George Bush Resume

[TheAnvil 0]

I don't think you'll ever find any proof the 9/11 terrorists came from Iraq. Trained there, perhaps. Salmon Pak would be a nice place to do just that.

The # of collateral deaths and injuries attributed to misguided bombs from Afghanistan and Iraq '03 combined is a pretty low percentage of the worldwide Arab population. More Arabs receive emails from Americans everyday than that. I'd wager you could add shake hands, have dinner, and workout to that # as well, but wouldn't put money on it.

Vinny the Anvil
Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL
JACKASS POWER!!!!!!

[wmw999 2,129]

Quote

I don't think you'll ever find any proof the 9/11 terrorists came from Iraq. Trained there, perhaps. Salmon Pak would be a nice place to do just that.

There are lots of places that would be good to train terrorists at. Montana, for instance. I'm sure that while there are Iraqis who would have supported that, I'd prefer the kind of proof that we would expect if we were being targeted over conjecture, even if we're talking about a long ways away.

While we haven't accidentally killed as many people as we've sent emails to, the beginning (particularly of the Iraqi campaign) is seen as unnecessary by a large , therefore the collateral damage is also seen as all unnecessary.

2000 is a pretty insignificant percentage of Americans, too. That's a very inflammatory statement, I'm sure. But the people in other countries who have lost loved ones through no fault of their own feel just as strongly about their compatriots, relatives, and friends. I don't have to feel the same as they do, but I probably would if I were there.

Wendy W.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[ThighMan 5]

So what you are telling me Bill that you have not been over seas?... I was there before 91 and after 91. The feeling is the same. We are marked because we where Americans. Pure and simple. If you dought me, go over and find out for yourself.

Airborne
Blue Skies, No Wind
Feet and Knees Together

[ThighMan 5]

As for Montana, well, not really. It is remote but you would have to have help with the day to day buying of stuff (food, equipment, weapons, bullets). It is wide open and not a whole lot of people but not a good option. California would be better. Wider varity of people. But again, weapons and supplies run into a problem.

Airborne
Blue Skies, No Wind
Feet and Knees Together

[wmw999 2,129]

Quote

So what you are telling me Bill that you have not been over seas

Not answering for Bill, but I've both been and lived overseas, and I currently have relatives who live there (and in fact some are natives of other countries). Are you saying that people who have lived overseas couldn't possibly disagree with you?

As far as the training camps, well, Montana has a lot more isolated places; I'd think that'd be considered a good thing for terrorist training camps. Of course, there are also more militia folks who do things that many of us would probably consider terrorist training. But until they use it against someone (like in NYC or OKC or Birmingham) it's not terrorism, is it.

Wendy W.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[billvon 2,406]

>So what you are telling me Bill that you have not been over seas?...

Let's see - UK, most of Europe, Hong Kong, sub-Saharan Africa (Niger) and China. Never been to the Middle East though.

>We are marked because we where Americans.

Yep; a feeling a lot of minorities in the US are pretty used to. Funny how racism feels when you're not in the majority, ain't it?

It was really interesting to be in Niger. In the big cities the people on the streets had no use for whites - most of the whites they knew were rich, exploitative types, installed via a French government. In the small towns they loved us. The only whites they had seen there were in the Peace Corps, so as far as they could tell all whites wanted only to help them.

It's all in what people see. And if the thing that people see most coming from your race/nationality is death, support of their enemy, and failed promises, they will hate you.

[ThighMan 5]

Kallend, I hate to say it but you are right. The problem with those atrocities, there is now way to make the individuals pay (war crimes) now. As for North Korea, I don't think we will have to invade. Take a real look at what is going on over there. I think it is purely a blackmail (we need money) ploy. The country wants to unite back with the South (pure opinion) and is looking for a way to not "Loose Face" in doing it.
Diplomacy is the key. We tried with Hussein for 12 years. It did not work. We did try with Bin Laden, and we felt the response to it. So, no, invading North Korea is not a option. But, tell me how you would feel if you lived next to a person who had a nuke and was willing to use it? Or, be one of the passengers on the plane knowing that it was going to be used as a bomb to blow up a building? What would you do?
Me? Make friends with the guy/gal who had the nuke. If they are going to use it, stop them any way possible. A Passenger, (a whole lot tougher) but I would not want to be part of killing more people on the ground.
These are tough choices and as a leader, you must decide on which ones to act on and live with the decision.
The way around it? Good intel, good neighbors, and a strong military.

