Well, I did not said it was possible. The nature of Bin Laden's antagonism toward us is, by its very nature, impossible to reason. But if there was hope to make America, the Occident et al safer by going to sit and talk with these extremists, would it be wrong to consider it? Or you prefer to keep your pride, and getting more american soldiers killed on a regular basis? More civilians murdered by both sides?
The exit of Donald Rumsleldt has shown that the Democrats have tasted blood, and will not hesitate to extract their concessions for compromising with Bush for his legislative agenda. A weakened Bush with 2 more years left to go bodes ill for the war in Iraq and other problems facing the country. And it boded well before Democract victory? <b
And just what "did" Foley do? Hummmmm? besides make a pass at a page that was of legal age even if, he was another male. After which he resigned. And who pushed for his resignation? I'll give you a hint....it starts with an R. Representatives? Foley was a clearly anti-gay politician, rest my case with this statement, your honor. <br
Was it the Senate Democrats who turned their back on Lieberman, or the Democrat Party of Connecticutt? My guess would be the Democract Party of Connecticut, since they decide who will show up during the elections... But I may be proved wrong... someone?
double-post
No I just don't care what they think! spoken like a true jackass self-serving American! I think the Nazi German said the same things about other country's opinions during the 30s... When your country is erring, outsiders opinion is often a good sign of your radicalism... <TABLE cellpadding=8 width="95%" align=center bgColor=#FFF
Makes no difference, pro "or" con. It was against the law. He was "still" an officer in the US Navy and what he did was against regulations. And on top of all that he gave up his brothers-in-arms! By portraying them as cowards, murders, rapists and the like. Indeed. The Law should always be followed blindly, not caring of the consequences. <b
I don't know if the democrats will have the integrity to treat their own as harshly as they treat the republicans. Neither does the Reps for themselves. Hence Foley et al.
And yes your arguement is flawed. The Republicans only got the congressional "majority" in 2004. So there's no way "we" handed him a blank check for 6 years. I will admit to 2 yrs (2004-2006) of being unchecked by us. Which personaly I think was rather stupid! what about 01-02? That's 2 more years And not forgetting t
Another point to consider....you won't see "any" of this on a major media site. They have been sweeping this under the rug for awhile any idea why? Especially a republican powerhouse such a FoxNews would keep this under the rug, while there are clear evidence? Were there any good that came out of Kerry's encounters with these generals? S
If by "good" you mean not accomplishing much of anything... Is that republican propaganda? I am looking over Clinton Administration's wiki accomplishments, and he has done quite a few things. One of them being one of the most popular (both outside and inside) american president of the 50 last years. I guess that,s why Republican hate hi
Bush-basher will turn on the dems if the Dems take the house while being unchecked. Divided Government is the best thing that can happen to your country, folks. Bush would not have been that bad if Dems kept him in check. Clinton have been good because Reps checked him...
So why do Republicans-supporter cried that "We need to have a united government"? The only reason Republican done a really good job in the Congress under Clinton, was BECAUSE Clinton was president. The only reason Clinton done a good job, it'S because he was in check by the GOP. The only reason Bush is completely criticized worldwide, feared and ridiculed, is because no one kept him in check for the past 6 years. Republicans gave him a BLANK CHECK. Is my argument flawed?
I am an individual, I do not care to be defined, I voted Democrat for 35 years till I saw the garbage they had to offer for the 2004 Presidential elections. Myrander and I have been nasty to one another for coming up on 2 years. I still vote for the best person, I have never voted a straight Republican ticket, nor will I ever do that,unless the best for the job happens to
Can you source me a website that isn't so.. one-sided? WorldNetDaily seems to be a christian-powerhouse-mega-conservative propaganda website. Just after reading a few of their adds and headlines.
stock market loves division in the house, less oversight for them to deal with. - less unilateral administration, who can do what it wants no questions asked. - less spending (proven by The Economist)
your poison mouth is not welcome here myrrander. Period, till you can learn to expound your views without making it some kind of personal attack on me. Actually, Myrrander has quite well defined the positions of many people on this forum. Even if the Dems would manage to do all the good possible in america, you guys would still criticized them.
While still holding a U.S. Naval Commission, Kerry met with enemy Generals in Paris. This is a capital crime. What was the date? What are the names of the ennemy generals? I just went over Kerry's bio on wiki, and there is no mention about it.
Your hatred of anything even remotely involving the US has made you addle brained and no amount of factual information is going to change that for you, anyone who doesn't agree with America (or, more narrowly, with the GOP) is blinded by hatred
But you can always go see "Economy of Quebec" in wiki. But it is true that a large share of our economy is exploitation of natural ressources. On the other hand, most of our natural ressources are renewable. So, save sur-exploitation (like the wood), we don't fear to deplete them.
Oh? And just what might those "technologies" be? Dunno, really. It was simply a fact cited by an economist one, he didn't elaborate. But my guess would be aeronautic and aerospatial technologies.
You REALLY don't have a clue do you? Yes his lawyers were assasinated, but NOT by the US. And furthermore the 2 judges were NOT dropped by "anyone" but themselves. It was the U.S. responsability to assure their protection, if it was to be a fair trial. <TABLE cellpadding=8 width="95%" align=center bgColor=#FFF394 class="mb-Body-Quote-Tab
Oh, I forgot to say. The Quebec was, in the recent years (I don't remember from when to when), the #1 exporter of high-technologies
What does Quebec produce Cikomyr? What are its non-natural resource exports? I define something doing "well" if it is actually a net contributor to global progress in some way. Otherwise it's effectively a parasite. I am not certian Quebec isn't "doing well" simply because it, like many "social democracies" in Europe that they just don't live off the productivity of ot
The stuff you discuss (saying it was suggested and discussed by Zuckerman) has been tried before - it was called Communism - and didn't work. quite wrong. That stuff is called social democracy, and it works quite right in many parts of the world. Like in Quebec, while true that when your are rich, you can gain access to medical treatment
JoeUser Forums