The country is 50/50

[schrackman]

Ray, You're right I guess the war was justified since only about 15.000 civilians were killed. My Bad.

And my dam kids. Both are straight A students and they are waisting their time trying to go to colleges like Columbia or Johns Hopkins. I'll have to talk to them. And Ray while you are at it why don't you contact the Republican party since they must of missed the reports of 100,000 people dieing. Since they never disputed the findings.

Hi Gerry,

I'm not saying the war is justified on the basis of numbers. Any war is bad, no matter the reason for going to war, simply because we know people are going to die and that just isn't a good thing. But I think sometimes we just have to look at the bigger picture, Gerry, and hope that some good can come out of such evil. Lots of people died in WWII, but because of that war Germany and Japan are now peaceful countries as opposed to brutal regimes. Lots of people died during the American Revolution, but out of that war came a great nation independent of an oppressive England. Lots of people died in the civil war, but the result of that war was an end to slavery. Were the achievements of these wars worth the loss of life? I'll let you decide that for yourself.

I'll make this my ending statments, since some here don't care too much for two guys going at it with different views I don't like the fact of the U.S. being at war any more than you, but the fact is we are there. And since we are there I think it is imperative that we pray for our troops to be successful and accomplish their mission as quickly as is possible, and support them and our commander-in-chief in every way, and not make their job more difficult by perpetuating division in this country. That doesn't do them any good, and it certainly doesn't do our nation any good either. At least that is my opinion.

Perhaps the reason I'm not as concerned about all this is because the Lord gives me peace no matter what is going on in the world. He's taught me that this world will always be in chaos until he returns to establish his own government of peace. So I'll definitely keep you in my prayers as well, Gerry, that the Lord would give you peace about it too.

God bless,

Ray

[schrackman]

You're right. We didn't give a rats ass when terrorists blew up planes or buildings in their countries.... It had to hit us in the face first. Remember all the whining republicans when the former president tried to go after bin laden (twice, that we know about)? Or the republican whining when Clinton went into the balkans to stop mass genocide?

Hi darkman,

Actually, I really think we did care when these things happened. The difference is, they were dealt with in an entirely different, not to mention ineffective, way. If our policies were working then, why didn't these same policies prevent 911? The policies that are in place now, however, seems to be working. In fact the worst Bin Laden has been able to muster up in our borders since 911 and before the election are videotapes.

As for Clinton going into the balkans let it be remembered that unlike Bush, Clinton didn't even bother to attempt getting UN approval. Who's the cowboy?

I'm having problems with your second statement. It's probably true in absolute dollars. I'm not convinced this is true in dollars per capita. Remember, us americans want to spend trillions of dollars to fight terrorists and we want tax cuts too. Military spending is more than twice the next two cattegories combined. btw.

In case you've forgotten, the security of the United States and protection of its citizens is the foremost responsibility of the federal government. That is where our tax dollars SHOULD be going. The problem we have today is that for the past 70 or so years the federal government has expanded its role in areas where it has no constitutional authority, such as welfare, social security, prescription drugs, healthcare, and other such social programs, and we are paying for it with a HUGE federal income tax burden. Here's an interesting link to the history of taxes in America: http://www.treas.gov/education/fact-...es/ustax.shtml

I say, let's cut all our taxes until the federal government has nothing left but to spend on those things of which it is authorized to do constitutionally. The states can take care of the other things. And where it concerns charitable programs, that can be left up to individual people and organizations, where it belongs. Yeah, that's the Libertarian in me speaking, hehe.

And what about the american press? Look how hard the the republicans and press went after clinton for getting oral sex (concentually).

They didn't go after him for oral sex, they went after him for lying about it. If Clinton didn't want this kind of attention, he should exercised a bit more self control, especially in a federal building! Don't you think? That would have kept him safe no doubt. Given the fact that he was the guy who's at the top of the chain for executing the law, he shouldn't have perjured himself. But that's precisely what he did and he paid a pretty little price for it. Perhaps next time he'll think twice before he tries fornicating around with another intern.

