Stupidity

[SFontaine]

Holy crap I am sick of this garbage.

"omg lol john kerry is a terrorst loving commie who should be charged with treason!!!111111oneoneoneoneone"'

and

"omg ololol bu$h is a cocaine snorting draft dodging moran olol!!1"

First... I don't like Kerry, I think it's not strong enough on terrorism, bases his decisions off polls and generally isn't very decisive. That said I also recognize that the man volunteered for serivce in Vietnam, went to Vietnam, shot a few Communists and got awarded three purple hearts and was allowed to go home. On his return home he was sickened with what he saw in country and decided to protest it. He didn't betray his country by throwing medals over a gate or speaking out against it's soldiers.. He was just acting like an idiot youth which he has admitted before.. Just like the President has admitted that he was an idiot in his youth (With the drinking and such).

Secondly, I like Bush. I think he's strong on terror, is a generally likable guy, has strong moral values and sound economic policies. He joined the ANG in slightly sketchy circumstances but so far there is no evidence that he was AWOL or a deserter. None at all. And about his past drug use/alcohol addiction.. Idiot youth. Just like Kerry he had quite a varied life and did some things he regrets. Simple as that.

So let's cut this crap. Kerry isn't a Communist terrorists and Bush isn't a cocaine addicted moneygrubber.

[Knutsen]

I hate Bush, i think he's a tragedy for the world, but i have to say one thing about Kerry, i wouldn't trust a guy who pretends he throws away his medals but keeps them instead. It may not be very important, but is a gesture that shows what kind of person he is.

[reddragon]

Kerry is a total failure, but I'd still like to hear Bush comment on this.

"On September 24, President George W. Bush appeared at a press conference in the White House Rose Garden to announce a crackdown on the financial networks of terrorists and those who support them. “U.S. banks that have assets of these groups or individuals must freeze their accounts,” Bush declared. “And U.S. citizens or businesses are prohibited from doing business with them.”


But the president, who is now enjoying an astounding 92 percent approval rating, hasn’t always practiced what he is now preaching: Bush’s own businesses were once tied to financial figures in Saudi Arabia who currently support bin Laden.


In 1979, Bush’s first business, Arbusto Energy, obtained financing from James Bath, a Houstonian and close family friend. One of many investors, Bath gave Bush $50,000 for a 5 percent stake in Arbusto. At the time, Bath was the sole U.S. business representative for Salem bin Laden, head of the wealthy Saudi Arabian family and a brother (one of 17) to Osama bin Laden. It has long been suspected, but never proven, that the Arbusto money came directly from Salem bin Laden. In a statement issued shortly after the September 11 attacks, the White House vehemently denied the connection, insisting that Bath invested his own money, not Salem bin Laden’s, in Arbusto.


In conflicting statements, Bush at first denied ever knowing Bath, then acknowledged his stake in Arbusto and that he was aware Bath represented Saudi interests. In fact, Bath has extensive ties, both to the bin Laden family and major players in the scandal-ridden Bank of Commerce and Credit International (BCCI) who have gone on to fund Osama bin Laden. BCCI defrauded depositors of $10 billion in the ’80s in what has been called the “largest bank fraud in world financial history” by former Manhattan District Attorney Robert Morgenthau. During the ’80s, BCCI also acted as a main conduit for laundering money intended for clandestine CIA activities, ranging from financial support to the Afghan mujahedin to paying intermediaries in the Iran-Contra affair.


When Salem bin Laden died in 1988, powerful Saudi Arabian banker and BCCI principal Khalid bin Mahfouz inherited his interests in Houston. Bath ran a business for bin Mahfouz in Houston and joined a partnership with bin Mahfouz and Gaith Pharaon, BCCI’s frontman in Houston’s Main Bank.


The Arbusto deal wasn’t the last time Bush looked to highly questionable sources to invest in his oil dealings. After several incarnations, Arbusto emerged in 1986 as Harken Energy Corporation. When Harken ran into trouble a year later, Saudi Sheik Abdullah Taha Bakhsh purchased a 17.6 percent stake in the company. Bakhsh was a business partner with Pharaon in Saudi Arabia; his banker there just happened to be bin Mahfouz.


Though Bush told the Wall Street Journal he had “no idea” BCCI was involved in Harken’s financial dealings, the network of connections between Bush and BCCI is so extensive that the Journal concluded their investigation of the matter in 1991 by stating: “The number of BCCI-connected people who had dealings with Harken—all since George W. Bush came on board—raises the question of whether they mask an effort to cozy up to a presidential son.” Or even the president: Bath finally came under investigation by the FBI in 1992 for his Saudi business relationships, accused of funneling Saudi money through Houston in order to influence the foreign policies of the Reagan and first Bush administrations.


Worst of all, bin Mahfouz allegedly has been financing the bin Laden terrorist network—making Bush a U.S. citizen who has done business with those who finance and support terrorists. According to USA Today, bin Mahfouz and other Saudis attempted to transfer $3 million to various bin Laden front operations in Saudi Arabia in 1999. ABC News reported the same year that Saudi officials stopped bin Mahfouz from contributing money directly to bin Laden. (Bin Mahfouz’s sister is also a wife of Osama bin Laden, a fact that former CIA Director James Woolsey revealed in 1998 Senate testimony.)


When President Bush announced he is hot on the trail of the money used over the years to finance terrorism, he must realize that trail ultimately leads not only to Saudi Arabia, but to some of the same financiers who originally helped propel him into the oil business and later the White House. The ties between bin Laden and the White House may be much closer than he is willing to acknowledge."

http://www.inthesetimes.com/issue/25/25/feature3.shtml

[reddragon]

And what the hell is this http://www.home.earthlink.net/~fwbull/bush_horns.jpg

and this

http://www.savethemales.ca/horn-bush.jpg

lol interesting man

[BarkingSquirrel]

You can't tell that those are photoshoped?

