"fool Me Once..."

[vicente]

In context to George Bush's crimes against America, Humanity and the Earth, the film 'Fahrenheit 9/11' is a lite-weight that barely opens the door to his insane, theocratic (thus anti-American) agenda. I suppose that for the 87% of American Sheeple, who were media-ted to believe that Saddam had WMD's, it may have jilted their view, but I found it a mere appetizer of the 'red meat' available.

Now, if Michael Moore could pick up where he left off, "Fool me once...", and expand on those points, perhaps America could better see the criminal whose at the helm of our Country.

For example:
During a speech in Nashville, "Bush's script called for him to say, "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me." But the words that came out of his mouth were, ""Fool me once, shame . . . shame on . . . you," followed by a long pause, then, "Fool me—can't get fooled again!"

What's revealing about this is that Bush could not say, 'Shame on me' to save his life. That's a completely alien idea to him. This is a guy who is absolutely proud of his own inflexibility, rectitude and sociopathy."

Toronto, Canada December 5, 2002—If any of us are to have a future worth having, the world's leaders, the members of Congress, the US corporate media and people of all political persuasions who value freedom and democracy had better start seeing George W. Bush for what he is: a sociopath and a passive serial killer.

Psychiatrists tell us that all serial killers lack the emotions that make us human; that they have to learn to emulate those emotions in order to get by in society. Hence, a charming, well educated fellow like Ted Bundy who is known to have murdered 15 women and may have killed 36 before he was caught.
While Bush is no Bundy, when it comes Bundy's education and acquired charm, and to our knowledge has never personally murdered anyone, it has been evident to us that there is something missing in George W. in terms of his lack of compassion and empathy. As governor of Texas, he set a record in signing death warrants—154 in five years. He even made fun of the way convicted killer Karla Faye Tucker begged for her life.

If we believe the psychiatrists, a sign of a future serial killer is a child who delights in torturing and killing animals. George W., as a child, did exactly that. In a May 21, 2000, New York Times' puff piece about the values Bush gained growing up in Midland, Texas, Nicholas D. Kristof quoted Bush's childhood friend Terry Throckmorton: "'We were terrible to animals,' recalled Mr. Throckmorton, laughing. A dip behind the Bush home turned into a small lake after a good rain, and thousands of frogs would come out. 'Everybody would get BB guns and shoot them,' Mr. Throckmorton said. 'Or we'd put firecrackers in the frogs and throw them and blow them up.'"

On Sept. 12, 2000, Baltimore Sun reporter Miriam Miedzian wrote, "So when he was a kid, George W. enjoyed putting firecrackers into frogs, throwing them in the air, and then watching them blow up. Should this be cause for alarm? How relevant is a man's childhood behavior to what he is like as an adult? And in this case, to what he would be like as president of the United States."

We're finding out, aren't we? While we, in two articles before the 2000 election—Sept. 21 and Oct. 23—noted Bush's penchant for blowing up frogs, the corporate media blew it off, just as it had no interest in what he was trying to hide by obtaining a new Texas driver license and his 1976 drunk driving conviction, or the fact he was AWOL from the Texas Air National Guard. Instead, they bought into his nonsensical claim of being a "compassionate conservative" and "a uniter not a divider" who was going to "restore honor and dignity to the White House."

All through the 2000 campaign and up to Sept. 11, 2001, the corporate media depicted Bush as an affable, tongue-tied bumbler—the kind of guy Joe Six-pack would like to have a beer with—turning a blind eye to his dark underside. It mattered not that he stocked his illicit administration with the worst of the worst: John Ashcroft, Donald Rumsfeld, Gale Norton, Paul O'Neill, Harvey Pitt, Thomas White, John Negroponte, Otto Reich and convicted Iran-contra felon Elliot Abrams who received a 1992 Christmas Eve pardon from George W.'s father.

Then, despite his peculiar behavior on Sept. 11, the corporate media and his handlers transformed him into a leader extraordinaire in the mold of Franklin D. Roosevelt, Abraham Lincoln and Winston Churchill rolled into one.
And as Bush had Afghanistan bombed back beyond the Stone Age to rid the world of Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda, then switched to claiming it was the Taliban that had to go, then declared there was an "axis of evil" and it was really Saddam Hussein who was the "mother of all evil" and that war with Iraq was in the offing to get rid of Saddam, the corporate media cheered him on and to this day continues to beat the war drum. They have yet to consider that the passive serial killer needs to feed his lust for blood by sending others to put their lives on the line and do the killing for him.
In his Sept. 12 article, White House insiders say Bush is "out of control," Mike Hersh wrote, "Some among Bush's trusted White House staff fear what they are seeing and where Bush is taking us. His state of mind hauntingly reminds them of Richard Nixon's Final Days. They fear Bush is becoming Nixonesque . . . or worse. Although Bush lacks Nixon's paranoia, he may entertain even more dangerous notions."

But their desperate late night phone calls to trusted reporters has not seen the light of day in the corporate media. Yet, some of us outside the Beltway have long had an inkling of what we are dealing with.

More proof lies in Alexandra Pelosi's documentary, Journeys with George. Pelosi, the daughter of incoming House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, was a producer for NBC when she wangled the assignment to spend 18 months as part of Bush's campaign press corps.

From the surface, Pelosi's "home movie," as she calls it, seems to be nothing more than a love fest as George W. works to charm the pants off her and the rest of the press corps. The striking thing about this George, even though Karen Hughes is often seen hovering at his elbow, is that he isn't tongue-tied when he is pumping up his ego, dishing out digs and being sarcastic and crude.

Mark Crispin Miller, author of The Bush Dyslexicon and professor of media studies at New York University, who also sees the darker Bush, said in a Nov. 28 interview with the Toronto Star, ""Bush is not an imbecile. He's not a puppet. I think that Bush is a sociopathic personality. I think he's incapable of empathy. He has an inordinate sense of his own entitlement, and he's a very skilled manipulator. And in all the snickering about his alleged idiocy, this is what a lot of people miss."

Miller said he did intend The Bush Dyslexicon to be a funny book, but that was before he read all the transcripts, which revealed, according to reporter Murray Whyte, "a disquieting truth about what lurks behind the cock-eyed leer of the leader of the free world. He's not a moron at all on that point, Miller and Prime Minister Jean Chretien agree."

"He has no trouble speaking off the cuff when he's speaking punitively, when he's talking about violence, when he's talking about revenge," Miller told Whyte. "When he struts and thumps his chest, his syntax and grammar are fine. It's only when he leaps into the wild blue yonder of compassion, or idealism, or altruism, that he makes these hilarious mistakes."