Now, the current comander and chief won't stand up and take responsability for Abu (among other things and as a ceo of any company would have to). Instead, he shuffled this around his cabinet, and now to just a couple of privates and first leuitenants. The press is so worried about being percieved as patriotic that they just let this become backpage news. So we have pow's being sodomized, among many other things, as OK, and clinton getting a #$ as the end of the world so we needed to impeach him. The list with bush goes on. He's as bad as slippery dick. Fortunately, for him - as he wanted, go read his comments from his days as gov or rove's comments - he got his war.

I'm not sure if you're aware of this, but there was already an internal investigation going on before the media broke with the story on Abu. So how much more responsibility do you expect the president to take? You speak that he should take as much as any ceo, but what more can a ceo do about employees doing things without his knowlede other than start and investigation and, after finding the individuals responsible, punish them for what they did? I know you'd love to see a scandal in all this that would point to Bush, but please, try and be a bit more fair in your thinking. If there was any scandal at all, Bush couldn't have gotten away with it any more than Clinton did with his little sex romp with Monica.

Then the news tells us bush got elected on moral values? Who's are those?

Obviously, the values of those who elected him. Don't you find it strange that people didn't vote for Kerry because of HIS moral values? Perhaps that's because people didn't perceive him to have any.

What happened to his promise after he lost to gore? You know, the one about bringing americans together? He's sure done a good job at polarized us even more.

Nonsense. The country was divided before Bush got into office. Look at the last election, and the voting results will tell you that. And Bush had an uphill battle in keeping his promise simply because the Democrats attacked him on every point, calling him a liar, incompetent, deceptive. Remember when Hillary got up before Congress and basically accused Bush of knowing about 911 before it happened and not doing anything about it? Remember when Kennedy got up before Congress and claimed the president told "Lie after lie after lie after lie"? Perhaps you can tell me how a president can effect unity in a country when he has to contend with constant attacks of that nature? If you ask me, it is the liberals who are the most divisive people in this country.

By the way, the recent voting results demonstrate to us that Bush hasn't divided the country anymore than it already was four years ago before he got elected. In fact, the votes reveal there is a very slight improvement his way. I wonder if you'll credit him for that?

Ray

[yaronsh]

Actually, I really think we did care when these things happened. The difference is, they were dealt with in an entirely different, not to mention ineffective, way. If our policies were working then, why didn't these same policies prevent 911?

The simple answer is that BUSH SHELVED THOSE POLICIES, and closed his eyes and ears to all the increasingly urgent warnings.

If Gore had been president - if Bush had not been installed by the Supreme Court - there is a fair chance that 9-11 would not have happened.

- Yaron

[paulnj]

Ray..

I will sum up my perception of the election

Middle america MUST believe that "THE WAR ON TERROR" is Iraq?

People think that Iraq MADE the gas we gave them

People think RELIGION should be allowed in MY GOVERNMENT

People want there haliberton stocks to rise

People didn't want KERRY as a democrat(sad excuse to me)

and ....

Some people actually BELIEVE the news and what they read as TRUTH ;)

[schrackman]

The simple answer is that BUSH SHELVED THOSE POLICIES, and closed his eyes and ears to all the increasingly urgent warnings.

Yaron, the policies weren't working. The terrorists kept plotting and executing their plans despite the policies already in place, till they brought down the twin towers. That made the U.S. rethink its policies. Go after the terrorists before they get to us again. And it's working. Besides, the Clinton Administration (as did even the Reagan administration) knew full well the danger for 8 years before the Bush Administration and despite all the tough talk on the dems side before Bush was elected they never did anything of substance to really go after terrorists. So this is a shared responsibility and failure on the part of both democrats and republicans. Don't let the dems make you think otherwise. Our entire government failed us for too long, not just one person at one moment in time.

If Gore had been president - if Bush had not been installed by the Supreme Court - there is a fair chance that 9-11 would not have happened.

Question...if the Supreme Court had ruled Gore's way and Gore won the election, I wonder if you'd apply the same standard to Gore and claim him to have been installed by the Supreme Court?? Probably not.

Isn't politics fun?