[Seiyuuki]

And what the hell is this http://www.home.earthlink.net/~fwbull/bush_horns.jpg

and this

http://www.savethemales.ca/horn-bush.jpg

lol interesting man

Down in Texas, it's the University of Texas Longhorn.

http://www.andrew.cmu.edu/user/adubois/pics/random2/ut.jpg

[priccobe]

So let's cut this crap. Kerry isn't a Communist terrorists and Bush isn't a cocaine addicted moneygrubber.

:lol:

[reddragon]

[quote=reddragon]And what the hell is this http://www.home.earthlink.net/~fwbull/bush_horns.jpg


Down in Texas, it's the University of Texas Longhorn.

http://www.andrew.cmu.edu/user/adubois/pics/random2/ut.jpg

Cheers on clearing that up for me.

[combat jack]

Quote: Secondly, I like Bush. I think he's strong on terror, is a generally likable guy, has strong moral values and sound economic policies.

Sound economic policies? This country has the highest defecit EVER! The Bush team replied by saying "sure its bad, but not as bad as we had projected it to be". Our country has lost more jobs to foreign nations in its history, EVER.

But I do agree with Bush's anti-terrorism stance up to Afghanistan. Iraq is a f*****g joke.

[SFontaine]

You talk about unemployment? Clinton went to his election with 5.8% unemployment and Bush has what? 5.4?

[mr.x]

Reddragon,
As Seiyukki pointed out it's a gesture for the UT Longhorns. The slogan is "Hook 'em Horns"
Just throwin' some additional info your way

[OB Kenobi]

I hate Bush, i think he's a tragedy for the world, but i have to say one thing about Kerry, i wouldn't trust a guy who pretends he throws away his medals but keeps them instead. It may not be very important, but is a gesture that shows what kind of person he is.

Yeah, Kerry seems a bit slimy too me too. But, he's a politician, so it's not exactly surprising. When have you seen an honest politician?

That's what I think Bush's only strength is. He's such an imbecile (seriously, the man has some sort of mental disorder) that he seems innocent and trustworthy, like he honestly believes the lies he spews on a regular basis. People forget that he's only the figurehead for those who are really running the country (Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rove, Bush Sr, etc). Bush had the charisma to get the Republicans back in office, but he himself is just a puppet.

So I try to look at the policies, not how well a politician can act. I don't like what Bush has done in Iraq, I don't like his family's connections to terrorist $$$, I don't like his environmental policies, and I really don't like him trying to push Christianity into politics and preaching tolerance for Islam. As for Kerry, I don't like his anti-gun stance, and his affirmative action stance, but I like what he says he wants to do about outsourcing, taxing the mega-rich, and repealing parts of the Patriot Act.

I'm also hoping, if elected, Kerry would investigate and disclose what the hell has really been going on since Bush came into office and we had all this insane **** happen--starting with the California energy Crisis.

So I'm still leaning towards Kerry, but reluctantly.

[2Sheds_Jackson]

People forget that he's only the figurehead for those who are really running the country (Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rove, Bush Sr, etc).

Yes, a lot of people forget that. Most people, actually. In fact, the only people to believe that are the tinfoil hat crowd.

Yep, that Bush is a moron. Degree from Yale and an MBA from Harvard. F-102 Delta Dagger pilot. Texas Governor. Things that most of us are likely are not even qualified to begin to pursue. Exactly what kind of "behind the scenes" infrastructure has he carried with him, to accomplish these things? Was he given a number of highly qualified serfs upon his birth? Has he been guided by these unseen forces all his life? Does he have a team of slaves that have devoted their lives to him - who have traveled and grown with him over the years? That must be pretty sweet - good help is hard to find.

Does he keep tiny yet intelligent trolls in his back pocket, to get him through the rough patches when he's alone? "Gat dang this single seat F-102! Quick - ah need th' troll what knows how to pilot this here fighter jet - I aint' never figgered it out - oh lordy somebody do sumthin I'm gonna crash!"

And let's not forget that he's outsmarting that very worldly and erudite Kerry fellah. Oh, wait, that's them trolls again! :lol:

[priccobe]

Yep, that Bush is a moron. Degree from Yale and an MBA from Harvard. F-102 Delta Dagger pilot. Texas Governor. Things that most of us are likely are not even qualified to begin to pursue. Exactly what kind of "behind the scenes" infrastructure has he carried with him, to accomplish these things? Was he given a number of highly qualified serfs upon his birth? Has he been guided by these unseen forces all his life? Does he have a team of slaves that have devoted their lives to him - who have traveled and grown with him over the years? That must be pretty sweet - good help is hard to find.
:D This point that the liberals make always crack me up. They portray him as an unintelligent, buffoonish chimp yet somehow so smart that he's creating a new empire, going to war for oil and tricking all of the American people into giving up their rights!!!

Which is it? Stupid Moron or Evil Genius??!!!

rofl

[Geezah]

He didn't betray his country by throwing medals over a gate or speaking out against it's soldiers.. He was just acting like an idiot youth which he has admitted before..


At what age in the US do you become an adult because I could understand if he was 19,20 or even 21 when he acused all Vietnam Vets of being baby killers, rapists and so on, but the guy was 28yrs old, 28 he wasn't an idiot youth?

[combat jack]

Do you honestly think that Bush maps his own political strategy? Even Kerry for that matter. And as far as Bush's major accomplishments I'm pretty sure that it wasn't a magical troll in his back pocket, but like a magical troll it was green and it also sat in his back pocket. It's called money. You would be amazed at the opportunities that money and influence can provide (just look at Kerry's candidacy), even for the intellectually challenged among us.

Bush betrayed his country by sending our boys to die so that he and his buddies can make that down payment on that new boat that they've had their eyes on. Get serious. This war isn't about protecting America, its about making politicians on a government salary extremely rich. We were just fine before the bombs began to fall. Saddam was not the threat that they made him out to be. WMDs? How many countries on our **** list have nuclear capabilities? Most if not all. Why are we not bombing their countries? Granted Saddam was not the nicest kid on the block, but America isnt the world police either.