Airborne
Blue Skies, No Wind
Feet and Knees Together

[b1jercat 0]

Just to show you how stupid I am, I thought the terrorists were trained in the USA , some place in florida.
blue skies





don't worry Duba will save us.

[ThighMan 5]

WMW999,
I was not looking for agreeing, I just wanted to know if Bill had ever lived overseas and see what it was really like. As you can tell, Bill has and it is nice to see another side of the coin. He is right!! Very well put. The very nice part about America, we are allowed an opinion and can voice it. That is FREEDOM. As the people in Iraq right now about those freedoms. Yes, even the right to riot and loot is a freedom. And to add the last part, yes, Militia is a freedom. Until they use it against a body or there is intelligence that indicates they are going to use it. Tough having those freedoms, isn't it?

Airborne
Blue Skies, No Wind
Feet and Knees Together

[TheAnvil 0]

Seen as unnecessary by whom, exactly? Not I.

2000 people killed in any one single event deliberately IS a huge #. I hold your equating such with a misguided bomb dropped in the execution of a war is far more inflamatory than my previous assertion.

Vinny the Anvil
Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL
JACKASS POWER!!!!!!

[TheAnvil 0]

I highly recommend travelling to the Middle East sometime. Very interesting area of the world. UAE is an incredible country to visit - scuba diving, camel racing, sand surfing, souqs, etc. Don't think I'd spend an extended amount of time there - probably try and hit it as part of an around the world flight or something. I'd LOVE to visit Iran, though I haven't done so.

Anyway, IRT your post, I didn't notice the same sort of racism you did in Africa, but then again I wasn't in Nigeria. I found everyone there really friendly and open. I DID experience racism overseas (when I was living in Japan and Hawaii in particular) but the worst racism I've ever encountered was right here in the United States in Memphis, TN. Racism is always disgusting, regardless of the source or place.

Beers to all,

Vinny the Anvil

Vinny the Anvil
Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL
JACKASS POWER!!!!!!

[kiltboy 0]

I'd avoided posting on this thread but the temptation has just gotten too much.

I've read plenty here about Iraq's freedom and heeard it in the press but I don't quite believe that they are "free".
The country is still institutionalised in the way that long term prisoners are upon release (think the old guy that was released in Shawshank). It would appear that the people are still prisoners of the old institution in that they are incapable of operating in the manner associated with the population of a democratic country. The mindset has not yet adjusted to the change in circumstances.
Just a thought.

David

[wmw999 2,129]

Quote

they are incapable of operating in the manner associated with the population of a democratic country. The mindset has not yet adjusted to the change in circumstances.

No, they're not used to the change. HOWEVER:
1. They might well end up adjusting to it and using it well
2. They might not
3. Was it our call to do that? Does the end justify the means?

These are open questions, and different people will have vastly different answers. BUT: for each of you that has the one true answer, consider whether the fact that YOU think a particular way means that everyone else must too?

Wendy W.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[sinker 0]

apologies up front to those dz.commers who get annoyed by long posts on very controversial topics like abortion... but don't say I didn't warn you.

sorry it's taken me a while to respond. I am travelling for work...

Quote

You miss the point here, and pass the buck. In this scenario, after the initial crime of rape, the woman
does not have to die. Rather than the rapist being charged with her death, it ought to be those that
deprived her of the right to potentially save her own life. Would you be willing to go to jail for murder
because a mother died in childbirth you told her she had to have? If not, how can you justify your
authority and responsibility over her body? Either you are responsible, with appropriate punishment, or she
is. You can't have it both ways.

You raise a good point that has caused me to think about this more deeply. The one thing I can't reconcile however is this: I believe that one cannot mandate that a person give up their life so that another may live, no matter how noble that choice may be. So if, in the case of conception following a rape, it was a real probability (and I mean probability, not a .007% possibility of death from delivery according to the CDC stat posted earlier) that the woman would die if she didn't abort the baby conceived by rape, I would have a hard time saying that it was wrong to abort. However, given the overwhelming likelihood that the woman AND the baby will survive the delivery, your argument is difficult to justify. Put another way, pregnancy is not an illness, let along a terminal one. "Oh, I'm pregnant... I better abort or I could die." That is just not tenable. The woman is more likely to die from the abortion that she is the pregnancy and birth.

