Just out of curiousity aconservative, if Clarke's testimony in September 2002 is classified then how do you know it is substantively different? If it is classified then I would think you couldn't know, and if you did then you just violated the law by announcing it. Ahh, the perils of making statements that don't make sense. Cheers
Why? Clarke has been working on getting his book published for some time, and Kerry just happened to be on vacation. And even if there is a link, which sounds really silly, what on earth could that link be and what would it mean? Cheers
The problem is, the people most likely to use a nuclear weapon, i.e. terrorists, aren't going to stop and think about how using that weapon will effect the world. Cheers
:: sighs:: Another insightful comment from Nazgul... Sorry, just taking a lesson from Ronald Reagan and his debates with Jimmy Carter. The U.S. likes to believe that we are upholders of liberty and justice. However, in brief, I will provide some examples as to why that is an incorrect view. Cuba, we supported a morally corrupt psuedo-dictatorship up until the people rose up during the Cuban Revolution. Nicarauga, we supported b
I heard an interesting idea the other day, maybe social security should be adjusted based on price increases, and not wage increases. Cheers
It was, I hope, an ironic statement. Cheers
Unfortunately aconservative misses the fact that he apologized at all . No one else has. Cheers
He draft dodged in the same way Clinton did. He took a route that assured him he would never serve in conflicts. Cheers
Hey, Aconservative, maybe I, as a former lawyer, should give the proceeds of my cases to my clients? I think we should consider that all the other people who have written books that talked about 9/11 very few, if any, have donated money to the victims. Cheers
Clarke is seemingly the only person, and I mean only as in people from both parties, who didn't seem to have a political agenda in his testimony. Cheers
How so exactly?
:: shrugs::
Besides, you quote from something called the "Democratic Underground". If it were from the DCCC's, or the DNC's, or John Kerry's websites, and I don't just mean put up as a response in the forums there, then you would have a case. While Clinton was going through his Monica scandal, plenty of Republicans spoke about how Evil Bill and the Democrats were. I've got some pamphlets around from my Oklahoma days that talk about how democrats and Bil
Ahhh, but we shouldn't use the courts to legislate should we.
Actually, it's not a republic either. It's a representative democracy. The difference is subtle, but still there. For instance, a Republic does not require that the representatives be elected, witness the Roman Republic. Cheers
I said it was going to be my last post on the subject, but let me interject something in my own defense. Brad, the acts you have quoted at the top were "suggested pranks" and not actual. This from the guy who in a different post condemned liberals for wanting to ban "hateful thoughts". These guys you talk about are nut jobs, and not members of the rank and file. If they claim otherwise they should be taken no more seriously than the KKK mem
I'm a fiscal and social moderate, but leaning towards liberal. I've voted for democrats in nearly ever election that I've been able to vote in. Until I moved to Oregon, and then I began to vote for members of either party. I think the Oregon Republican party are far more "liberal" than their Oklahoma counterparts. Cheers
Unfortunately the difference between "mob rule" for homosexuality and Ted Kennedy is that a constitutional amendment banning homosexuality harms the minority. Ted Kennedy doesn't really harm the conservatives in his district, and if he did, I would argue he should be voted out. Cheers
They can only be voted in as many times as the majority wants them in office. If they were bad politicians they would be voted out. Cheers
We have term limits, they're called the ballot box. Cheers
Actually, the kind of pranks you describe are exactly the same thing as condemning homosexuality. It's a question of philosophy yes? I have pointed out websites that planned acts of petty vindictiveness against Clinton. Since you are unwilling to accept my evidence this will be my last post on this subject. Cheers
Alright, so you're 36 and incapable of a mature arguement. I think we all could have understood if you'd been a teenager. Cheers
I believe that the rank and file left wingers are much more militant than the rank and file right wingers. And I disagree. Your only proof is a few websites. There are websites by "rank and file" republicans condemning homosexuality. That kind of talk, is as much actual violence as the left w
JoeUser Forums
Well, if by recent you mean before most of the people who will end up playing the game were born, then yes, it is a fairly recent thing. Cheers
Brad, if you can equate me with the tree huggers (no disrespect to hippies) and liberals who spout the kind of nonsense you quote at the top of your blog, then I can equate you with racists, rednecks, etc. You can't be general about my side and then forbid me from doing the same. My generalities were meant to highlight yours. Cheers