The only way that I'd have supported our actions over there was under a U.N. flag, but had Bush waited the neccessary amount of time to get U.N. support, it probably would have been more difficult to make that whole Saddam/Bin Laden connection that is non-existant.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not some bleeding heart tree hugger either. I spent a breif part of my life in the Army and am an avid firearms collector (some would even say fanatic). Its hard for me to support Kerry as well. I hate his little lacky vice-prez and I dont share his views on many issues. He might not very well be the right man for the job either. The difference is that I dont see any of his foreign policies as being dangerous to the American people. Its time to wake up.

[Geezah]

The only way that I'd have supported our actions over there was under a U.N. flag, but had Bush waited the neccessary amount of time to get U.N. support, it probably would have been more difficult to make that whole Saddam/Bin Laden connection that is non-existant.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not some bleeding heart tree hugger either. I spent a breif part of my life in the Army and am an avid firearms collector (some would even say fanatic). Its hard for me to support Kerry as well. I hate his little lacky vice-prez and I dont share his views on many issues. He might not very well be the right man for the job either. The difference is that I dont see any of his foreign policies as being dangerous to the American people. Its time to wake up.

If you were the avid firearms collector as you claim(some would even say fanatic) then I don't see why you would want to give the UN more power than they need, seeing as they want to take away all your firearms? :cantbeli:

[priccobe]

The UN is a failed institution.

[Dennis G]

http://www.inthesetimes.com/issue/25/25/feature3.shtml


Sounds like yet another 11th hour attempt by the libs to wrest the presidency from Bush. Shall we look into John Skerry's underwear to se if there are any Arab dollars there? Or how about his witch-wife's bank accounts.

In the 1980s, the USA was financing the Afgan freedom fighters -- the muhjadeen (sp?). Was not Osama bin Laden a member of, if not partnered with the Afgan muhjadeen? Did George W. Bush know in the 1980s or early 1990s that some people with a potential peripheral financial tie to his company had some relatives that were future terrorists?

This article does not impress me. If it could be proven that a public official continued doing business with killers after it became known that they were killers... that is a different matter.



Look, the deal is this.

Do you want Bush for another four years or do you want Kerry for another four years? That is the question. Period.

[combat jack]

Hey Geezah,

Exactly how much power does the U.N. need anyway?

[Geezah]

Hey Geezah,

Exactly how much power does the U.N. need anyway?

I don't think they need to have any power, because they haven't really solved anything, the oil for food program was a mess and that's a prime example of the UN abusing the power they currently have.
If you were this avid gun collector(some would even say fanatic) then you would be quite aware of their hopes and future plans for American gun owners, if the water is just right for them to jump in! ;)

[2Sheds_Jackson]

Do you honestly think that Bush maps his own political strategy? Even Kerry for that matter. And as far as Bush's major accomplishments I'm pretty sure that it wasn't a magical troll in his back pocket, but like a magical troll it was green and it also sat in his back pocket. It's called money. You would be amazed at the opportunities that money and influence can provide (just look at Kerry's candidacy), even for the intellectually challenged among us.

Bush betrayed his country by sending our boys to die so that he and his buddies can make that down payment on that new boat that they've had their eyes on. Get serious. This war isn't about protecting America, its about making politicians on a government salary extremely rich. We were just fine before the bombs began to fall. Saddam was not the threat that they made him out to be. WMDs? How many countries on our **** list have nuclear capabilities? Most if not all. Why are we not bombing their countries? Granted Saddam was not the nicest kid on the block, but America isnt the world police either.

The only way that I'd have supported our actions over there was under a U.N. flag, but had Bush waited the neccessary amount of time to get U.N. support, it probably would have been more difficult to make that whole Saddam/Bin Laden connection that is non-existant.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not some bleeding heart tree hugger either. I spent a breif part of my life in the Army and am an avid firearms collector (some would even say fanatic). Its hard for me to support Kerry as well. I hate his little lacky vice-prez and I dont share his views on many issues. He might not very well be the right man for the job either. The difference is that I dont see any of his foreign policies as being dangerous to the American people. Its time to wake up.

Oh man, you're politically all over the place. How can you strongly support the right to own guns and support the UN? Those are mutually exclusive positions. Don't you know their position on gun ownership?

The President is charged with promoting and protecting the United States, not the interests of the foreign governments that make up the UN. If they share our goals - hooray for them, we appreciate the help. But if they don't support our goals (and why would we expect our adversaries to support our goals?) - you'd have us just follow their wishes instead?

If you only insist on the UN blessing because it would provide a larger more powerful military force - take a look at fas.org & see how the US military compares to those of other nations. Look at the force mix of the 1st Gulf war - overwhelmingly comprised of US forces, with Britain at #2. From there, the numbers went down pretty steeply. When it comes to military capability, the US is the 800lb gorilla. Having a Un stamp of approval may make us all warm and happy, but in reality it does little to increase military capability.

As evidence of the sham that the UN has become, consider that Chriac and Villepin outright lied to us at the Security Council before voting on 1441. Instead of backing the resolution as promised, France announced that they would never, ever authorize force against Iraq. Since France has a veto on the Security Council, that meant that no matter how long you’d' like Bush to have waited, there would never have been the all-important UN blessing.

Why would we expect member nations to cut off their profits fromt he oil-for-palaces program?

Assuming you want the UN to be the ultimate authority - exactly how long should Iraq have been able to go on violating resolution 687? They were at 11 years and counting. Is 11 not long enough? Is 15 ok...how 'bout 20...25...or more realistically, they'd just violate it long enough to roll their first atomic tipped missile down main street.

(As an aside, I assume you know that the US military doesn't go anywhere, any time "under a UN flag", at least according to the Constitution)

I'd also like to know how Bush's bulging wallet helped him in the pilot's seat of his F-102. Did he glue all those 50 dollar bills together to form a life-size mannequin, paint it to look like a pilot, and send that through flight school for him? Remember that this was back in the slide-rule flight computer days - I find it rather difficult to believe that an idiot could not only get through flight school, but get through fast jet school, and fly missions in a single seat F-102 without being somewhat on the ball.