In a speech last Sept. in Nashville, trying to strengthen his case against Saddam, Bush's script called for him to say, "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me." But the words that came out of his mouth were, ""Fool me once, shame . . . shame on . . . you," followed by a long pause, then, "Fool me—can't get fooled again!"

Said Miller, "What's revealing about this is that Bush could not say, 'Shame on me' to save his life. That's a completely alien idea to him. This is a guy who is absolutely proud of his own inflexibility and rectitude."

Another example, Miller said, occurred early in Bush's White House tenure when he said, "I know how hard it is to put food on your family."

According to Miller, "That wasn't because he's so stupid that he doesn't know how to say, 'Put food on your family's table'—it's because he doesn't care about people who can't put food on the table."
Miller told Whyte, ""When he tries to talk about what this country stands for, or about democracy, he can't do it."

"This, then, is why he's so closely watched by his handlers, Miller says not because he'll say something stupid, but because he'll overindulge in the language of violence and punishment at which he excels," Whyte wrote.

"He's a very angry guy, a hostile guy. He's much like Nixon. So they're very, very careful to choreograph every move he makes. They don't want him anywhere near protestors, because he would lose his temper," Miller said.

"I call him the feel bad president, because he's all about punishment and death," Miller told Whyte. "It would be a grave mistake to just play him for laughs."
A grave mistake, indeed.

Bush must be stopped now, before he sets the world aflame. And set it aflame is what he intends to do, even if Iraq has no "weapons of mass destruction" or Saddam stands on his head, naked, on the White House lawn.

[sahyo]

vicente?

[dustwitch]

So what you're saying, v-boy, is our current president has balls ! Thanks. I think so too. He's smart enough to have been elected President of the United States of America ! That really pisses you off, doesn't it, v-boy ? Ha, enough to have you and your ilk grinding your teeth and posting far flung, absurd, emotionally driven blatherings. It's personal and you can't understand how Bush beat the dems at their own game in Florida. Wooooo. No matter what you say, I see your postings as the pathetic emotional backwash of an intellectally bankrupt and politically frustrated loser. :hahaha: WIMP !

[vicente]

Whoa!!! Dustwitch,...

first,...who says he has balls. Perhaps some physical balls when he unfortunately had daughters to further his reactionary genepool. But as far as the "balls" to put America first, he hasn't made a single contribution to the evolution of America in his silver-spooned life.

second,...where did you get the idea Bush was elected? I didn't realize people still believed that one.

third,...I like the fact that Bush was appointed to the Presidency by SCOTUS,...it plays into my agenda of ridding the world of Repubs and DNC Dems. No one has divided America more in its history.

Enjoy your delusions dustwitch,...won't be long till Real Americans take their Country back.

:)

[fu*]

dustwitch

Is it possible for you to discontinue just riding Slayers coat-tails?

Up until now it seems you are only...

" grinding your teeth and posting far flung, absurd, emotionally driven blatherings."

That may be all you have, and thats ok, but I am hoping not.

FU

[zygoat]

fu*
i am behind dustwitch and slayer and vehemently opposed to vicente's anti American vomit!!!!
Bush has balls and vicente has none!!!
George Bush has more fortitutude then vicente has in his left ovary!! :boxing:

[dustwitch]

Fu, ha, ha. Yes, I am indulging myself a bit . *grins* As far as riding the coat tails of slayer, well, I would be honored to do so , for his arguments are sound and he is quick, but I am only now learning to reason and must be content to observe a master and salute his seemingly effortless triumphs.

[slayer]

Silly Vicente,

[Vicente...] What's revealing about this is that Bush could not say, 'Shame on me' to save his life. That's a completely alien idea to him. This is a guy who is absolutely proud of his own inflexibility, rectitude and sociopathy."

You're the king of jumping to bad conclusions. Now, what Bush could not say was "Shame on me." That is, he had a speech problem. Bush's Bushisms are well-known, but they haven't been given some retarded psycho-mumbo-jumbo interpretation. Of course, not until gullible Bush-haters such as yourself found a need for them. And let's remember that the vast majority of these Bushisms happened early in his presidency. You'll not find nearly as many after his first year in office. That's because he's more comfortable now in the highly stressful position of president of the United States. He is rather eloquent now.

But of course you're wrong about his inflexibility, since he was more than flexible with his No Child Left Behind Act that Kennedy completely stripped. Wow, he's proud of being a man of moral integrity? His rectitude is now something to be ashamed of? Oh my! Of course he's not a sociopath, so it's just you stipulating that he is, and then saying he's proud of it -- you know, that which he isn't. Yeah, nice reasoning, simpleton.

[Vicente...] On Sept. 12, 2000, Baltimore Sun reporter Miriam Miedzian wrote, "So when he was a kid, George W. enjoyed putting firecrackers into frogs, throwing them in the air, and then watching them blow up. Should this be cause for alarm? How relevant is a man's childhood behavior to what he is like as an adult? And in this case, to what he would be like as president of the United States."

More banal rhetoric. Who freakin cares that he stuck firecrackers up some frogs' asses? No, nimrod, this isn't evidence that he's a serial killer. If it were, you dumb ass, we'd probably make sure all kids who did this were reported to the authorities -- you know, because it's inevitable that they'll kill humans. Stop with the psycho-babble, you poor man's Freud.

[Vicente...] Miller said he did intend The Bush Dyslexicon to be a funny book, but that was before he read all the transcripts, which revealed, according to reporter Murray Whyte, "a disquieting truth about what lurks behind the cock-eyed leer of the leader of the free world. He's not a moron at all on that point, Miller and Prime Minister Jean Chretien agree."

Translation: Bush is playing all the idiots who think he's stupid for suckers.

[Vicente...] According to Miller, "That wasn't because he's so stupid that he doesn't know how to say, 'Put food on your family's table'—it's because he doesn't care about people who can't put food on the table."
Miller told Whyte, ""When he tries to talk about what this country stands for, or about democracy, he can't do it."

That's funny, I recall many eloquent speeches, not to mention his STATE OF THE UNION address. Not to mention his speeches to the UN.

Listen, dumb ass, I'm tired of exposing your stupidity. Bush's economic policy is working. His tax cuts probably prevented a recession, and his initiatives have worked.

He intiated a 15 Billion dollar program for the treatment of AIDS in Africa -- the biggest such initiative by any president, even Clinton.

He wisely included those who harbor terrorists and rogue states as those who are responsible for terrorist activities, because he knows that is the best method for crippling terrorists.