Quote

Throwing cloning and genetics in the discussion is just a diversionary tactic. It is moot, because it has
nothing to do with abortion rights. You are talking about taking away a woman's right to choose what
happens to her own body. We aren't talking about mad scientists running around and stealthily using in-vitro
fertilization to rape women.

Perhaps I wasn't being clear on this point. No it was not a diversionary tactic. It appears that you are far to willing to ascribe nefarious motives to my arguments... maybe not, but it appears that way to me. Anyway, your point was that preventing abortions robs women of the sovereignity over their bodies. My counter point was this: the product of conception is NOT her body. Therefore, there is no sovereignity to usurp. My throwing the example of invetro and other biotechs simply goes to illustrate that advances in medical science is beginning to demonstrate the truth that an unborn child is NOT it's mother. It is genetically different, it's blood supply is even a different type. Again, it's only requirements are nutrition, protection.

Quote

And this applies to rape how?

It doesn't apply to rape. Sorry for being schizo on you. It applies to the broader issue of abortion on demand. The Alan Gutmacher Institute stats from Planned Parenthood show that the overwhelming # of abortions are not from rape, incest and the like, but over convenience.

Quote

Here is one of the fundamental contradictions. In part because of the risk of childbirth death, the "pro-life"
view is really misnamed. It is more "pro-embryo", "pro-fetus" or "pro-baby", because a sweeping ban on
abortion would directly cause the deaths of some mothers. The strict stance against abortion clearly
correlates to a view that unborn fetuses are more important than adult women. I object to that
characterization.

Wait a second. It doesn't make Pro-lifers not pro-life b/c, as a result of pregnancy, 7 women out of 1000 may die. Our hope would be that the mothers and the babies live and everything possible should be done towards achieving that goal.

The most important thing I want to say in this thread is this... Congrats on the birth of your first child! What an incredible joy! I remember when my first was born just like it was yesterday. And in 6 weeks we will be having another child and I can't wait for that joyous event to happen. Maybe some day we can raise a toast to our children together.

Sorry to the other dz.commers for the long post.

-the artist formerly known as sinker

[wmw999 2,129]

Quote

Seen as unnecessary by whom, exactly? Not I.

2000 people killed in any one single event deliberately IS a huge #.

No, you don't see it as unnecessary, and I completely understand that. However, if you lived in another country besides the US, you'd very possibly think differently.

2000 people killed in a single event is more than any single bomb. However, we're still not talking apples to apples. The 2000 American (I think it was 2800 people, including the non-Americans) were not killed by a government, any more than the people in Oklahoma City were killed by a government. The ones in Afghanistan and Iraq are killed by a government -- that makes it easy to demonize the country. And we are the country.

I wasn't trying to be inflammatory; I really was trying to point out that to the families and relatives of people killed far away from the US, the people killed in the WTC are far less important than their loss. As is the case for us.

Wendy W.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[sinker 0]

Quote

I think it is so valuable that we as skydivers have the opportunity to interact with so many different
people from so many different backgrounds. If we weren't skydiving, would we ever have gotten outside
our circle of like-minded thinkers? As an academic, I am pretty much surrounded by the left and view the
world pretty much from the left. Where, then, is the possibility for debate? Who do I interact with at
school that could express opposing viewpoints to me? It is threads like these that, as difficult and
emotional as they can be, keep open debate going - and I don't think that as a society we can make any
progress without open debate.

Thanks for that... I completely agree w/ you and I appreciate your sentiment. I am enriched by my relationship with folks who do not share my principles and beliefs. I hope that other dz.commers feel the same... (and I'm sure some or most do...)

-the artist formerly known as sinker

[kallend 1,635]

Quote

Quote

you're assuming, I think, that if WMD's are not found, that GWB lied about it.

I agree -- if it turns out Iraq's involvement with WMD's was overstated, the more likely case would be that Bush and congress were fed bad intel. That's not lying.