[catchv22]

Yeah, I really think this stupid overexaggeration is getting out of hand. We all know Kerry isn't for communism and we all know Bush isn't a moron.

[combat jack]

First off the U.N. has nothing to do with American law making. Our Constitution says that we have the right to bear arms and no foreign policy maker can take that away. Secondly, I do understand that the U.N. does not have the greatest track record, but their support for our operations in Iraq would have made all the difference to me. You have to ask yourself why they dont support us. And exactly what are our goals in Iraq? To pre-empt a strike against America? It seems that I have noticed more MAJOR terrorist operations against civilians in the last several years then in the last thirty, and more in the last several weeks then in the last several years. I think that we are more at risk for a major attack then ever before. Dont get me wrong, I think a strong stance against terrorism is a good thing, but that involves equiping and training local law enforcement and not a prolonged campaign against the fourth largest oil producer in the world. Saddam was contained.

And to Jackson, as September 11 demonstrated it doesnt take a genius to fly.

Yes I am politically all over the place. I dont believe that the answer to our problems here in America lie on the left or the right but somewhere in between.

[BarkingSquirrel]

And to Jackson, as September 11 demonstrated it doesnt take a genius to fly.

No, it just takes attending a pilot's course down in florida for almost a year, then leaving before you learn how to land. They were already in the air, and knew they werent landing. How much intelligence do you think it takes to steer?

[combat jack]

Look, Im off of my soap box. The way that I see it is if people are stupid enough to vote for Bush again, then he deserves to win.

[BarkingSquirrel]

A pretty sad day when millions of people are labeled "stupid" because they excercise their constitutional right and vote for the candidate that they believe in.

[usa320]

Im really getting sick of this election.

But heres my basic thoughts on it.


John kerry's campaign has failed.

Its failed to convince me he will do anything different than the current president.

Its failed to convince me that he has a specific, well though ought plan to stimulate economic growth, win the peace in Iraq, and defeat terrorism. Sure, he talks tough, but i have yet to see any details about his "plans".

Its failed to convince me that John kerry is a man who i can trust. Without getting to deep here, he obviously did some things after vietnam that were very close to being treasounous, at least beneficial to the enemy. If he was willing to change his opinions then, to make up stuff and betray his fellow soldiers then to go along with public opinion, then why should i believe hell do anything different now?

Most importantly, his campaigned has FAILED to convince me as a voter to take him as a candidate seriously. His entire campaign revolves around events that occured like 40 years ago. Hes spent more time arguing over swift boats, forged documents, voting for the 87 bil and before he voted against it and three purple hearts than he has detailing his plan for the economy and education and healthcare and national security. All he does is talk "of" the issues. He never talks "about" them.


George Bush on The other hand... There are things i would have done differently had i been in his position. Thats for certain. However with the President at least i know what to expect from him. He will not change his mind or approach everytime the polls change. He says hes going to do something and he does it. Even if i dont agree with it, at least he sticks to his guns and does it, even if the people might not necessarily like the idea. President Bush, unlike John kerry HAS spent most of his campaign detailing how he will help make America better. Hes spent all of his time talking about healthcare and war and social security. Hes discussed the issues. he knows the issues. Hes spent more time on his campaign explaining his plans and ideas than he has defending himself and trying to adjust his campaign to please public opinion.

Bottom line is, we just live in a world right now that changes so much and can be so dangerous, that we need a president who knows his position on things, sticks to his guns and gets things done, even if it might not seem like the best idea at the given time. Particularly in a time of war, its a very bad idea to trade in an experienced president for someone who we cannot be sure of.

[combat jack]

Valid points, but I didnt ask for this war and I sure dont need it. I would rather have a president that I am not sure about then one who tells me a bold faced lie.

[budanski]

I would rather have a president that I am not sure about then one who tells me a bold faced lie.
Then Kerrys your man. :roll:

[mi35d]

Interesting how when a Democrat takes us into war it's a justified event. "I'm Bubba Bill Clinton and I think we should go to the Balkans. But we'll only be there for 10 months 'cause I'm a Democrat and not a war mongering Ree-publican." Hmmm...Kosovo, Bosnia, Albania, Macedonia, etc. etc. But that's o.k.

As for "youthful indiscretions"...

Clinton went to Moscow and protested the US government while we were in Vietnam. Youthful indiscrections.

Kerry came back after Vietnam (after only serving four months "in-country" despite what the DNC keeps spewing - his first tour of duty was a patrol from Vietnam to California) and protested his government in France with the VIET CONG! Youthful indiscrections.

Senator Byrd of W. Virginia: When he was in his late 20's he was a GRAND DRAGON in the Klu Klux Klan. How is this explained away? Why, youthful indiscretion of course!

Meanwhile, Bush gets rowdy with his Frat brothers while he's at university and drinks a few beers - he's A BOOZE HOUND!!! "But this was just youthful indiscretion!" NOPE!!! According to the DNC your entire life is subject to scrutiny - unless you're a Democrat of course!

[OB Kenobi]

Oh man, you're politically all over the place. How can you strongly support the right to own guns and support the UN? Those are mutually exclusive positions. Don't you know their position on gun ownership?

I agree with him. Why are you afraid of the UN? The UN isn't going to take our guns away, the UN can't change our Constitution, and it sure as hell isn't going to invade us.

Besides, the UN is made up of the sum of the nations on this Earth, it is not a seperate "evil" or "liberal" entity that's trying to take over the world. It's a place to negotiate, to organize aid programs, provide peacekeepers, oversee elections, and in some rare cases, authorize an invasion.

Let me guess, I bet you think the UN is supposed to be some plot to create an NWO? Well, guess what, the real plot to create an NWO is being implemented by the Neocons and the filthy rich who want to hold on to their power, not the UN.

They're going to fail, btw.

[Knutsen]

I don't know much about internal politics in the US, but one thing is for sure, when here in Europe we get the news and hear Bush saying he's gonna cut off many trees to avoid fires....... You know it's not very strange that most europeans get the idea he's stupid.