He is promoting democracy, not trying to colonize any lands.

He openly declared to the world that we're not following the Kyoto environmental treaty, because the Congress never voted for it, let alone passed a resolution to sign it, mainly because that treaty only works to our detriment. So, at the time, Clinton sent Gore to sign the document, which really was just for show, because it wasn't a binding signature, as Gore didn't have Congressional authority, owing to the fact that Clinton never even sent it to Congress for a vote, because he knew it wouldn't pass. Well, Bush was forthright enough to tell the world that we really aren't following that treaty, as we shouldn't.

Bush did not bail out Enron, so where's the 'he's under the thumb of the oil companies' talk now?

He has a degree from Yale. What are your credentials?

He entered the race in Texas when even his father thought he would lose -- thus, he has balls and more vision than most. He ran for president of the United States with almost no political background, and the man won! I'm thinking the man is simply smarter than you morons want to believe.

He gets his intiatives pushed through Congress because he is a good politician, which is what he want in a president -- someone able to get things done. And his policies are sound, which is the other thing. He is simply one of the greatest presidents we've had in recent history.

keep preaching though,

slayer

[zygoat]

slayer,
you put it in words better than I can!!
cheers!!!
vicente got some bad weed in the sixties!!

[vicente]

Bush's economic policy is working

Where? For Who? Those who have stock in Pharaceuticals, the new Afganistan pipeline, or an anti-American evangelical agenda?

He intiated a 15 Billion dollar program for the treatment of AIDS in Afri

Have you read that pathetic initiative? $15 Billion for Faith Based organizations to teach abstention through forced christianization.

He wisely included those who harbor terrorists and rogue states as those who are responsible for terrorist activities

Martin Luther King stated in 1967, "My government is the world's leading purveyor of violence." If one wants to stop terrorism, first they should cease being terrorist themselves.

He is promoting democracy

That is a lie. Democracy cannot be promoted by FORCING it on others through illegal, immoral and unjust invasions. http://www.impeachbush.tv/impeach/articles.html
Bush has created 100 Bin Ladens and made us less secure than we ever been.

He has a degree from Yale. What are your credentials?

I earned a Liberal Arts educations,...no one purchased me a Business Degree.

He ran for president of the United States with almost no political background

Give me a break. He was awol from the Guard mostly for campaigning and alledged cocaine use. He was political active as the son of his creep father. He inherited the RNC.

Do I have a legitimate reason for calling papa Bush an anti-American creep,...many!
For example,..."I don't know that those who don't believe in God should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation Under God." George HW Bush, August 27, 1987

He gets his intiatives pushed through Congress because he is a good politician

He gets initiates past because the Repubs control both Houses, and most Dems are Left-wing Opportunists with no backbone, like John (War Criminal) Kerry.

Seriously Slayer,...you, like George Bush, are the worse kind of American citizen, for without knowing it you promote anti-Americanism.

George Bush is in fact the least American, most destructive President in my Nation's history. I look forward to the day when I get my Country back, and to the trial and execution of Bush and his ilk for treason and crimes against America.

:)

[dustwitch]

" vicente got some bad weed in the sixties!! "


My, god, was his IQ actually that high once ?

:lol:

[slayer]

Time to unspin your liberal nonsense, once again, silly Vicente.

Where? For Who? Those who have stock in Pharaceuticals, the new Afganistan pipeline, or an anti-American evangelical agenda?

Oh, I don't know, how about for the average American? You know, the ones pumping money into our growing economy. Yeah, I think that's the answer I wanted to give.

Have you read that pathetic initiative? $15 Billion for Faith Based organizations to teach abstention through forced christianization.

Yes, I have read it; you should too. The program follows that of Uganda's AIDS program, which is knowns as the ABC program. A = abstention.
B = be faithful. C = Condoms. This is also the order which they try to combat the spread of AIDS. It has worked wonders in Uganda, which is why Bush has implemented this policy. It's not about absention through forced christianization, as you so wrongly put it, it's about promoting the best ways to stop the spread of AIDS. And these ways, in that order, seem to make the most sense. Now, just because most won't decide to abstain from sex doesn't mean it's not a good idea to recommend abstention to all first, because some might. And abstention is the best method. So, you're either an uninformed idiot, or you're spewing more lies.

That is a lie. Democracy cannot be promoted by FORCING it on others through illegal, immoral and unjust invasions.

First, your comment is irrelevant trash, because while I agree that democracy cannot be promoted by forcing it on other's through illegal, immoral and unjust invasions, I haven't conceded that the war in Iraq was an illegal, immoral and unjust invasion, or that it was forced on them. This is just your rhetoric again. You're just building more straw man arguments, silly boy. Take a logic class already, so I won't have to spend so little time in exposing your ineptness.

Now to something relevant. I just saw on the news how we handed over power to the interim Iraqi government two days early. Hmmm, I'm thinking you're still the uninformed idiot you were when I exposed you in the previous quote above.

I earned a Liberal Arts educations,...no one purchased me a Business Degree.

I'm impressed. Which college granted you this educations? I personally only have one degrees. Well, someone should purchase you a grammar book. I recommend Strunk and White's The Elements of Style.

By political background I meant actual experience in office. I admit to not being clear. But now that that's settled, what say you about how able a politician he isn't?

He gets initiates past because the Repubs control both Houses, and most Dems are Left-wing Opportunists with no backbone, like John (War Criminal) Kerry.

Disingenuous Vicente, you know full well that the Republicans didn't own both Houses until after his second year in office, and that he was getting his initiatives through before that time also. But this reminds me: Republicans managed to wrestle three seats in the House from Democrats -- almost five! -- mainly because Bush endorsed them. That the party in office should make such gains is almost unheard of. Normally, the party which the president belongs to doesn't control Congress, and at the very least doesn't gain seats. But Bush managed to secure both Houses because he's a great politician. Thank you for reminding me to bring this up.

I want to recommend a great book to anyone who wishes to get a sober picture of how Bush is doing in office: John Podhoretz's Bush Country. I promise you an intelligent and eloquent account of why Bush is doing a great job, and why liberals are wrong about him in every regard. So, don't spend your money on propaganda, but on a book of facts and clear analyses.

a true American,

slayer

[vicente]

ABC program. A = abstention B = be faithful. C = Condoms

Yes,...Faith Based Initiative. Give Christians $15 Billion to force their religious views on others, and AIDS will be curbed.