Ray

[adina]

My last political comment....

Gore had the popular vote. In a country where the people supposedly elect it's leader, a select few made the decision. The only positive about this election is that the person who had the popular vote was elected.

[schrackman]

Ray..

I will sum up my perception of the election

Middle america MUST believe that "THE WAR ON TERROR" is Iraq?

People think that Iraq MADE the gas we gave them

People think RELIGION should be allowed in MY GOVERNMENT

People want there haliberton stocks to rise

People didn't want KERRY as a democrat(sad excuse to me)

and ....

Some people actually BELIEVE the news and what they read as TRUTH ;)

Interesting perception, Paul. Not really reflective of why I voted for Bush, but interesting nonetheless.

By the way, religion in government has never been the problem. Governmental establishment of a state religion and laws regarding it was the problem. That's why we have a first amendment, to prohibit government intereference and grant religious freedom.

Ray

[yaronsh]

Yaron, the policies weren't working. The terrorists kept plotting and executing their plans despite the policies already in place, till they brought down the twin towers. That made the U.S. rethink its policies.

You would have had a point had Bush shelved Clinton's policies (and research-based suggestions for progressing further) in order to institute his own policies. He shelved Clinton's policies and instituted nothing instead. That is, until 9/12/01. Then he suddenly and haphazardly implemented everything at once, and then some.

Question...if the Supreme Court had ruled Gore's way and Gore won the election, I wonder if you'd apply the same standard to Gore and claim him to have been installed by the Supreme Court?? Probably not.

Gore fought for counting the FL votes as properly and completely as possible, so that we can at least come closer to knowing who actually won FL. Bush fought against any recounting, so that he can just claim the throne.

- Yaron

[Gerry Widen]

The bush administration is fully responsible for what happened 9/11. It happened under his watch and if he was a man he would have taken responsibility.

Apart from the above the Clinton Administration was successful repelling terrorist attacks. Firstly the 1993 WTC bombing happened approx the same time into his presidency as did the attacks 9/11 for bush. The difference Clinton took responsibility, caught and jailed those responsible and eliminated all future attacks during his presidency. When the Cole was bombed he took action and sent cruise missiles to Afghanistan going after Bin Laden. Unfortunately the missiles missed. On two occasions the Clinton Administration stopped terror attacks in this country. He stopped an attempt to bomb the Los Angeles airport during the year 2000 celebration. Not only were they stopped but also jailed. There was also an attempt by terrorists to enter the country either in Maine or New Hampshire. Our border guards stopped middle eastern men with a trunk load of plastic explosives.

Now to bush.

1.During the transition period Clinton tried to arrange a personal meeting with bush to discuss specifically terrorist threats. He tried on a few occasions to have a meeting. bush declined.This is verified from Clinton memo's and notes and conversations with other Clinton staffers.

2. On five different occasions the acting head of the FBI contacted Attorney General Ashcroft to warn him about information the FBI had concerning terror attacks. The AG never acted on any of the warnings. On the sixth attempt Ashcroft replied I'm not interested in any more notices about terror attacks don't send me any more. All during this time the terrorists were learning how to fly planes and refused to learn how to land. The FBI was attempting to convey this among other things to Ashcroft.

3. On August 6th 2001 bush was handed a memo (while on a month long vacation in Texas) that "Bin Ladin was planning an imminent attack in the US using airplanes". The bush administration did nothing (obviously) about this memo.

4 Richard Clarke the person responsible for terrorism during the Clinton Administration and into the first few months of the bush administration consistently warned the new administration about the potential for terror attacks. He was promptly fired and not replaced.

5. Once the first tower was attacked bush was immediately notified and did nothing. If he acted at once the attack on the second tower possibly could of been avoided (there was 20 minutes to do something. Even after the 2nd tower was attacked bush continued to read for an additional 5 minutes of so so the terrorists had time to attack the Pentagon. If if wasn't for the brave passengers on the plane that crashed in Pennsylvania the White House probably would of been attacked. bush certain ally wasn't going to do anything.