[priccobe]

Let me guess, I bet you think the UN is supposed to be some plot to create an NWO? Well, guess what, the real plot to create an NWO is being implemented by the Neocons and the filthy rich who want to hold on to their power, not the UN.

I see you've just fallen off the edge and are floating around in a place called "LA LA LAND".

I'm reaching my hand out to you in an effort to bring you back! :D

[combat jack]

The thing about Bubba Bill Clintons little wars is that they were not waged for personal gain, i.e. money. Going to the Balkans was just the right thing to do. ALOT of innocent people where getting killed over there. I am all for war if it is for the right reasons. I am not for war if it is simply to make one guy and a few of his buddies more money. Somalia? Same thing. There was no financial gain from sending troops to Somalia. Why did he do it? Because it was the right thing to do. My only regrets about Somalia is that we didn't stay to finish the job, but in reality, it might not even have been worth it. Let's not kid ourselves, no one gives a **** about Iraq or its people. We aren't over there to liberate them from some evil dictator because its the right thing to do. We have financial interests in that region, plain and simple. The only reason we are still there is to protect those financial interests before someone else has a chance to claim them. Its a shame so many people have to die for that.

Bush just having a couple beers? If what Im hearing is true his college buddies claimed that he was the biggest coke-head they knew. That may not be that relevant now but at least it gives me an idea of what kind of man we are dealing with.

[priccobe]

Going to the Balkans was just the right thing to do. ALOT of innocent people where getting killed over there. I am all for war if it is for the right reasons. I am not for war if it is simply to make one guy and a few of his buddies more money. Somalia? Same thing. There was no financial gain from sending troops to Somalia. Why did he do it? Because it was the right thing to do.
I'm going to use your argument here, freeing the Iraqi people from Saddam was the right thing to do.


Let's not kid ourselves, no one gives a **** about Iraq or its people.
You may not, but a lot of people do.

We have financial interests in that region, plain and simple.
Every single country that uses oil has an interest in that region, not just us.

Its a shame so many people have to die for that.
Yes, it's a real shame that so many Iraqis had to die while the UN sat on their collective asses so that France, Germany and Russia could get rich bypassing the sanctions and laundering billions through the Oil-For-Food program...

[Geezah]

Oh man, you're politically all over the place. How can you strongly support the right to own guns and support the UN? Those are mutually exclusive positions. Don't you know their position on gun ownership?

I agree with him. Why are you afraid of the UN? The UN isn't going to take our guns away, the UN can't change our Constitution, and it sure as hell isn't going to invade us.

Besides, the UN is made up of the sum of the nations on this Earth, it is not a seperate "evil" or "liberal" entity that's trying to take over the world. It's a place to negotiate, to organize aid programs, provide peacekeepers, oversee elections, and in some rare cases, authorize an invasion.

Let me guess, I bet you think the UN is supposed to be some plot to create an NWO? Well, guess what, the real plot to create an NWO is being implemented by the Neocons and the filthy rich who want to hold on to their power, not the UN.

They're going to fail, btw.

Oi Obi, you better take your head out of the sand,


THE UN IS
COMING FOR YOUR GUNS

INCREMENTAL DISARMAMENT OF OUR CITIZENRY


There's a lot in common between the United Nations and soil erosion. Both operate incrementally. A couple of tons of soil washed away here, another assault on America's Constitution there. Over time, both lead to disaster.
If you've been paying attention, you remember that on September 6, 2000, the U.N. gathered world leaders together in New York City for its Millennium Assembly to give the U.N. oversight of international conflicts. They gave the U.N. power to be judge and jury over violators of international law. They gave the U.N. oversight of financial institutions, commerce, trade relations, education and private property. Existing national, state and local governments are to remain as conduits to locally carry out U.N. policy. Officials in our American government approved and aided this U.N. attempt to replace our Constitution with the United Nations Charter.

In the final analysis, what's stopping the U.N. from taking over the United States right now? It's our armed citizenry, the citizens known as "militia" by the Founding Fathers. As long as millions of Americans remain armed with personal firearms and abundant ammunition, conquest of America by military means is a dangerous and expensive option, and would-be U.N. World Government people know this.

So this month, in New York City, the U.N. will hold a global summit meeting on the "Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons." The stated objective is to stop rebels, criminals and insurrectionists who commit crime and revolution around the world. One of the claims is that those folks carry weapons which originally were legitimately sold to private individuals as legal firearms. Thus, they reason, firearms and ammunition must be confiscated from private citizens. Under the U.N. plan, only governments, including a U.N. standing army, would possess the world's remaining firearms. Citizens would be disarmed, including even hunting rifles.

This is a workable plan. Hitler proved it. Hitler had his own versions of the Million Moms March and Handgun Control, Inc., who noisily demanded that firearms be licensed, then restricted, and finally taken away from private citizens. When Hitler came to power in Germany he confiscated all personal firearms for "public safety" reasons. When private citizens were no longer armed, Hitler started rounding up the Jews, Gypsies, handicapped, mentally retarded and other "useless eaters" and "undesirables" and shipped them off to slave labor or extermination camps according to their ability to produce materials for the war effort.

Do you honestly believe that the U.N. and our own federal government are so benevolent that they would never resort to tyranny after citizens are disarmed? If so, review your history. Governments are responsible for killing more of their own citizens for political reasons than have been killed in wars between competing governments. The facts and trend lines are very clear. The U.N. is working toward World Dictatorship, little by little and with the help of left-wing Socialist organizations, anti-Capitalist foundations and members of our own government, and if we don't get out of the U.N. now, and shut that outfit down, our future will be Communism.


Link (http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3b47c86d3e4d.htm)

[Geezah]

United Nations Attack on Gun Ownership

The attempt this year to reprise last year's Million Mom March was a dud, attracting only about 200 demonstrators, and the Democrats' political gurus are whining about how Al Gore's pro-gun-control stance cost him votes last year in crucial states. So the anti-gun activists have moved to a less democratic venue: the United Nations.
On July 9 to 20, New York City will host the United Nations Conference on Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons in All Its Aspects. The purpose of this conference is to demonize the private ownership of guns and get governments to confiscate all privately owned guns.