Liberal Arts educations

Oops, pluralizing education was not a conscious intent,...however,...I've attended Linn-Benton CC, Portland CC, Portland SU, and Montana SU. Also did work at UofM, Louisiana SU. In the era of Reagan Voodooism we use to say that those who couldn't handled the rigor of Liberal Arts opted for a business indoctrination,...mostly self-centered conservatives.

I majored in Religious Studies,...grammer was my worse subject.

political background

I was a County Planning Director who initiated (through public hearings) various programs, ie., subdivision rules, coal EIS's, ISTEA and development grants, etc. Before the Evangelical Christians took over the Republican Party I was a Goldwater Republican.

a true American, slayer

At best, you're a neo-American. A "true American" is not someone who buys into the Christian majority reconstructionism media-ted on the American people. To be a True American, one must at least begin with something true, ie:

"the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded upon the Christian religion".


But back to the thread topic:

Personally, I thought Fahrenheit 911 was quite weak in content, even if it was merely two hours. George Bush is a criminal who, according to true American tradition and Laws should have already been tried and executed for treason and crimes against America, Humanity and the World. ie: http://www.impeachbush.tv/impeach/articles.html

However, the American Sheeple are the most easily media-ted on Gaia. Many Americans still believe Saddam has WMD's. Many believe that Saddam gased the Kurds. Many believe America is above its own laws and can unilaterally illegally invade any Country of its choosing.

Fahrenheit 911 is hardly the tip of the Christian Republican iceburg which seeks to force their agenda on the world.

US Suppressed Gas Charge Report
by Allis Chalmers
16 September/ septembre 2002.
Centre for Research on Globalisation (CRG)

The repeated American propaganda weapon to rationalise the deaths of more than one million innocent Iraqis since 1991 through economic sanctions is that Saddam Hussein used poison gas against Iranians during the Iran-Iraq war and against Iraq's own Kurdish citizens. The accusation is now being invoked to launch a full-scale American assault on Iraq. This claim of Iraq gassing its own citizens at Halabjah is suspect. First, both Iran and Iraq used chemical weapons against each other during their war. Second, at the termination of the Iran-Iraq war, professors Stephen Pelletiere and Leif Rosenberger, and Lt Colonel Douglas Johnson of the US Army War College (USAWC) undertook a study of the use of chemical weapons by Iran and Iraq in order to better understand battlefield chemical warfare. They concluded that it was Iran and not Iraq that killed the Kurds.
In the first report they wrote: "In September 1988 — a month after the war had ended...the state department abruptly, and in what many viewed as sensational manner, condemned Iraq for allegedly using chemical weapons against its Kurdish population...with the result that numerous Kurdish civilians were killed. The Iraqi government denied that any such gassing had occurred...Having looked at all the evidence that was available to us, we find it impossible to confirm the state department's claim that gas was used in this instance. To begin with there were never any victims produced. International relief organisations who examined the Kurds — in Turkey where they had gone for asylum — failed to discover any. Nor were there any found inside Iraq. The claim rests solely on testimony of the Kurds who had crossed the border into Turkey, where they were interviewed by staffers of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee."

Regarding the Halabjah incident where Iraqi soldiers were reported to have gassed their own Kurdish citizens, the USAWC investigators observed: "It appears that in seeking to punish Iraq, Congress was influenced by another incident that occurred five months earlier in another Iraq-Kurdish city, Halabjah. In March 1988, the Kurds at Halabjah were bombarded with chemical weapons, producing many deaths. Photographs of the Kurdish victims were widely disseminated in the international media. Iraq was blamed for the Halabjah attack even though it was subsequently brought out that Iran too had used chemical weapons in this operation, and it seemed likely that it was the Iranian bombardment that had actually killed the Kurds." [The Iranians thought the Kurds had fled Halabjah and that they were attacking occupying Iraqi forces. But the Iraqis had already vacated Halabjah and the Kurds had returned. Iran gassed the Kurds by accident]

In March 1991 as the massive US-led attack on Iraq ended, I was visiting the USAWC to give a lecture on South Asian security and discussed this problem with professor Pelletiere at lunch. I recall Pelletiere telling me that the USAWC investigation showed that in the Iranian mass human wave battlefield strategy, Teheran used non-persistent poison gas against Iraqi soldiers so as to be able to attack and advance into the areas vacated by Iraqis. On the other hand, Baghdad used persistent gas to halt the Iranian human wave attacks. There was a certain consistency to this pattern. However, in the Halabjah incident, the USAWC investigators discovered that the gas used that killed hundreds of Kurds was the non-persistent gas, the chemical weapon of choice of the Iranians. Note it was the Iranians who arrived at the scene first, who reported the incident to UN observers, and who took pictures of the gassed Kurdish civilians. However, Saddam Hussein's Iraq invaded and annexed Kuwait in August and the truth of the Halabjah incident became inconvenient.

I asked professor Pelletiere in March 1991, when he thought their findings would come out. I recall him telling me that it would probably take about five years after emotions over the Gulf war crisis died down. However, the USAWC report of 1990 has been dispatched into oblivion. The propaganda that Iraq gassed its own Kurdish civilians is cons-tantly invoked by the media. It was reactivated by president Clinton in December 1998 to justify the further bombing and destruction of Iraq.

Meanwhile, estimates of the number of innocents who have died in Iraq from relentless American-dictated UN sanctions range between 1-1.7 million, including more than half-a-million children. An article in The New England Journal of Medicine, assessed through a study of monthly and annual infant mortality rates in Iraq that "more than 46,900 children died between January and August 1991. UNICEF official Thomas Ekfal estimates that about 500,000 children have died in Iraq since the United Nations Security Council imposed economic sanctions on Baghdad.

If the US bombs Iraq, it is not the direct loss of Iraqi lives from "collateral damage" alone that will be the only tragedy, but the unseen and accelerated loss of lives of tens of thousands of more infants, the sick and the elderly from lack of medicine and other healthcare. Before the US bullies all countries into supporting its bombing of Iraq, major countries such as France, Germany, Russia, China, India and Indonesia should stand up in unison and say "no more [bombs]" to the sole superpower.

The author is the Allis Chalmers distinguished professor of International Affairs at Marquette University, Milwaukee, Wisconsin.

"The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral, begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy. Instead of diminishing evil, it multiplies it. Through violence you may murder the liar, but you cannot murder the lie, nor establish the truth. Through violence you may murder the hater, but you do not murder hate. In fact, violence merely increases hate. So it goes. Returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness: only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate: only love can do that". Martin Luther King, Jr.