Intersting article:
www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,970067,00.html

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[nacmacfeegle 0]

Yup, John there's going to be a bit of a HooHa over this, should be interesting.
I'm not going to criticise either Bush or Blair until I've seen the outcome of the forthcoming enquiries.
On both sides of the pond.

--------------------

He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. Thomas Jefferson

[jfields 0]

Quote

So if, in the case of conception following a rape, it was a real probability (and I mean probability, not a .007% possibility of death from delivery according to the CDC stat posted earlier) that the woman would die if she didn't abort the baby conceived by rape, I would have a hard time saying that it was wrong to abort.

This is where I don't understand the logic of the pro-life case. What is the difference between "probability" and ".007% possibility"? Numerically, I know the difference, but in either case, I don't understand your rationalizing the difference. Where is your authority to decide for the mother?

If I were to kidnap you, chain you to a chair, hold a revolver to your head, and pull the trigger, would it be fair with one bullet but unfair with 2? How would I have the right to decide for you? You aren't a criminal, have done nothing wrong, and are a thinking adult human being.

Quote

The woman is more likely to die from the abortion that she is the pregnancy and birth.

Really? Please post supporting facts, including a breakdown among deaths at licensed clinics versus the unlicensed ones women would use if it were illegal.

Quote

Anyway, your point was that preventing abortions robs women of the sovereignity over their bodies. My counter point was this: the product of conception is NOT her body. Therefore, there is no sovereignity to usurp. My throwing the example of invetro and other biotechs simply goes to illustrate that advances in medical science is beginning to demonstrate the truth that an unborn child is NOT it's mother. It is genetically different, it's blood supply is even a different type. Again, it's only requirements are nutrition, protection.

Those statements also are valid for parasitic worms, cancers and burrowing ticks. A blanket ban on abortion would apply to blastocysts (?) far smaller than any of the other living things I mentioned. What about a dog? A dog's owner has the right to take it to the vet and have it put down.

If the issue is human life, then what of the death penalty, war, deadly use of force by police and citizen self-defense. All those things take human life as well. Are they all wrong under every circumstance?

Your stance values potential sentience over actual sentience. Whether the embryo is "part of the mother" or "just getting sustenance from the mother" is kind of a silly differentiation. You can't look at the dramatic physiological changes a mother goes through during pregnancy and say that the embryo is a totally separate entity. If it were, why would the mother get morning sickness, have her feet swell, get food cravings/aversions, and any of the many other changes of pregnancy? If it were separate, why the umbilical cord?

Your comments on test tube babies could become pertinent, should technology change. If technology was sufficiently advanced that we could remove the blastocyst, emryo, or fetus (depending on developmental level) alive and transfer it to an artificial womb without endangering the mother at all, then you'd begin to have a point for banning abortion.

There are some facts that can't be argued away:

1) Not all pregnancies are consenting.
2) Pregnancy and childbirth dramatically and irreversibly effects a woman's life.
3) Pregnancy can cause the mother's death.
4) You aren't the father of every child born.

Those are indisputable facts. So, given the effects on the mother, the risk to the mother, and the fact that you aren't even the father, I fail to see your authority to dictate the terms of the mother's life. Please explain where you get the right to do so.

Quote

Our hope would be that the mothers and the babies live and everything possible should be done towards achieving that goal.

I agree with that. I'm not pro-abortion. But I don't see how anyone but the parents have any right to dictate their actions. It would be great if rape didn't happen, bad choices didn't happen and every conception was welcome. It would also be great if every pregnancy ended with a safe childbirth and a solid family unit. But that isn't reality. I think we need to keep the option of abortion legal as a last resort for some of the times when things aren't on the path we both want.

Quote

Congrats on the birth of your first child! What an incredible joy!

Thanks. I couldn't agree more. She is the light of our lives.

Quote

Maybe some day we can raise a toast to our children together.

That would be great!

[kiltboy 0]

There were a couple of articles in the Glasgow Herald as well

www.theherald.co.uk and www.sundayherald.com[url]

Sorry but I can't link the articles directly but the stories are easily navigated in the news section.

David

[TheAnvil 0]

Bill, I'm going to admit it, but not cede the point entirely about taxes - you could be right. I tried myself after my office mate (nicknamed Dumb Ass) couldn't figure out what some of the folks we've been listening to/reading about with regards to some people paying no taxes. A quick ten minutes showed that they do. I DID manufacture the W2 myself, but I don't see where these people are coming from mathematically. NO EITC or anything of the sort were used, so perhaps that's where they were coming from.