It is pretty evident to me which presidency was more responsible for the 3000 lives that were lost. bush and his administration acted in a totally irresponsible manner before, during and and after the attacks. If he had a conscience he would feel responsible instead of blaming the Clinton Administration.

And to get off the terrorist responsibility just look at what is happening to the economy while again bush does nothing. Again The Dollar

[schrackman]

You would have had a point had Bush shelved Clinton's policies (and research-based suggestions for progressing further) in order to institute his own policies. He shelved Clinton's policies and instituted nothing instead. That is, until 9/12/01. Then he suddenly and haphazardly implemented everything at once, and then some.

Well if this is how you see things, let me ask you...are you just as upset with the Clinton administration for not implementing these very same policies you say that they came up with? They had eight years in office, and they implemented nothing either. So it is as I said, no one person takes the blame for all this. We can play the blame game all we want, but that only goes to further divide this country.

Gore fought for counting the FL votes as properly and completely as possible, so that we can at least come closer to knowing who actually won FL. Bush fought against any recounting, so that he can just claim the throne.

Ah, yes, Al believed every vote counted. Tell that to the military of 4 years ago and see if you'll convince them.

Ray

[yaronsh]

Well if this is how you see things, let me ask you...are you just as upset with the Clinton administration for not implementing these very same policies you say that they came up with? They had eight years in office, and they implemented nothing either.

He did certainly implement effective policies, as pointed out as well in Gerry Widen's post. And, in his second term, his administration did something that the Bush administration is chronically incapable of doing: Research. His research yielded additional suggestions to fight terror even more effectively - but, as I explained in our pre-election thread, his term was nearing its end, and he did not want to hand the next president a war. So he handed the next president the plans, as well as his counter-terrorism head (Clarke). Bush turned a completely blind eye.

- Yaron

[schrackman]

Gerry, I won't respond to your above post because I mentioned I wouldn't.

However, for the sake of balance I would like to offer a link regarding your last statement about the dollar because you only seem to concentrate on the negative while ignoring the positive. So please visit http://gbr.pepperdine.edu/041/devaluation.html for some balance on that issue.

Ray

[schrackman]

He did certainly implement effective policies, as pointed out as well in Gerry Widen's post. And, in his second term, his administration did something that the Bush administration is chronically incapable of doing: Research. His research yielded additional suggestions to fight terror even more effectively - but, as I explained in our pre-election thread, his term was nearing its end, and he did not want to hand the next president a war. So he handed the next president the plans, as well as his counter-terrorism head (Clarke). Bush turned a completely blind eye. - Yaron

Yaron, I could post link after link after link refuting your (and Gerry's) enamored view of Clinton and his policies/actions against terrorism. Not to mention his giving high tech communications systems to Syria, a nation that sponsors terrorism. But where does that get us? Nowhere. When you recognize that our government as an entity, and not just as a party line here or party line there, is responsible for the lack of this nation's security, you'll be a whole lot better off because then you won't be so partisan about it and will be able to see the bigger picture.

Let me explain something to you...if our federal government wasn't so bogged down the past half century with all the issues in which it has no constitutional authority, perhaps it would have been able to focus entirely on its primary constitutional objective: the security of this nation. And perhaps 911 would have been prevened. The problem isn't a single president, it's our overgrown federal government which has its hands into too many issues it has no business in. And this is a problem that transcends every administration, republican and democrat alike.

I know you and many others would love to blame Bush entirely, but in doing so you reveal that not only are you unfair in your judgment, but you are also incapable of looking beyond the past four years and seeing the real problem on account of your loyalty to whatever political bias you adhere to. Now if we could change this mentality on both sides, then I think we could see some real progress in this country.

Ray

[paulnj]

"That's why we have a first amendment, to prohibit government intereference and grant religious freedom."

AMEN!!!!

[adina]

Wow, Paul.

While everyone was busy arguing politics, you hit the big 1000. You'll have to have Nat show you the secret handshake

[Dzerzhinski46]

I know you and many others would love to blame Bush entirely, but in doing so you reveal that not only are you unfair in your judgment, but you are also incapable of looking beyond the past four years and seeing the real problem on account of your loyalty to whatever political bias you adhere to. Now if we could change this mentality on both sides, then I think we could see some real progress in this country.

Ray

Dear Ray,

You have made an excellent point. Our problem is not as you pointed out, "administrations", it is far more subtle than that. One of the root causes to our problems with terrorists is our involvement with Israel, both financial and military. The Arab nations have long been angered by our support of Israel, and it has just now boiled over. The opinion that we are "depriving" the Palestinians of their ancient homeland has been ground into the Arab mind since the mid Fifties. Another smaller catalyst to our problem is our image in the Middle East. Because of our unwarrented (at least to the Arab mind) interference in the Middle East, and our legacy in Iran, this has left a deep impression in the Middle East of the "Great Satan" image.This is a long term problem, and part of the solution is a more stable Middle East. How this could be acheived is up to the individual. I am not going to start a raging argument over Iraq, that has been argued for a thousand times.

I think that at this time it would serve our country the most if we set aside our differences and worked everything out. What our country needs most is unity. Unity in the desire to compromise, unity in the desire to build a better country, with everyone working towards the immortal goal of "liberty and justice for all". Unless we all work together on this, we will never have this. It is only through the ultimate reconciling power of Jesus Christ that we can then have justice for the poor and outcast, reconciliation with our enemies, and peace on Earth.

Peace to you all,

Dzerzhinski

"Now to Him who is able do exceedinly abundantly beyond anything we could ask or even imagine according to the power that is at work in us, to Him be the glory in the church and in Christ Jesus...Amen" Ephesians 3:20,21

[schrackman]

To the new 1000+ posts club! I'm not even halfway there. Well, almost there.

Ray

"That's why we have a first amendment, to prohibit government intereference and grant religious freedom."

AMEN!!!!

[schrackman]

Drew,

You make some good observations. But I fear that 1) liberals in or out of office will never cooperate to create a unified country. They had an opportunity to do so with the Bush administration for the last four years but instead they chose to attack the president every step of the way, even after they promised to stand with the president after 911 happened. It was a good show on the steps of the white house, but it was all lip service. However, we just may see a more civil four years ahead of us. At least we can pray that will happen.

2) I agree the Arabs hate the U.S. for our support of Israel. They hate Israel even more, and they will not stop till they have destroyed the Jews. What I think will eventually happen is that somehow Israel will be persuaded to merge with the Palestinians as a single state under the guise of peace and an end to all strife. I think Israel will be greatly weakened by this unification, and then without warning they will be pounded into the ground by a massive military attack from all sides. But of course if you know your Bible, you know exactly what I am talking about and what would occur immediately after that.

Ray

Dear Ray,

You have made an excellent point. Our problem is not as you pointed out, "administrations", it is far more subtle than that. One of the root causes to our problems with terrorists is our involvement with Israel, both financial and military. The Arab nations have long been angered by our support of Israel, and it has just now boiled over. The opinion that we are "depriving" the Palestinians of their ancient homeland has been ground into the Arab mind since the mid Fifties. Another smaller catalyst to our problem is our image in the Middle East. Because of our unwarrented (at least to the Arab mind) interference in the Middle East, and our legacy in Iran, this has left a deep impression in the Middle East of the "Great Satan" image.This is a long term problem, and part of the solution is a more stable Middle East. How this could be acheived is up to the individual. I am not going to start a raging argument over Iraq, that has been argued for a thousand times.

I think that at this time it would serve our country the most if we set aside our differences and worked everything out. What our country needs most is unity. Unity in the desire to compromise, unity in the desire to build a better country, with everyone working towards the immortal goal of "liberty and justice for all". Unless we all work together on this, we will never have this. It is only through the ultimate reconciling power of Jesus Christ that we can then have justice for the poor and outcast, reconciliation with our enemies, and peace on Earth.

Peace to you all,

Dzerzhinski

"Now to Him who is able do exceedinly abundantly beyond anything we could ask or even imagine according to the power that is at work in us, to Him be the glory in the church and in Christ Jesus...Amen" Ephesians 3:20,21