[sahyo]

thx quoting 'US Suppressed Gas Charge Report'

[slayer]

Yes,...Faith Based Initiative. Give Christians $15 Billion to force their religious views on others, and AIDS will be curbed.

I'm not sure what part of the ABC program you're misunderstanding, Vicente. Bush has decided that just because a Christian organization is Christian it doesn't mean they should be prevented, or disallowed, from performing humanitarian deeds. Christian organizations are very successful in gathering money for orphans around the world. All sorts of people donate to these organizations because they tend to not be corrupt, so our money goes to where we want it to go. But the help they offer to orphans doesn't come with indoctrination into Christianity -- it simply stems from Christian values.

The ABC program isn't even a Christian organization's idea, they've just not been excluded from helping to put this program into effect. That's good policy and fair policy, considering that there is no attempted indoctrination going on.

I majored in Religious Studies,...grammer was my worse subject.

I'll spare you my joke regarding your misspelling of 'grammar,' but I at least now know why you're such a poor philosopher -- you're a religious studies major. Next to English majors who think they're critical thinkers, religious studies majors botch up critical reasoning more than anyone I've ever encountered.

"the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded upon the Christian religion".*

Well, you're very wrong, because in some sense this country was founded on the Christian religion, and thus our governement (the legislative branch) was founded upon the Christian religion. America was founded on Christian values. Now, the values Christianity promotes needn't be exclusively Christianity's, as I have similar values but don't believe in a deity, but that's not to say that our values aren't Christian values or that they weren't derived from Christianity. This country was founded on a Protestant work ethic and Christian values.

Bush promotes Christian values, and he's right to do so, because they're good values. I promote them too, except for me it's not about Christianity. Bush is perfectly entitled to believe in Christianity, and he's entitled to promote the values that Christianity promotes, because they are America's values, they always have been. Bush should not push the Christian religion upon us, but then he isn't doing this, he is simply expressing his belief in God. He respects that there is and should be a separation of state and church. He might be in favor of keeping "under God" in the Pledge, but that's because he doesn't think it's a breach of our doctrine of a separation of state and church, and he's not alone in thinking this. I think he is wrong, but that doesn't mean Bush thinks we should keep "under God" in the Pledge irrespective of whether it violates our doctrine of separation of state and church, it only means he was wrong about whether it does violate it.

Let's get clear on this WMDs drivel. Bush did not say that the reason we were invading Iraq was because they had WMDs. I dare anyone to look up his speech to Congress and find such a quote. It doesn't exist. What he said was that Iraq posed a threat to have such weapons by 2006. That is, they were trying to build WMDs. After Desert Storm, we figured out that he was only 1 year away from actually being able to produce them. Earlier, Israel had bombed his nuclear facility so that he couldn't finish the job, and they were wise and right to do so. Bush said that our new strategy would be to stop these rogue states that would soon become a threat. Not rogue states that were already imminent threats, for then it would be too late. Bush's new preemptive strike policy makes complete sense. So, all you idiots who keep harping on the WMDs and about how Bush lied, are the true liars, because Bush never made that claim nor did he justify our invasion of Iraq on their having WMDs. If anything, when you bother to think, why would Bush wait for Iraq to have WMDs if the policy was to strike before a country was an imminent threat? Ponder that for a year, dumb asses.

So, Bush is no liar. Bush is wise. You are dumb. The end.

slayer

[vicente]

but I at least now know why you're such a poor philosopher -- you're a religious studies major.

That is true, I am a poor philosopher,...the only philosophical thing I recall saying was a response to a Philosopher (Chair of the MSU Phil Dept) who said there was no 'absolute truth'. I said, "Walt, if there was no absolute truth then the absolute truth would be absolutely nothing, thus an absolute truth".

He later refused me a 500 level Independent Study.

I'm not sure what part of the ABC program you're misunderstanding

On the contrary,...you are missing the Christian agenda behind Bush's ABC Program.

in some sense this country was founded on the Christian religion

It is comments like these that shows your ineptness as a philosopher and an American. If your statement was correct, George Washington would not have written, the Senate would not have unanimously ratified, and President John Adams would not have signed into law on June 10, 1797 that
"the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded upon the Christian religion".

Nor would have Thomas Jefferson said in February 10, 1814 that "Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law".

Slayer, you are product of the McCarthy-Reagan era of Christian Reconstructionism. To make my point,...According to such eminent persons as Herman C. Weber DD, an expert in religious census and statistics, few early Americans were affiliated with Christianity. In the 1933 Yearbook of American Churches, the census of 1800 showed just 6.9% of US citizens as belonging to a church. By 1850, Christian membership rose to 15.5%. In 1900, Christians doubled their number to 37%. But, not until 1942, just 8 years before Senator Joseph McCarthy brought his offensive, monotheism into government and subsequently, the Republican Party into power, did Christian participation exceed 50%.

Slayer,...the first Christian President was the 7th, Andrew Jackson,...the first 6 were Deists. In addition, contrary to Christian Reconstructionist beliefs, several other Presidents were not Christian either,...ie:

"My earlier views of the unsoundness of the Christian scheme of salvation and the human origin of the scriptures, have become clearer and stronger with advancing years and I see no reason for thinking I shall ever change them." Abraham Lincoln

"Mr. Lincoln was not a Christian." Mary Todd Lincoln

And Slayer, you are just as inept about Iraq and alledged WMD's. Bush decided to invade Iraq before he took Office, in one of the most brazenness, christian based inaugurations in US history.

Bush is a liar,...and an anti-American.

:)

[slayer]

On the contrary,...you are missing the Christian agenda behind Bush's ABC Program.

Translation: Everything you said, slayer, was correct, but I still think there's a hidden agenda there, one which I have no proof for, just a hunch about.

Perhaps I wasn't as clear as I should have been, but my whole argument was that our values, America's values, have always been Christian values. That's not saying they were taken directly out of the bible, but that America's values are Christian values just the same. So, Lincoln needn't be a Christian to have Christian values. And neither am I a Christian, but my values are, for the most part, Christian values. If you don't see the distinction, then that's your failing, not mine.

You're very far from understanding me, Vicente. Keep up the cliches and psychoanalysis though, I'm sure you're qualified to make such judgments.

And Slayer, you are just as inept about Iraq and alledged WMD's. Bush decided to invade Iraq before he took Office, in one of the most brazenness, christian based inaugurations in US history.

No, silly Vicente, this is you just making shit up again. Where is the proof that Bush had decided to invade Iraq before he took office? You have none, idiot, you're just spreading more lies.

Now, let me educate you.