Don't be misled by the term "small arms." UN documents define small arms as weapons "designed for personal use" (such as your Browning pistol, your Ruger rifle, or your Winchester shotgun), while light weapons are for use by several persons as a crew.

Don't be misled by the term "illicit" trade. UN documents make it clear that, since most illegal guns start out as legal purchases, illicit trade must be stopped by clamping down on legal gun owners.

Don't think that this UN conference is just a talkfest. It is scheduled to produce a legally binding treaty to require governments to mark, number, register, record, license, confiscate, and destroy all guns except those in the hands of the military and the police.

The 18-page Draft Programme of Action (http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/smallarms/2001/0109draf.htm) to be presented to the July conference sets forth the rationale plus the mechanisms for eliminating the "wide availability" of guns. It's obvious that the United States is the target because we are the only country with a Second Amendment, and other democracies such as England, Canada and Australia have either banned or severely restricted private gun ownership.

The Draft Programme wraps its gun-confiscation message in typical UN semantics, but makes little attempt to conceal the mailed fist in the velvet glove. It states: "In order to promote peace, security, stability and sustainable development in the world, we commit ourselves to addressing this problem in a comprehensive, integrated, sustainable, efficient and urgent manner."

Indeed, the plan is comprehensive and integrated. According to the Draft Programme, "Preventing and reducing the illicit trade in small arms and light weapons consists of two sets of measures: the national control of manufacture and the proper marking of small arms and light weapons, coupled with accurate, sustained recordkeeping and exchanges of information."

Government "marking" and recordkeeping is "an integral part" of the process. It's clear that the UN is demanding that governments build a national electronic database of all guns and their owners, and then facilitate "an information exchange" (i.e., share the database with the UN).

Through the Department for Disarmament Affairs, the UN promises to "develop an international mechanism that will facilitate the exchange of information on all aspects" of guns, i.e., a global gun registry.

To wipe out private gun ownership, the UN demands that all governments enforce "adequate laws, regulations and administrative procedures to exercise effective control over the legal manufacture and possession of small arms and light weapons." And the UN demands that governments criminally prosecute all those who don't comply.

The UN plans to develop "model national legislation" so that Congress will pass laws that conform to the treaty's requirements. The UN plans to guide Congress by publishing "best practices" for legislation and procedures.

All unmarked or inadequately marked small arms and light weapons are to be confiscated and "expeditiously destroyed." The government is to assure that "no retransfer of small arms and light weapons takes place without prior authorization" by the government because the UN disapproves of the possession of guns by civilians who are "not part of responsible military and police forces."

The UN also has a plan to propagandize Americans to accept this global ban on private gun ownership. The Draft Programme calls for "seminars, conferences, consultations and workshops conducted by the United Nations" for the purpose of "promoting the Action Plan." As part of its "awareness-training" to induce Americans to accept the new ban-the-guns policy, the UN wants government to pledge to destroy guns in "public destruction events."

The UN wants the first day of the conference to be called "Small Arms Destruction Day." The conference's Preparatory Committee (Prep Com) is calling on all governments, with the assistance of the UN's NGOs (Non-Government Organizations) and "civil society" (a fancy name for the NGOs working in tandem), to organize public events to promote the destruction of small arms and light weapons on that day.

The decision on NGO participation, adopted by the Prep Com without a vote, is in line with the growing UN practice of expanding the influence of "relevant" NGOs while bypassing sovereign member states. "Relevant" means only those NGOs that promote the UN agenda.

When the United Nations bounced us from the Human Rights Commission, while giving seats to Sudan, Libya, China and Cuba, that was just an insult. But it's deadly serious business when the UN tries to take away our guns.

Surprise Assault on Gun Ownership

The gun-control lobby is on the warpath in a most surprising venue. A group called Doctors Against Handgun Injury is calling on doctors, including psychiatrists, to ask their patients nosy questions about their gun ownership.

As far back as we can remember, doctors have vigorously opposed any interference with the confidentiality of the doctor-patient relationship. We could always count on medical associations to defend patient privacy against any invasion by government, the media or others into personal medical records. Psychiatrists have been outspoken in the past about the importance of patient-doctor confidentially because trust in the doctor is particularly important. Their patients are usually in a very vulnerable and exploitable state of mind.

Somehow, this is changing under a new onslaught by the gun-control lobby. It has lined up a coalition consisting of the American Psychiatric Association, the American Medical Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and ten other medical organizations claiming a membership of 600,000 doctors. (Faria, Miguel A. MD, "Doctors to Spy on Patients' Gun Ownership," NewsMax.com, 3-26-01)

The Doctors Against Handgun Injury plan to engage in what it calls "upstream intervention." That means using regular medical checkups to ask patients about firearm ownership and storage in their homes and warn them of the risks of this behavior.

But that's not all. Doctors Against Handgun Injury is also calling for changes in public policy, such as mandatory background checks on buyers at gun shows, limits on the number of guns an individual can buy, and a waiting period for all gun purchasers.

Will patients no longer see their physician as a trusted professional in whom they can confide their most private facts about mind and health? Will the physician instead be perceived as an arm of the government prying into their private lives, or as a spokesman of a special-interest advocacy group pursuing a political agenda?

Unfortunately, some gun-control lawmakers are trying to lock doctors into the ban-the-gun agenda. A bill now under consideration in the California State Legislature would require pediatricians to subject children and their parents to all sorts of nosy questions about "family, environmental, and social risk factors," including whether there are guns in the home and whether their parents spank them.

You would think that the American Medical Association (AMA) would be shouting from the housetops against this government and outside interference with private medical practice, but it looks like the AMA has joined the ban-the-guns movement. The AMA uses its publications, including its Journal (JAMA), to publish biased research with preordained conclusions, such as "easy gun availability results in crime." (Faria, Miguel A., MD, "The AMA, Ethics and Gun Control," NewsMax.com, 5-03-01) Professor John R. Lott's book More Guns, Less Crime provides massive data to prove its title.