That being said, I still maintain my position. This is from a website I look at on occasion and HIGHLY recommend for its entertainment value: http://www.boortz.com/nealznuz.htm. Tom Delay says the same thing I did, and I've never known him to be an outright liar. Just wish I could verify it myself - I hope its due to my own ignorance of tax calculations:

So … the class warfare assault is on. Listen to the words of Connecticut Congresswoman Rosa Delauro … a Democrat.

“What kind of perverse Robin Hoods steal secretly to rob from the poor to give to the rich?”

Now, isn’t that amazing? Allowing a taxpayer to keep more money is to “steal” from or to “rob” the poor and “give” to the rich. There really aren’t any words I can say here that could adequately illustrate just how absurd this statement is.

Then there’s New York Democrat Charles Rangel:

“The cruelest thing of all is that when they still found themselves three or four billion short and instead of shaving a little bit off of where the bulk of the money would go they saw fit not only to go after low income people, but the children of low income people.”

Oh yeah! Let’s paint these evil, greedy Republicans as attacking children.

At least one congressman has it right … Tom DeLay from Texas:

"To me it's a little difficult to give tax relief to people that don't pay income tax. It's a spending program," Mr. DeLay

Brit Hume’s panel on Special Report got into this last night. They were discussing some new proposed legislation that would go ahead and give $400 checks for each child of a low income family that doesn’t pay income taxes. When Fred Barnes correctly referred to this as welfare the other panelists almost wet their pants. They just couldn’t believe that this man was referring to this as welfare? Well, what else is it? You take money away from the people who earned it, and you give it to people who did NOT earn it. It’s a straight cash grant. It’s welfare. If the left is going to be so anxious to redistribute income like this … why not at least have the guts to call it what it is.


Interesting - I didn't catch that episode of Brit Hume. I'm going to write a couple of folks a letter and ask them WTFO about this, because I do not like being misled and feel that might be the case here after doing a couple of calculations myself. That's the thing with politics. Lies have inertia, and like snowball going downhill from the top of everest once they get going they are hard to stop. That's one of the main reasons I get so pissed at lefties (and occasionally Republicans as well - Trent Lott for instance) and their rhetoric.

Gotta work. Thanks!

Beers,

Vinny

Vinny the Anvil
Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL
JACKASS POWER!!!!!!

[kallend 1,635]

Quote

You take money away from the people who earned it, and you give it to people who did NOT earn it. It’s a straight cash grant. It’s welfare.

My ex-wife doesn't seem to have a problem taking my money this way.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[skydyvr 0]

Quote

Intersting article:
www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,970067,00.html

Inquiries on both sides of the pond are certainly warranted and I hopefully forthcoming.

. . =(_8^(1)

[TheAnvil 0]

Dammit! They have a way of doing that, don't they! Thank GOD I haven't gotten married and divorced. Hell hath no fury like a woman divorced (with a good lawyer)...

I feel for ya dude!

Vinny the Anvil
Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL
JACKASS POWER!!!!!!

[ERICCONNELLY 0]

I wonder why no one has mentioned that the very rich should pay more taxes because they benefit the most from our system of government.
If we were not a nation based on capitalism, they wouldn't be rich in the first place.

Yes, it is their money that the rich are paying in taxes. HOWEVER - it is a stable, democratic, capitalistic society, based on the rule of law that makes it possible for people to earn 7 figures, while not having to worry about some of the minor inconveniencies like kidnapping, civil war, social unrest, and disease epidemics.

Welfare does irk me to some degree. There are a lot of people out there that I do consider to be a waste of skin – however – some of these worthless people do have children who are truly deserving of all the help we can afford to give.
Sucks that in order to help the children we sometimes have to enable the parent’s lifestyles. Find a way around that and you will go far.

What I find amazing in SOME conservatives is their strong defense of potential life (Pro-life stance) but as soon as the baby is born, they are more than willing to allow the child to be subjected to a life of semi-starvation, abuse and poor education because they don’t want ‘their money’ to be spent on ‘welfare’. Go figure.