"Our enemy is a radical network of terrorists, and every government that supports them (speech at Joint Session of Congress on September 20, 2002)."

Translation: Iraq and Afghanistan count as our enemy.

"Americans should not expect one battle, but a lengthy campaign, unlike any other we have ever seen. It may include dramatic strikes, visible on TV, and covert operations, secret even in success. We will starve terrorists of funding, turn them one against another, drive them from place to place, until there is no refuge or no rest. And we will pursue nations that provide aid or safe haven to terrorism. Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists. (Applause.) From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime (Ibid)."

Translation: Bush has been right so far, and is keeping his promise to the American people.

"But the only way to defeat terrorism as a threat to our way of life is to stop it, eliminate it, and destroy it where it grows (Ibid)."

Translation: Bush is telling you, silly Vicente, why we're in Iraq and Afghanistan.

"For much of the last century, America's defense relied on the Cold War doctrines of deterrence and containment. In some cases, those strategies still apply. But new threats also require new thinking. Deterrence -- the promise of massive retaliation against nations -- means nothing against shadowy terrorist networks with no nation or citizens to defend. Containment is not possible when unbalanced dictators with weapons of mass destruction can deliver those weapons on missiles or secretly provide them to terrorist allies.
We cannot defend America and our friends by hoping for the best. We cannot put our faith in the word of tyrants, who solemnly sign non-proliferation treaties, and then systemically break them. If we wait for threats to fully materialize, we will have waited too long (speech at West Point graduation June 1, 2002)."

Translation: Bush recognizes that the world has changed, and has come up with a new way of keeping America safe. The bold above, which is mine, is letting you know, silly Vicente, that we're not waiting for countries to possess WMDs, but that we're going after them if they're in the process of trying to acquire the materials to build them. Now think: Why would you posit that Bush said Iraq had WMDs when he's telling you that he isn't going to wait that long? Ponder, little one.

"Yet the war on terror will not be won on the defensive. We must take the battle to the enemy, disrupt his plans, and confront the worst threats before they emerge (Ibid)."

Translation: BEFORE THEY EMERGE! This is Bush screaming his reasons at you again, silly Vicente. Can you hear him yet?

"Our security will require transforming the military you will lead -- a military that must be ready to strike at a moment's notice in any dark corner of the world. And our security will require all Americans to be forward-looking and resolute, to be ready for preemptive action when necessary to defend our liberty and to defend our lives (Ibid)."

Translation: PREEMPTION is our new tactic. It's not preemption if Iraq already has WMDs. That would be a case of having waited too long. Get it yet?

"By confronting evil and lawless regimes, we do not create a problem, we reveal a problem. And we will lead the world in opposing it (Ibid)."

Translation: This is Bush's response to all you callow morons who think that we're just making more trouble for ourselves by attacking terrorism in the manner we've chosen.

I'll spare you Bush's great speech to the UN, as there would be too much to quote.

Bush's case has always been the Iraq had tried in the past -- and lied about it -- to build nuclear weapons. Bush argues that since the UN inspectors had been kicked out of Iraq for four years, and since Hussein's track record is of trying to build nuclear weapons, lying about this, and violating UN sanctions that would have put a check on him, that it makes sense to think that he is a threat. Not to mention the intelligence reporst -- uncontested ones -- that he had been trying to buy nuclear materials. Hence, we're going to war with Iraq because Hussein is in the process of trying to build nuclear weapons and has supported terrorists organizations, not just Al Qaeda either.

Case closed, nimrods. Keep up the Bush is a liar fabrication.

the greatest American hero,

slayer

[vicente]

Where is the proof that Bush had decided to invade Iraq before he took office?

Members of his Administration and Cabinet have produced memos saying Bush planned to invade Iraq as early as, and before, January 2001. Slayer, you're getting your info from solely neo-con sources. It's you who is spreading lies and anti-Americanism.

our values, America's values, have always been Christian values.

Why do you persist in this irrefutable falsehood? America's Founding Father were Deist, who detested anything Christian.

Slayer, you are an anti-American. Why deny it? You are an anti-American neo-con with an agenda to destroy America. Yes I understand your pathetic Republican Creed is that if you tell a lie long enough the Sheeple will believe it. But I say a lie is a lie, and the dishonesty of your Reactionary heros will not go unavenged much longer.

:)

"The purpose of separation of church and state is to keep forever from these shores the ceaseless strife that has soaked the soil of Europe in blood for centuries." James Madison

"As I understand the Christian religion, it was, and is, a revelation. But how has it happened that millions of fables, tales, legends, have been blended with both Jewish and Christian revelation that have made them the most bloody religion that ever existed?" John Adams

Christianity is the cause of "pride and indolence in the clergy, ignorance and servility in the laity; in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution." James Madison

Ethan Allen stopped his own wedding until the presiding judge affirmed that "God" referred to the God of Nature and not to the God of the Bible.

"I do not find in orthodox Christianity one redeeming feature." Thomas Jefferson

"It is always better to have no ideas than false ones; to believe nothing, than to believe what is wrong."
-Thomas Jefferson

When a religion is good, I conceive it will support itself; and when it does not support itself, and God does not take care to support it so that its professors are obliged to call for help of the civil power, 'tis a sign, I apprehend, of its being a bad one. -- Benjamin Franklin

"Gouverneur Morris had often told me that General Washington believed no more of that system (Christianity) than did he himself." Thomas Jefferson, in his private journal

"All this [Paul's writing] is nothing better than the jargon of a conjurer who picks up phrases he does not understand to confound the credulous people who come to have their fortune told." Thomas Paine

"What is it the New Testament teaches us? To believe that the Almighty committed debauchery with a woman engaged to be married; and the belief of this debauchery is called faith." Thomas Paine

The father of this country was very private about his beliefs, but it is widely considered that he was a Deist like his colleagues. He was a Freemason. George Washington's practice of Christianity was limited and superficial because he was not himself a Christian. He repeatedly declined the church's sacraments. Never did he take communion and
when his wife, Martha, did he waited for her outside the sanctuary. Even on his deathbed, Washington asked for no ritual, uttered no prayer to Christ, and expressed no wish to be attended by His
representative.