The AMA has plenty of money to pursue its left-liberal political agenda, it doesn't have to depend on the support of member doctors. Two-thirds of the AMA's annual $200 million operating budget comes from sources other than membership, which has now dwindled to only a third of U.S. physicians.

A principal source of AMA wealth is a contract (kept secret from 1983 to 1998) with the Health Care Financing Administration (HCFA) by which HCFA requires all doctors to buy the AMA codes and use them to bill the government and third-party insurance carriers for all medical services. Failure to use the AMA codes accurately may result in government accusations of fraud and abuse, and prosecution and imprisonment.

The taxpayer-financed Centers for Disease Control (CDC) is also climbing aboard the ban-the-guns movement. It is trying to broaden the scope of public health to include the banning and confiscation of all handguns, the restrictive licensing of owners of other firearms, and the eventual elimination of all guns from private ownership except for a small elite of wealthy collectors, hunters and target shooters. (Tennessee Law Review 1995; 62:513-596)

CDC spokesmen propagate the myth that most of the perpetrators of violence are ordinary citizens rather than criminals by trade. The fact is that the typical murderer has a prior criminal history of at least six years with four felony arrests before he commits murder, and 75 percent of all violent crimes are committed by six percent of hardened criminals and repeat offenders.

We don't have to look very far to observe the tragic loss of liberty in countries that have gone down the road of banning private gun ownership or using doctors to collect confidential data on their patients to serve a political agenda.

Free Trade Is an Economic Not a Moral Issue

Most conservatives are so happy that we now have a President who has restored dignity to the White House. We are pleased that he brings a moral dimension to his actions and isn't squeamish about acknowledging his religious faith. But it was distressing that George W. Bush's recent remarks to the Council of the Americas went over the line. He proclaimed that "open trade is not just an economic opportunity, it is a moral imperative."

Sorry, Mr. President, you have it backwards. Open or free trade may be an economic opportunity (for some), but it certainly is not a moral imperative. The Bible does not instruct us on free trade and it's not one of the Ten Commandments. Jesus did not tell us to follow Him along the road to free trade.

Calling free trade "a moral imperative" is a sly semantic attempt to cast those who oppose free trade into exterior darkness where there is weeping and gnashing of teeth. No one gave our President authority to sweep out of the temple those who espouse what he calls "a new kind of protectionism."

Nor is there anything in the United States Constitution that requires us to support free trade and to abhor protectionism. In fact, protectionism was the economic system believed in and practiced by the framers of our Constitution.

Protective tariffs were the principal source of revenue for our Federal Government from its beginning in 1789 until the passage of the Sixteenth Amendment, which created the federal income tax, in 1913. Were all those public officials during those hundred plus years remiss in not adhering to a "moral obligation" of free trade? Hardly.

It is obvious that the Founding Fathers considered free trade among the states of the United States an economic imperative, but that free trade with England, the country that tried to treat us as its subordinate colony, would be ridiculous. To argue that the success of free trade within U.S. borders means that global free trade is a good idea is a total non sequitur. The success of free trade within the United States depends on government to enforce it against state's rights (sovereignty) and, likewise, global free trade requires global government to enforce it against every nation's sovereignty (as we are already seeing through the decisions handed down by the World Trade Organization).

The final paragraph in George W. Bush's recent speech exhorted his audience of non-elected diplomats, assembled as the Council of the Americas, to "help to bring sanity to the United States Congress." It's bad enough that President Bush cast those who oppose free trade into limbo with those who lack morality, but it's downright insulting that he labels them as lacking sanity.

Everyone present understood that "sanity" in the President's lexicon referred to passage of the U.S. Trade Promotion Authority bill, known as Fast Track, which Bush urged in his May 10 letter to Congress. That bill would surrender to the President Congress's explicit constitutional power "to regulate commerce with foreign nations."

Free trade and Fast Track are issues that, in one way or another, touch the lives of most Americans. They deserve to be debated as the economic and national security issues that they are, not by name-calling.

The arguments the President offered for free trade were that it "creates jobs for the unemployed," pays "for clean air and water," and promotes "democracy ... in good time." But all those benefits are for foreign countries, not the United States.

President Bush has just demonstrated how he would use Fast Track by the way he is currently implementing NAFTA (North American Free Trade Agreement) to advantage Mexico and disadvantage Americans. The Administration announced this month that it will allow Mexican trucking companies to operate on U.S. highways without auditing their safety practices for up to 18 months.

How many cheaters do you think would appear if IRS announced that it wouldn't audit any tax returns filed in the next 18 months? In the name of free trade, would Americans accept not checking for foot-and-mouth disease for the next 18 months?

Some 14,000 Mexican trucks have been crossing the border every day but have so far been limited to a narrow region along the border. The Bush Administration will now allow them to operate across our entire country.

The failure of Mexican trucks to meet U.S. standards for safety, weight, emissions, tires, brakes, age and drug and alcohol use of drivers, and insurance coverage is common knowledge. Only about one percent of Mexican trucks are inspected at the border and, of those, at least 30 percent fail to meet our standards. Why should Mexican trucks have a free ride to escape regulations that U.S. trucks must obey? Furthermore, it's anybody's guess how many illegal aliens and illegal drugs are concealed in the 99 percent of uninspected Mexican trucks.

Another paragraph in President Bush's speech seems just as out of touch with reality. He said, "A recent summit in Quebec symbolized the new reality in our hemisphere, a unity of shared values, shared culture and shared trade."

President Bush's speechwriters should know that there is less reality of shared culture in Quebec than almost any place in the Western Hemisphere. It was only six years ago that 49.4 percent of French-speaking Quebecois voted to secede from the shared culture of English-speaking Canada.

The lesson that Quebec teaches is that language is a powerful pressure point of disunity when one section of the country speaks a language different from that of the national majority. It is unfortunate that President Bush appears to be fostering this same kind of separatism by starting to deliver his Saturday radio broadcasts in Spanish as well as in English.



Statement on the Second Amendment

by Attorney General John Ashcroft
May 17, 2001
. . . Let me state unequivocally my view that the text and the original intent of the Second Amendment clearly protect the right of individuals to keep and bear firearms.

While some have argued that the Second Amendment guarantees only a "collective" right of the States to maintain militias, I believe the Amendment's plain meaning and original intent prove otherwise. Like the First and Fourth Amendments, the Second Amendment protects the rights of "the people," which the Supreme Court has noted is a term of art that should be interpreted consistently throughout the Bill of Rights. United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez, 494 U.S. 259, 265 (1990) (plurality opinion). Just as the First and Fourth Amendments secure individual rights of speech and security respectively, the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms.

This view of the text comports with the all but unanimous understanding of the Founding Fathers. See, e.g., Federalist No. 46 (Madison); Federalist No. 29 (Hamilton); see also, Thomas Jefferson, Proposed Virginia Constitution, 1764 ("No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."); George Mason at Virginia's U.S. Constitution ratification convention 1788 ("I ask sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people . . . To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them.").

This is not a novel position. In early decisions, the United States Supreme Court routinely indicated that the right protected by the Second Amendment applied to individuals. See, e.g., Logan v. United States, 144 U.S. 263, 276 (1892); Miller v. Texas, 153 U.S. 535, 538 (1893); Robertson v. Baldwin, 165 U.S. 275, 281-82 (1897); Maxwell v. Dow, 176 U.S. 581, 397 (1900). Justice Story embraced the same view in his influential Commentaries on the Constitution. See 3 J. Story, Commentaries on the Constitution § 1890, p. 746 (1833). It is the view that was adopted by United States Attorney General Homer Cummings before Congress in testifying about the constitutionality of the first federal gun control statute, the National Firearms Act of 1934. See The National Firearms Act of 1934: Hearings on H.R. 9066 Before the House Comm. on Ways and Means, 73rd Cong. 6, 13, 19 (1934).

As recently as 1986, the United States Congress and President Ronald Reagan explicitly adopted this view in the Firearms Owners' Protection Act. See Pub. L. No. 99-308, §1(b) (1986). Significantly, the individual rights view is embraced by the preponderance of legal scholarship on the subject, which, I note, includes articles by academics on both ends of the political spectrum. See, e.g., William Van Alstyne, The Second Amendment and the Personal Rights to Arms, 43 Duke L.J. 1236 (1994); Alchil Reed Amar, The Bill of Rights and the Fourteenth Amendment, 101 Yale L.J. 1193 (1992); Sanford Levinson, The Embarrassing Second Amendment, 99 Yale L.J. 637 (1989); Don Kates, Handgun Prohibition and the Original Meaning of the Second Amendment, 82 Mich. L. Rev. 204 (1983).

In light of this vast body of evidence, I believe it is clear that the Constitution protects the private ownership of firearms for lawful purposes. . . .


Link (http://www.eagleforum.org/psr/2001/june01/psrjune01.shtml)

[moughoun]

the UN can barely keep PK/PE mission's on the road and you think they are going to "take over" the US!!! :cantbeli:

[combat jack]

I'm sorry man but there are worse dictators out there then Saddam. North Korea? Iran? They are testing nuclear missles right now and oppressing their own people ( I'm not aware of the specifics but I hear its pretty bad over there).

You cant tell me that the Iraqi people have earned some special place in your heart that causes a need to invade their country. The truth is that they dont want us there and I dont want us to be there, its mutual. At least the extremists are killing enough of them to where they are tired of it and ready to take a stand. Our best bet now is to train and equip them enough to handle themselves when we leave. What angers me is that all of that manpower and those resources would be better spent in our own borders.

The U.N. stance on gun control is irrelevant to American gun ownership. In order to comply, we would have to change our Constitution and I dont see that happening any time soon.

The CDC confiscating firearms? Get real! That is way out of there legal jurisdiction. Doctors getting nosy about gun ownership? Find a new doctor or simply tell them that its none of their business. As far as the Second Amendment goes, there is no debat. Firearms are legal plain and simple, and it will stay that way for a long time. See above statement.

[Geezah]

The U.N. stance on gun control is irrelevant to American gun ownership. In order to comply, we would have to change our Constitution and I dont see that happening any time soon.

The CDC confiscating firearms? Get real! That is way out of there legal jurisdiction. Doctors getting nosy about gun ownership? Find a new doctor or simply tell them that its none of their business. As far as the Second Amendment goes, there is no debat. Firearms are legal plain and simple, and it will stay that way for a long time. See above statement.

Did you just miss the AWB sunset, that was done in 94, who knows what else they have up their sleeves and you're trying to tell me that the UN has no way of accomplishing their goals by using Liberal Puppets already in positions of power!

[combat jack]

Honestly the AWB sunset doesnt effect me that much. I can take the pin out of my Mini-14 folder is all, but I could have done that anytime. At least now I dont have to worry about the folding-pin-police.

The U.N. has little influence over American policy making. Some maybe, perhaps more with other presidents, but not enough to make me worried.

[combat jack]

Its the combat jack show

[combat jack]

Somebody kill this thread.

[SpazzMunky]

[quote]United Nations Attack on Gun Ownership


Free Trade Is an Economic Not a Moral Issue

Most conservatives are so happy that we now have a President who has restored dignity to the White House. We are pleased that he brings a moral dimension to his actions and isn't squeamish about acknowledging his religious faith. But it was distressing that George W. Bush's recent remarks to the Council of the Americas went over the line. He proclaimed that "open trade is not just an economic opportunity, it is a moral imperative."

Sorry, Mr. President, you have it backwards. Open or free trade may be an economic opportunity (for some), but it certainly is not a moral imperative. The Bible does not instruct us on free trade and it's not one of the Ten Commandments. Jesus did not tell us to follow Him along the road to free trade.

rofl This reads like something straight out of the Onion.


I'm also still laughing about the part comparing the Million Moms March to Hitler. What parallel universe is this article written in?

[combat jack]

Trade for what? Politics, Religion, and guns don't mix.