Error editing post! Your message is too short. Please lengthen your message to at least 5 characters.





I dont see the big deal if a country wants to have nukes let them have them.
After all at first he is friends with america cuase we used him to fight iran and gave him chymicle wepons to kill. and because bush wants to line his pokets with iraqi oil bush sends our young people to kill innocent people and be killed.
Its the same thing the big shots did to the native american and tryed to do to my people. i do not blame them for fighting america after all how would you feel if iraq was bombing america and telling us what to do in our own land and killing our babies.
The only Bush i like is between your legs.
Our Hidden WMD Program
Why Bush is spending so much on nuclear weapons.
The budget is busted; American soldiers need more armor; they're running out of supplies. Yet the Department of Energy is spending an astonishing $6.5 billion on nuclear weapons this year, and President Bush is requesting $6.8 billion more for next year and a total of $30 billion over the following four years. This does not include his much-cherished missile-defense program, by the way. This is simply for the maintenance, modernization, development, and production of nuclear bombs and warheads.http://slate.msn.com/id/2099425/





hmmm, you don't seem to be astonished with the idea that Kerry's programs will raise taxes by one hundred times that amount !Yet the Department of Energy is spending an astonishing $6.5 billion on nuclear weapons this year
There was a study done for the pentagon in the heyday of the cold war, later alluded to in the movie "Dr. Strangelove" that when a nuclear weapon is exploded on US territory the two segments of the population most likely to survive will be file clerks (safe inside their vaults) and convicts (safe inside their prisons thick walls). Unfortunately, very few of the general population will be able to join file clerks and convicts in their place of safety.I dont see the big deal if a country wants to have nukes let them have them.
The point with nuclear weapons today is that they can be made small enough to fit inside a suitcase. The point about countries/governments led by fanatics is that they don't care if their own people are killed - therefore they are willing to risk trying to kill us without regard for the fact that we will attack them afterwards (otherwise referred to as the concept of mutual assured destruction - the principle which avoided nuclear confrontation with the Soviets during the cold war)!
Allowing fanatics to have small nuclear weapons capable of killing 100,000+ Americans with a single suicide bomber attack, given their demonstrated history of killing their own people and others who don't ascribe to their principles (at that moment) would not only be irresponsible but totally negligent in regard to the US government's responsibility of defending US citizens.
With the lethality factor of suitcase nukes, paraphrasing what GWB and many others (including liberals) have stated publicly, "we can't afford to wait for a smoking crater !"
BUT BACK TO THE ORIGINAL POINT ... The congressional report just released clearly shows that the entire Ambassador Wilson "Saddam was not trying to buy Nigerian uranium cake" matter i.e. charges that GWB and Tony Blair lied about Saddam's nuclear WMD program as an excuse to invade Iraq, was a huge fabrication on the part of Ambassador Wilson and his wife, done for clearly political purposes with the tacit support of liberal mainstream media. There was also a personal profit motive. both from Ambassador Wilson's book sales and from undisclosed sources.
100 X's huhOriginally Posted by Melonie link=board=1;threadid=11009;start=msg137620#msg137 620 date=1089846727
not that it has anything to do w/ the point especially since Kerry wants to use our taxes more effectivelly to better the country not line his & buddies pockets.....Its sad that u support billions for US development of our own WMD programs, all while supporting sending soliders to war b/c Bush heard rumors of someone else having WMD & yet u dont want to lose a small portion of ur own tax breaks to help other Americans have equal rights or protections under the law like u do. Hey its all dandy as long as u have what u want right Mel... Its screw everyone else ...... all 4 U & all 4 Mel right
why should u have more rights ? why do people like u & Monty & Bush feel gays deserve less rights ? what makes u think ur better than them ? how about answering that one
yep totally
"You did then what you knew how to do; when you knew better, you did better" ~Maya Angelou





More rights than gays ? Paraphrasing Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia's opinion on this issue - gay men have exactly the same right to marry the woman of their choice, and lesbian women have the same right to marry the man of their choice, as every other American.why should u have more rights ? why do people like u & Monty & Bush feel gays deserve less rights ? what makes u think ur better than them ? how about answering that one
The point in question here is whether or not the Texas Sodomy case supreme court ruling established a NEW right for gays and lesbians. So far this legal issue has NOT been addressed at the federal level. On the state level, we have two yesses, one maybe, and 47 no's.
However, Democrats are proceeding in their campaigning as if this supposed NEW right for gays and lesbians is already cast in stone. Republicans are saying, in a nutshell, that something as significant and far reaching as a NEW right for gays and lesbians should not and cannot be determined merely by the rulings of two state courts. Some of the 47 states have already brought federal lawsuits for the purpose of confirming whether or not they (and employers located within those 47 states) will be legally bound to honor gay marriages performed in the other 3 states.
The bill shot down yesterday in the US Congress was an attempt to resolve this issue quickly and uniformly on a national level. So it appears that the issue will now percolate through the federal court system for years, with employers not knowing whether or not their medical insurance plans are underfunded by billions of dollars, gay couples not knowning whether or not they are really legally married thus really covered by their spouse's family health insurance plan, and trial lawyers salivating at the legal fees which are going to be involved. If the truth were known this is probably the real reason that so many Democrats support this issue - trial lawyers are the Democrat's biggest special interest group and the largest Democratic party contributors, and the majority of Democratic politicians were and will eventually return to being trial lawyers!
I have already posted that IMHO gays and lesbians should be free to pursue their lifestyles without harrassment from government or other people. However, IMHO, the issue of legalized gay marriage carries with it many many legal and financial ramifications which will result in a financial windfall for gay couples and a financial burden for straight singles and couples as well as employers which I'm not going to rehash. Unless other laws regarding taxes, employer benefits and insurance costs for high risk people are also addressed at the same time, legalizing gay marriage will result in a huge de-facto "pork barrel" appropriation of straight people's money to gays, which I personally oppose.
BUT BACK TO THE ORIGINAL POINT AGAIN - so far nobody has offered an opinion regarding the fact that Ambassador Wilson's accusations toward GWB and Tony Blair in regard to Saddam's quest for uranium has been exposed as a manufactured lie. In fact, it would appear that there are deliberate attempts to sidetrack this thread and avoid such discussion.
Bookmarks