"The doctrine of the divinity of Jesus is made a convenient cover for absurdity." John Adams

"The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason." Benjamin Franklin

"The Christian system of religion is an outrage on common sense." Thomas Paine

"I have generally been denominated a Deist, the reality of which I never disputed, being conscious I am no Christian, except mere infant baptism makes me one; and as to being a Deist, I know not strictly
speaking, whether I am one or not."
preface, Reason the Only Oracle of Man by Ethan Allen

"All religions united with government are more or less inimical to liberty. All, separated from government, are compatible with liberty."
Henry Clay: Address, U. S. House of Representatives, March 24, 1818

"He [the Rev. Mr. Whitefield] used, indeed, sometimes to pray for my conversion, but never had the satisfaction of believing that his prayers were heard."
from B Franklin's Autobiography

"In 1850, I believe, the church property in the United States, which paid no tax, amounted to $87 million. In 1900, without a check, it is safe to say, this property will reach a sum exceeding $3 billion. I
would suggest the taxation of all property equally."
Ulysses S. Grant (1822-1885), 18th U.S. President

"Leave the matter of religion to the family altar, the church and the private school supported entirely by private contributions. Keep the church andstate forever separate."
Ulysses S. Grant, Address to the Army of the
Tennessee, Des Moines, Iowa, September 25, 1875

"The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the Supreme Being as his father, in the womb of a virgin, will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter."
Thomas Jefferson

"In no instance have ... the churches been guardians of the liberties of people."
James Madison

"Among the most detestable villains in history, you could not find one worse than Moses, who gave an order to butcher the boys, to massacre the mothers and then rape the daughters. One of the most horrible atrocities found in the literature of any nation. I would not dishonor my Creator's name by attaching it to this filthy book." Thomas Paine


"It has often been said that anything may be proved from the Bible; but before anything can be admitted as proved by the Bible, the Bible itself must be proved to be true; for if the Bible be not true, or the truth of it be doubtful, it ceases to have authority, and cannot be admitted as proof of anything." Thomas Paine

[slayer]

First, you didn't come up with the proof that Bush had decided to invade Iraq before he took office. Second, even if these memos exists, it doesn't mean they're true. Third, which should have been my reply in the first place, so what? So what if Bush had planned an invasion of Iraq before 9/11 or before he took office? It is perfectly consistent with his reasons, the ones you keep misrepresending, for invading Iraq: namely that Hussein is trying to build weapons of mass destruction. This was true prior to his taking office as it was true when we declared war. If anything, it just means Bush was doing some good thinking prior to being elected. The man just cares deeply about America and came up with a good plan -- that's all that says. So your idiot accusation is irrelevant, because should it turn out to be true, it only promotes a better image of Bush.

Why do you persist in this irrefutable falsehood? America's Founding Father were Deist, who detested anything Christian.

Why do you persist in not understanding me? Let's try this again, slowly this time. If you come up with a list of values and they match Christianity's values, then the values you came up with are, in a sense, Christian values. What's your major langauge barrier here, Vicente? America's values are Christian values. It's immaterial that the Founding Fathers were Deists. And it's wrong to say they detested anything Christian, as Christianity promotes compassion, and the Founding Fathers don't detest compassion. That is, you're wrong as usual.

What's funny is that you keep harping on this point about Christianity, because we all know that it's the only point you've had the slightest success with, owing to my perhaps overstepping things by saying that America was founded on Christian values. This was ambiguous, as it can mean that the Founding Fathers had Christianity in mind when drafting our Constitution and Bill of Rights, which isn't the case. But it can also mean that the values they did promote are in accord with the values Christianity promotes, which is what I meant. Feel free to switch topics now that we've cleared this up though. Feel free to talk about all your other claims which I've exposed as lies and falsehoods.

You know, like this challenge to all you liberal morons: Go to the speech to the Joint Session of Congress and the American people, where Bush gives the reasons -- justification -- for going to war with Iraq, and produce the quote where he says that Iraq has WMDs.

You won't find such a quote because none exists. This makes all your 'Bush lied, there are no WMDs' whimperings immaterial, misinformed, liberal nonsense. And if you're not misinformed, then you're just a bunch of liars. Oh the irony!

Vicente, you're an inept thinker. Perhaps the reason why that philosophy chair didn't permit you to take that 500 level class was not because of your pointing out his contradiction, but because of everything else you said to him. As it is clear to me, a simple man with a philosophy ba, not a ph.d., that you're incapable of reasoning well. And for the record, every kid in America knows that 'There are no absolutes truths' is a logical contradiction, as that very claim would be an absolute truth. I don't think though that you figured this out for yourself, so much as heard it somewhere, so don't think I'm giving you credit for being a good thinker here.

You're just a hippie, Vicente, come to terms with your degenerate 60's values. You're the anti-American, because you have no idea what makes America strong. Your callow, small-minded, naive, and degenerate thoughts and beliefs would cripple America should they ever be adopted by anyone with power. Thank goodness though that you liberal morons don't have any power. This is why you're as bitter as you are, Vicente, because conservatives are running this country. And this is why our laughter -- those of neocons and conservatives -- bothers you so much, because we know why you cry and we know that you are living under our terms. You're fortunate to be doing so, but you can't see that. Perhaps you never will, but that's fine with us too. So, all the gaybob "LOLs" I see on this site from liberal idiots is truly heart-warming, because I know it stems from resentiment. The laughter lets me know how much pain you all feel, pain which I revel in.

freedom isn't free (so stop leeching off the brave, you callow liberals),

slayer

[vicente]

First, you didn't come up with the proof that Bush had decided to invade Iraq before he took office. Second, even if these memos exists, it doesn't mean they're true.

Memos, interviews, testimony, books-in-print, etc by Bush Admin officials, Cabinet members, CIA, FBI, etc., have said Bush pushed for an invasion of Iraq since before he took office,...without any negation from Bush or his Administration.

The question is, why are you not aware of that.

America's values are Christian values

LOL,...you really beLIEve that? Wow!
The 10 commandments are everything the United States are not:
http://skepticreport.com/tools/10command.htm

Is America a Christian Nation?
http://www.ffrf.org/nontracts/?t=xian.txt

produce the quote where he (Bush)says that Iraq has WMDs.

Personally, I try to avoid any involvement watching Bush,...he literally makes me nauseous. It is suffice to say that Bush's unilateral invasion was illegal (in every way), unjustified, and immoral. But what does an anti-American like you care about American law?

According to our Constitution, International Treaties are part of the "supreme Law of the Land". Bush's violations of the UN Charter and the Nuremberg Charter are, therefore, impeachable offenses.

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land;" US Constitution

http://www.impeachbush.tv/impeach/articles.html

You're just a hippie, Vicente...degenerate 60's values...you have no idea what makes America strong

LOL. I turned 18 in 1971 (missed the 60's) and enlisted in the USAF because my draft # was too high. I am now a retired USAF Sgt with several Medals & Accommodations. What you perceive as "strength" is merely International Bullying that makes America and traveling Americans less safe.

