclear warhead in our backyard? You say it would just be using slavery and i'm being hypocritical. They are criminals the instant they cross the border illegally. What is the differnce between slave labor and prison labor? Not much. Society says there is a difference. Want to talk about a drain on our government then look at the prison system that does nothing to prevent crime. Look at the burden illegal aliens are putting on us. I would do away with the prison system we have now. Take out all the tv's and basketball courts and the rest of it. Instead, prisons should have cells where the prisoners are given bread and water. They get to go outside to bust rocks. If you are caught crossing the border illegally then you get to help build the fence. If you commit a murder then you don't get to go outside and break rocks. You get to spend the rest of your days rotting, surviving on bread and water until they have to drag you out. If you hire an illegal alien then not only do you go to my aforementioned jail, but you also pay for them to go back, and get fined $20,000 a head. Then I would enforce it! It is a shame it has come to this. This is what happens when governments become awash in their own beauracracy. If the government would enforce the laws that already exist then this wouldn't be a problem, but that's a different argument. If the justice system promoted justice then there would be no mafia.

And if i'm generalizing then forgive me. Look at the bigger picture here. At least i've given solutions.

and forgive my not spellchecking.

Thank you for the lesson in civics. Yes, I knew it was in the Const., you caught me generalizing. The bigger picture and the point was that the rule should be changed allowing illigal alien children to be US citizens. They broke the law coming here so let's reward them by giving their children citizenship. That's brilliant. The same goes for the conjigal visits allowed in prisons. The State has to pay for some scumbag to have a baby in prison and pay for that baby.

One of the brilliant aspects of the Constitution is the abilty for it to be amended.  I am sure that none of the founding fathers thought at the time, that citizenship would be used as it is today by illegals.  We can change it, I just dont think we have the will to do so.  And I tend to agree that it does need to be changed for this very reason.

Yes, but not necessarily more and more of them.

Perhaps you understand why George Bush might make grammar mistakes every now and then, given that you are also prone to them.

"More and more ships are sailing on the sea."

(True statement about the state of ocean travel, compared to earlier times. Yet ships are always sailing on the sea.)

"More and more human beings live on earth."

(Also true, says something about the number of people on the planet. Yet no human being lives outside earth.)




Ask Bill Clinton. It was his administration who created the "lie". I still believe that they had credible information.

The original "lie":

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=27367_Al_Gores_Hypocrisy_Revealed&only

I agree with what he says there.

Are you saying that George W. Bush shouldn't have believed it?

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=27367_Al_Gores_Hypocrisy_Revealed&only

In fact, this man makes an excellent case against Iraq and Saddam Hussein. A good public speaker, Al gore.

those kind of things makes me thank God that people such as you are not in power.

So you would simply shoot Mexican citizens on the basis of.. public trespassing?

Want a war with your fries?

well, that *was* 8(9?) years before G.W.B, and about 10 years before the actual attack of Iraq.

And at the time, Saddam Hussein was proved to have chemical weaponry stocks, and Scud Missiles.

Hower, things have changed between 1992 and 2002, and U.N. inspectors could not say that Saddam Hussein actually owned any WDM anymore. That is why this whole case is just another desperate lie invented by democrat-bashers.

Good. Let's take that as a starting point.




However, the cease-fire agreement obligated Saddam to PROVE that he didn't own them any more.

I therefor claim that

a) Since the inspectors "could not say", Saddam failed to prove that he didn't have WMDs any more.

Since he failed to do what the cease-fire agreement demanded of him, he broke the cease-fire agreement.

c) Since he was known to have WMDs and it was never shown that he didn't have them any more, the assumption that he still had them was a valid one.




"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seing and developing weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002.

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002.

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force — if necessary — to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002.

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction. "[W]ithout question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. And now he has continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ...
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/wmdquotes.asp

And before you say that these Democrats all fell victim to a lie George Bush told them in the one year he was in office between 2001 and 2002:

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999.

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998.

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998.


Tell me, was all that a Bush lie? Everything the Democrats believed from 1992 to 2003 was merely something Bush lied about?

Democrats kept telling us that Saddam Hussein had WMDs starting in 1992 to discredit the Bush administration (and rightfully so) through the 1990s to 2002 and now pointing out that it was not Bush Junior who invented this "lie" is a "desperate lie invented by Democrat bashers"?

Interesting.

Did Nancy Pelosi lie when she claimed, in 1998, that Saddam has been engaged in the development of WMDs?

Did Hillary Clinton lie when she claimed that intelligence has shown that Saddam "has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program"? That was in 2002. It took Bush merely one year to convince her of the great lie, a lie that John Kerry already believed in 1998.

Wow!

I got it!

Saddam completely disarmed in 2000. Hence everyone claiming that he had WMDs before 2000 was not a liar, while everybody who made the same claim since 2001 was either a liar on Bush's side or a Democrat cleverly deceived by Bush's lies.

I surrender,

however, it simply proves just how incompetent USA's intelligence network is, since none WMD were ever discovered

and british and the united nations.

And France and Germany and every other country which spoke up.

But now that the issue of Bush's lie is settled, let's take a look at "Republicans aka fascists".

In the long history of the Democratic party, Democrats have:

- supported and fought for slavery

- founded the Ku-Klux-Klan

- insisted that race should be taken into account by government

- fought gigantic rabbits

- tried to stop a Republican administration from deposing a fascist dictator in Iraq


But what exactly have Republicans done to justify being associated with fascism?

Jimmy Carter on the nephew and protegee of SS bigwig Amin Al-Husayni (below shown talking with Hitler about the Jewish question):

“He was the father of the modern Palestinian nationalist movement. A powerful human symbol and forceful advocate, Palestinians united behind him in their pursuit of a homeland. While he provided indispensable leadership to a revolutionary movement and was instrumental in forging a peace agreement with Israel in 1993, he was excluded from the negotiating role in more recent years.”

http://www.jimena.org/faq/images/mufti_husseini_hitler.jpg


President Carter proudly recommends an SS protegee and leader of a "nationalist movement", despite the fact that apart from being a fascist (which Carter has no problem with) he was also a terrorist, child murderer (not accidental but targeting), and an enemy of the United States.


Nancy Pelosi, in the mean time, visits Syria, against the wishes of the President, and despite the fact that the US are cutting ties with the (enemy) country and despite the fact that European governments are still trying to get Syria to deport a number of surviving Nazi leaders that have lived there under the protection of Syria's Nazi governments since 1946.