Your post suggest Slayer, that you are an anti-American ChickenHawk
http://www.nhgazette.com/cgi-bin/NHGstore....%20Chickenhawks (http://www.nhgazette.com/cgi-bin/NHGstore.cgi?user_action=list&category=%20NEWS%3B%20Chickenhawks)

Slayer, your words are everything that America is not. Would it not better if you and your neo-con ilk simply chain anvils about your necks and throw yourselfs in an abyss?

Or

There a way to tell who is a real Christian Conservative. Their Jesus left a specific litmus test for determining the true christian faithful, as published in their canonized text,...Mark 16:16-18. A true Christian, "the man who accepts baptism,...will be able to drink deadly poison without harm".

This makes senses to me,...after all, 1 Thess 5:21 says "prove all things"

I say that George Bush, Tom DeLay, John Ashcroft, Ann Coulter, Clarence Thomas, Bob Doran, Rick Santorum, Ted Olson, Trent Lott, Antonin Scalia, Andrew Card, Dick Cheney, the complete staff of Fox News, just to name a few, should lead the way. I'll even supply the poison.

:)

[slayer]

Memos, interviews, testimony, books-in-print, etc by Bush Admin officials, Cabinet members, CIA, FBI, etc., have said Bush pushed for an invasion of Iraq since before he took office,...without any negation from Bush or his Administration.

The question is, why are you not aware of that.

No, the question is, why have you failed to again provide those memos. The question is, why have you failed to note that should they exist and the claims true, that it is no argument against Bush, as going to war with Iraq should have been done long before 2000.

Why do you fail to understand -- as now seems apparent -- what 'Christian values' denotes? I didn't say that we followed the Ten Commandments, I said we have Christian values. Straw man arguments are fallacies, in case you didn't know.

This is you quoting me: "You're just a hippie, Vicente...degenerate 60's values...you have no idea what makes America strong"

Well, what I said was this.

You're just a hippie, Vicente, come to terms with your degenerate 60's values.

AND

You're the anti-American, because you have no idea what makes America strong.

Obviously I didn't imply that you were politically active or informed in the 60's, you disingenuous idiot, I meant that your values are those from the 60's. Way to cut and paste so it makes it seem like I said you were around in the 60's, which you were. Good job, Micheal Moore Jr.

Continue to get your education from biased websites, idiot. Don't bother to pick up a book by a reputable source.

I am now a retired USAF Sgt with several Medals & Accommodations.

I'm sure you have tons of ACCOMMODATIONS, Vicente. I only have COMMENDATIONS and medals, though, from my stint in the Marines. Oh, I left as a SSgt (E-6). Silly me, I even had a combat MOS.

Enjoy the many accommodations this country offers you. You'll never understand America, but you keep enjoying her fruits.

here to accommodate you,

slayer

[vicente]

The question is, why have you failed to note that should they exist and the claims true, that it is no argument against Bush, as going to war with Iraq should have been done long before 2000.

Where have you been? Oh,...that's right, the Fox News channel don't talk about Treasury Secretary & National Security Council member Paul O'Neil, Sen. Bob Graham, National Security Council member Richard A. Clarke, Bob Woodward, Craig Unger, Ron Suskind, Michael Mann, John W. Dean, Paul E. Sperry, etc, etc, etc.

I'm sure you have tons of ACCOMMODATIONS

Oops,...there's my pitiful grammar again.

I meant that your values are those from the 60's.

No,...my values are more inline with 10th Century Burma or Mesoamerica. I am neither left-wing nor right-wing, but a Progressive. I especially despise people who attempt to revise American history to further their hateful, faith-driven agendas.

You'll never understand America

On the contrary Slayer,...you haven't a clue to what America was supposed to be about. You are part of the neo-Christian movement to destroy America.

If you were indeed a Marine, I say shame on you for dishonoring the first part of the oath you swore:

"do solemnly swear, or affirm, that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic....". George Bush and his lying neo-con thugs are the greatest threat to America in her history. As such, it is the duty of real Americans to remove this domestic threat.

The Declaration of Independence suggests that "When in the Course of human events, the unalienable Rights guarenteed to the people are, through a long train of abuses and usurpations destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people, it is their duty, to throw off such Despotism, and to provide new Guards for their future security that respect and honor the values and ideas of the Constitution. It is the Right of the People to dispose of that evil by abolishing the illegal forms, traditions and revisionist attempts to indoctrinated the citizenry".

:)

[slayer]

Where have you been? Oh,...that's right, the Fox News channel don't talk about Treasury Secretary & National Security Council member Paul O'Neil, Sen. Bob Graham, National Security Council member Richard A. Clarke, Bob Woodward, Craig Unger, Ron Suskind, Michael Mann, John W. Dean, Paul E. Sperry, etc, etc, etc.

Again, why is this a problem? I said Bush's reasons for going to war with Iraq were as valid in 2001 as they would have been in 2000. I don't recall denying such memos existed; I do recall saying for you to provide them.

George Bush and his lying neo-con thugs are the greatest threat to America in her history.

For you to say shame on me is to beg the question. It's only a shame on me if you're right about what you say, which is what our whole debate is about. So, please, spare me your admonishments.

The same response applies to your Declaration of Independence quote and remark. So, again, stop begging the question.

I'm done playing the How Many Fallacies Will Vicente Commit This Time game,

slayer

[zygoat]

Vicente,
The Declaration of Independence suggests that "When in the Course of human events, the unalienable Rights guarenteed to the people are, through a long train of abuses and usurpations destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people, it is their duty, to throw off such Despotism, and to provide new Guards for their future security that respect and honor the values and ideas of the Constitution. I would apply this to bill clinton who made a mockery of the presidency!!
ACCOMODATIONS!! {Commendations} Poor grammar,hardly FREUDIAN SLIP,definitely!!!
also,you keep confusing christian values with what a presidents religious affiliations may or may not be,We The People in order to form a more perfect union......endowed by the Creator.didn't want another church of England or church of America for that matter,have you forgotten why people started coming to America,freedom from persecution,so that they could worship God without being punished for it!!

[zygoat]

vicente,
He gets initiates past because the Repubs control both Houses, and most Dems are Left-wing Opportunists with no backbone, like John (War Criminal) Kerry.
there's something I can agree with,Kerry is a war criminal!!!and clinton LOST the House and the Senate!!! :thumbsup: