Good debate

[DrewKaree]

Yes. Did you ever understand why Bin Laden ordered those attacks on the US?

Yes.  He disliked America and everything it represented.  We were an unholy nation living in our own filth, and helping to spread that corruption to the rest of the world.  His interpretation of his religion and its tenets led him to believe he needed to wage war against the unbelievers, to smite them for their indiscretions, and that, at all costs, it must be done.

Of course, that's my interpretation of it, and I'll state it's an interpretation.  Unless you're Osama, you come off sounding pretentious due to your "ability" to speak for him and his reasons for why he would wage a war in which he was so clearly outnumbered.

I'll wait for Osama to speak for himself, if he's still alive.


You at least seem to partially understand what I'm saying.  

"Especially when you are dealing with religious fanatics. These people take offense if you ask their wife a question and they go hysterical if you enter certain cities."

We seem to differ about why, though.  You see it as "we stepped on a ceremonial rug" or some such.  I view it as stated above.  I'd have to think we somehow stepped in a pile of crap the last time we dealt with bin Laden....remember.....when we were helping him fight the Russians.

Were we attacked on 9/11 because we gave them bad advice against the Russians too?  That's a hell of a grudge, but I don't view the 9/11 attack as being due to him holding a grudge.  You don't try to blow up the building a few years earlier, and then regroup and try it again because someone crapped in a sacred plate used in their religious ceremonies....well, let me revise that.  You don't do that, and get hundreds to follow you, get thousands to agree with you.  It's NOT that simple.  

You're having a hard time seeing...perhaps on the new pair, don't have them tint the lenses in your glasses that lovely shade of rose.

[saint]

I try to stay out of these... I really do... But when I see a reply like this my mind boggles. I mean it just freaking boggles. Drew, I have a lot of respect for you regardless of whether or not we have the same political ideals, but man I have to take you to task for this one...

Why?  His looks.  His family is from India.  The thing is, he was born in Detroit, born and raised in the USA and has rented movies from that library almost every week for the past 4 years.  THAT's the "Patriot Act" in action.  They claimed to be border patrol and said they could detain him under the "Patriot" Act if he did not cooperate.  I just wonder what would have happened if he didn't have his drivers license on him.  I also wonder why the border patrol isn't patrolling the border

I don't know how to break this to you, but the "looks" of people have everything to do with who we investigate.  Should we ignore all who share the "looks" of those who attacked us, or stop grandma and her grandson to see if they have bombs in their Depends and Pampers?  The rest of your "background" you gave us...how would they go about getting that information without stopping him?  

You wonder why the border patrol isn't patrolling the border....that's a pathetically simplistic statement.  If the U.S. patrolled the border in the fashion opposite to that simplistic statement, you'd be here claiming we are living under martial law.  It's foolish, as it leaves no option by which you would be satisfied.  I'm sorry your BIL's brother was half an hour late to work.  I'm not sorry they found it necessary to act in such a fashion.  Perhaps if they had just come to work and taken him downtown for questioning, you'd be more satisfied with that.

Oh my God. Do you even know what you just advocated? No where in the original posting or your reply did anyone mention *WHY* this man was under suspicion, other than his race. This man is an American born citizen! You know, America, where one of our principles is freedom from unfounded search, seizure, and detention? Are you really saying that for no other reason than he's descended from immigrants that he should be stopped and interrogated? You asked: 'The rest of your "background" you gave us...how would they go about getting that information without stopping him?'  What you should be asking is 'Why were they stopping him if they didn't already have other information about him?' He was walking out of a library! Senator. McArthy, the Red Scare is over!

Now, if there was some other reason that brought this man to the authorities' attention, fine. I recognize we're under attack, I don't mind reasonable scrutiny -- but there's *nothing* in this discussion so far about anything other than his looks, including in your reply and defense of the action. He wasn't entering our country, there's no mention of criminal or suspicious activity, or anything other than that he was in a public library. Perhaps there was something he had done to warrant scrutiny -- but it wasn't presented in this discussion, and you jumped to defend the actions without needing any evidence of wrong doing whatsoever.... other than his looks. Holy cow.  How frigging scary.

I honestly don't believe you meant to advocate that anyone who isn't a certain race should automatically be subject to random interrogations. I certainly hope you didn't. Entering the country? Fine, profile as needed to protect our country -- but don't forget relying on only profiling will ultimately fail us. Engaging in criminal activity? Fine, investigate further. Buying a truck load of fertilizer? Sure, take a look at why. Walking out of a library? Um....

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

I think everyone knows my feelings on the sham of a "coalition" Bush put together.

whatever your thoughts and feelings are of the coalition that volunteered to join us, please post them here.  I will work my darndest to get your "feelings" and "thoughts" to the families of the people from those other countries who were killed.  People DIED - they DIED, man - fighting side by side with U.S. Soldiers.  They weren't stopped for a bit of time, making them late for work.  They DIED.  It sickens me to think that people from another country died fighting for OUR cause, and all you see is that those countries aren't giving enough.  

There is simply no way to take your comments, other than that you wish there were just as many people from other countries killed as there were from the U.S.

Bunk. Bunk and balderdash. Shame on you. It is entirely possible to believe that other countries are not providing any more than a token contribution, while at the same time honoring and respecting the individuals from those countries who paid the ultimate price. I don't claim to speak for the original poster, and I'm not weighing in on whether or not other countries did provide a reasonable contribution of resources based upon their ability to do so, but it is certainly possible to take his comments as meaning that they did not (and that's how I read it). To state as irrefutable fact that he wishes more people had died is disengenious at best, and something you should be ashamed of at worst.That's not debating to try to see one another's perspective or to persuade others that your perspective is correct, that's debating to win points. Feh.

--- saint

[DrewKaree]

I try to stay out of these... I really do... But when I see a reply like this my mind boggles. I mean it just freaking boggles. Drew, I have a lot of respect for you regardless of whether or not we have the same political ideals, but man I have to take you to task for this one...

I'm ok with that.  After reading your reply, I have to say that you made good points and made me realize I inferred far more from his post than what was there.

No where in the original posting or your reply did anyone mention *WHY* this man was under suspicion, other than his race.

I took the "unmarked white cargo vans fly into the parking lot, block his car in and a pile of people jumped out" to mean they didn't just randomly pick him out, he was under some sort of investigation.  

You asked: 'The rest of your "background" you gave us...how would they go about getting that information without stopping him?'  What you should be asking is 'Why were they stopping him if they didn't already have other information about him?' He was walking out of a library!

I looked at the "unmarked white vans and pile of people" as if he was identified as someone he, in fact, was not.  The questioning seemed logical to me: get him to give as much information while he's still stunned that this is going on, perhaps slip up and forget a pat story.  

I think he fit the description of someone they were looking for, although Cooter did not mention that.  I injected my opinion when the information given didn't support it.

I recognize we're under attack, I don't mind reasonable scrutiny -- but there's *nothing* in this discussion so far about anything other than his looks, including in your reply and defense of the action. He wasn't entering our country, there's no mention of criminal or suspicious activity, or anything other than that he was in a public library. Perhaps there was something he had done to warrant scrutiny -- but it wasn't presented in this discussion, and you jumped to defend the actions without needing any evidence of wrong doing whatsoever.... other than his looks. Holy cow.  How frigging scary.

you are correct in your presentation.  Your assessment/opinion is equally correct.

I honestly don't believe you meant to advocate that anyone who isn't a certain race should automatically be subject to random interrogations. I certainly hope you didn't.

I offer my apologies to the readers.  Indeed I don't feel random interrogations are warranted.  

I believe if the person in question fits the description of someone the authorities are looking for, it is warranted, but as far as I am able to discern after re-reading it, there is nothing given in this instance to lead me to believe this is the case.

Entering the country? Fine, profile as needed to protect our country -- but don't forget relying on only profiling will ultimately fail us. Engaging in criminal activity? Fine, investigate further. Buying a truck load of fertilizer? Sure, take a look at why. Walking out of a library? Um....

simply walking out of a library and no other reason other than the color of a person's skin does not make someone the valid target of investigation/interrogation.

Bunk. Bunk and balderdash. Shame on you. It is entirely possible to believe that other countries are not providing any more than a token contribution, while at the same time honoring and respecting the individuals from those countries who paid the ultimate price. I don't claim to speak for the original poster, and I'm not weighing in on whether or not other countries did provide a reasonable contribution of resources based upon their ability to do so, but it is certainly possible to take his comments as meaning that they did not (and that's how I read it). To state as irrefutable fact that he wishes more people had died is disengenious at best, and something you should be ashamed of at worst.That's not debating to try to see one another's perspective or to persuade others that your perspective is correct, that's debating to win points. Feh.

You're right.  It was putting words in his mouth he did not say, and an argument I needn't have resorted to trying t start.  I've removed the comments, because you are correct, and I am guilty as charged.  I am chagrined to have it pointed out to me (and rightly so) that I stooped to such a level and didn't have enough sense in the moment to see it myself, before the damage was done.

I offer my apologies to Crazy Cooter and ask his forgiveness.

[saint]

Uh..... You took the wind out of my sails...

* saint looks around for a diversion...

How about them Braves!?

[DrewKaree]

Uh..... You took the wind out of my sails...

* saint looks around for a diversion...

How about them Braves!?

Um....the Braves still suck.

[Crazy Cooter]

Drew, listen to yourself:
"I don't know how to break this to you, but the "looks" of people have everything to do with who we investigate."
and then:
"...fighting for OUR cause"
Is stopping people, questioning them, and threatening them for no reason OUR cause?  It's not mine.

Fredster:  He didn't do anything.  They told him they could detain him under the "Patriot" Act if he didn't answer their questions.  And yes, he was "just late".  Of course he wasn't paid for that lost time.  But if you and Drew feel safer because someone was stopped and threatened to be held indefinately simply because of how he looks, I guess all is well.  Maybe you'd feel better if they were somehow branded once their documents were checked?

Anyhow,
Let me try to explain my stance on the "coalition" like this:
It's a dangerous situation.  People die.  I accept that.  Do i think we should cap Brit everytime one of our boys go down?  No.  That's ridiculous.  IMO, it's just as ridiculous to stand around and say you have all this support from all these countries when there is no real support.  For example:  It would be a real drag if Norway lost one of their guys.  But look at the numbers: they have 10 (ten) people in Iraq.  Is that real support?  No.  Plain and simple it's not.  It's like bringing a knife to a gunfight.  You can't tell me that Norway is in such a threatened position that they couldn't send more.  This is no attempt to belittle the efforts of those 10 individuals.  It is aimed at their government and ours.  Bush says we have all this support.  Yeah right, how many stay when things get tough?  How many came in after we said you had to be in the coalition or you couldn't get any work there afterwards?  It's getting pretty hard to not look at this situation badly.  It's like Bush wags this "prize" of having a presence in (hopefully) a newly created democratic nation but you have to "show your support" by sending some bodies over to fight.  Then he claims it "support".  Is Norway supporting the views of President Bush or are they after the "prize"?  That's a question we have to ask ourselves.  I wish I could find some info on the % of each countries military they have in Iraq.  Maybe Norway only has 10 soldiers.  Right?

And I'm far from needing a soapbox lecture about how important life is or how bad a family can hurt because someone is killed/wounded in the military (or elsewhere for that matter).

[DrewKaree]

Drew, listen to yourself:
"I don't know how to break this to you, but the "looks" of people have everything to do with who we investigate."
and then:
"...fighting for OUR cause"
Is stopping people, questioning them, and threatening them for no reason OUR cause?  It's not mine.

the two positions I posted were not about trying to further reasonable dialogue.  Please see the post responding to those two positions, Cooter.


The fight in Iraq, and the fight against terrorism IS "our" cause.  It is primarily our cause because, when attacked, WE, the U.S., made it our policy to hunt down and eliminate terror whenever and wherever possible.

While other countries may show support for us, as you point out, their support isn't close to ours, and most likely WON'T be close, until they are attacked.  At that point, they will need to make a choice.  Boost their support, or turn tail and run.  Some have turned tail and run.  Others have sent help.  

The coalition we formed are countries who feel the need to send help.  That any country sent help at all is a sign that we are NOT, as Kerry is fond of saying, "going it alone".  Can other countries send a proportionately larger show of "support"?  Sure they can.  Will they?  Remains to be seen.  Your opinion is that we have no support.  The fact is, we do.  I don't know what else to tell you.  We have other countries there helping us.  That is support.  That you don't agree that we should be shouldering the brunt of the work/cost/casualties is an entirely different argument, and one that IS factual, but to state that we have no support is simply untrue.

If I am a millionaire, and you are flat broke living on the street, I come upon you and give you a thousand dollars, you are not broke.  Could I have given you more?  Certainly.  But it doesn't change the fact that you are not now flat broke.

One million troops are in Iraq (lets use easy to figure numbers).  Those are all the troops we can send there.  One day, we have one million one thousand troops.  We didn't provide them.  Where did they come from?  Are they working for the same cause the U.S. military is?  They may be bringing knives to a gunfight, but terrorists can still be dealt with by those "knives".

Support, no matter what the quantity, will not be extended when the man who wants to take over denigrates the "unbalanced" nature of the "little" support we are now getting.

If the millionaire (other countries) gives the broke man (Bush) that thousand bucks, and the broke man's buddy (Kerry) says "That's not enough, we should be getting more", the millionaire's buddies aren't going to be jumping to help throw more money at the guy.  

And I'm far from needing a soapbox lecture about how important life is or how bad a family can hurt because someone is killed/wounded in the military (or elsewhere for that matter).

Dunno if I did that, but it's possible.  Point taken.  Again, please see a few posts above.

[patrickl]

Yes. Did you ever understand why Bin Laden ordered those attacks on the US?

Yes.  He disliked America and everything it represented.  We were an unholy nation living in our own filth, and helping to spread that corruption to the rest of the world.  His interpretation of his religion and its tenets led him to believe he needed to wage war against the unbelievers, to smite them for their indiscretions, and that, at all costs, it must be done.

Of course, that's my interpretation of it, and I'll state it's an interpretation.  Unless you're Osama, you come off sounding pretentious due to your "ability" to speak for him and his reasons for why he would wage a war in which he was so clearly outnumbered.

I'll wait for Osama to speak for himself, if he's still alive.

Well it's easy to speak for him if I only need to repeat what he already said it in public. According to him the biggest factor was that the US stationed troops in Saudia Arabia during and after DS1.

[fredster]

Cooter,

He didn't get arrested did he?  Things like that happen.  I have a friend, a very big friend, who was back from a concert. He was wearing a bandana and walked down the street from my house to get a pizza.  20 minutes later the cops brought him to my door and asked if I knew this man.  He was out late.  They told him they would arrest him for something, anything. It happens all the time.  Cops are looking for people who look out of place, it's their job. (I have more examples similar to that)

In both cases, no arrests. The system worked.  Watch where you go and what you do, if you are out of place, then you can suffer the same thing.  It's been like that forever whether you knew that or not.  The Patriot act has some things I don't agree with in it also, but as far as we have seen, only a handful of people have been nailed by it.

What's the alternative ?  Let everybody be free and hope for the best? Come On, that's not an option if you want to make sure we are safe. Otherwise you can rest assured, they will take advantage of a weakness like that.   It is a weakness in this time.  

Israel has been doing these things for years. They have to in order to survive.  

I get so upset when people start dishing the "coalition".  How many troops ever assisted us in either of these wars?  But what gets me the most is how people think that Bush has done this for some personal vendetta.  

It's so childish to believe that. I mean it shows a simplistic view of the government and the world.  Bush wants to stop the terrorists by going at the heart of them and dismantling them.  

No other country has done that.  No one can.  We are the leader of the free world.  It's up to the leader to set the tone and make the moves.  Leaders get critisised all the time.  Anytime a decision is made at this level, it's always torn apart by the people who either don't understand it, don't like the boss ,or believed  the opposite.  The international community is the same way.

Bush stood up and did what he believes the US should do to address this problem.  He will have naysayers either way.

No one has given a better alternative or solution.  They just say what Bush has done is bad without offering a realistic approach.  Sending in the UN has no way of working.  It never has.

We needed something that will work.  Apparently, it has. Now we need Bush in to continue the job and let Kerry have his time to vote against it and do his job in the Senate.  After all, he voted for all the policies that Bush put into play.

[Grasshopper]

However, if you were thinking about a milder form of theocracy (does such a thing exist?) then my answer would be 'probably no'. But I'll have to ponder this interesting question a bit more.

the

[TA Pilot]

De`moc

[Crazy Cooter]

Drew, no problem.  I hadn't seen your other response because it took me awhile to formulate my thoughts and I underwent quite a few revisions.  I totally agree that if he matched a description of some one they were looking for he should have been stopped.  But they never said this.  All they did was threaten him with the "Patriot" Act if he didn't comply with their requests.  Shouldn't they have threatened him with obstructing justice or something?  Instead he was a terrorist until proven otherwise.  That's why I say it's all a witch-hunt.

Fredster,  I've been stopped and questioned before real late at night by the police (some good stories there  )and I agree that is their job.  The problem is this:  What is "out of place" when someone returns a kids video to the library?

"What's the alternative ?  Let everybody be free and hope for the best?"
Absolutely.  I couldn't have said it better.  That is what America is all about.  Giving people freedom, not taking it away.  There is a price for freedom.  I asked a few people what they thought about this:
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -- Benjamin Franklin
"I know not what course others may take but as for me: give me liberty or give me death." -- Patrick Henry
"Better to die on one's feet than to live on one's knees." -- Emiliano Zapata, 1910, Dolores Ibarruri, 1936, Albert Camus, 1951, Joseph Heller, 1961, Mordechai Anielewicz,1943, Warsaw Ghetto, Poland
"If men use their liberty in such a way as to surrender their liberty, are they thereafter any the less slaves? If people by a plebiscite elect a man despot over them, do they remain free because the despotism was of their own making?" -- Herbert Spencer, The New Toryism, 1884
Despot: One who rules regardless of a constitution or laws.

"Bush wants to stop the terrorists by going at the heart of them and dismantling them."
You're confusing The war on terror with the war in Iraq.

"Anytime a decision is made at this level, it's always torn apart by the people who either don't understand it, don't like the boss ,or believed  the opposite."
Or the boss is plain wrong.  But no matter what, only trouble comes when the boss is in over his head and won't accept help.  Other countries have offered help in rebuilding Iraq and Bush has pushed them away because they aren't fighting.  What sense does that make?  Isn't Bush demeaning the efforts of those countries?  What did he tell the UN? "Asked whether the exclusion of those countries from bidding on construction contracts violates international law, Bush said, "I don't know what you're talking about by international law. I better consult my lawyer." ".http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/12/11/sprj.irq.contracts/(older article)
Great leader right there folks.  Bush won't accept anything unless the say they support the coalition.  I thought the idea was to free Iraq?  Instead he'd rather extend the rebuilding process because he's stubborn.  What kind of example is that?  Isn't accepting this help a "better alternative" and a more "realistic approach"?  I don't see how this policy in ANY way benefits Iraq.  Here's how I see it:
Hypothetical Bush Quote: "I offer you riches beyond your wildest dreams... all you have to do is say I'm right, offer a small force of troops, and you too can collect the post war proceeds".  Then, once they realize it's actually a dangerous situation, they start to bail.  To me, somebody somewhere misspelled "coercion" as "coalition".

[DrewKaree]

NP, I go through the revision process like that too  

I don't believe that Bush is wrong for excluding help from other countries, and specifically, France, Germany, and Russia.  Those countries were violating sanctions and using the people of Iraq, and when it came time to remove the dictator at the helm, those countries acted, not to help the people of Iraq, but to continue to line their pockets and profit off the misfortune of the Iraqi people.  

In my mind, those countries, specifically, should NEVER get a chance to profit through rebuilding contracts.  It's double-dipping to benefit themselves, and screwing the people they now claim they want to help.

If you believe that the U.S. is shouldering the burden of the war, and that the countries who are there giving us however weak a show of support you think it is, then how do you think that it's just that a country who was unwilling to give even the "limited" support you decry should now profit from the Iraqi people they didn't care to help free in the first place?

The countries you say aren't giving an equal measure of support should benefit from at least having the fortitude to send SOME support.  

Also, the Iraqi people, in working to rebuild their own country, are then invested in the process, helping to rebuild not only their country, but their economy, bringing a sense of self worth to their efforts.  Their hard work now will not go towards building bigger palaces for Sadaam, buying solid gold faucets for his bathrooms, and crystal chandeliers for a dictator that ruled so brutally over them.  Now their work will go towards improving their houses, improving their standard of living, improving whatever they wish, as they now get to reap the benefits of their hard work.

Time and again, the Iraqi people are forgotten, almost as if they're the retarded child sitting in the corner who never says anything.  The Iraqi people are slowly becoming responsible and TAKING the responsibilty of running their country and putting things in order again.  

[Dartful Dodger]

I thought the idea was to free Iraq?

The idea is to stop another 3,000 innocent Americans from being killed.

[Crazy Cooter]

"a country who was unwilling to give even the "limited" support you decry should now profit from the Iraqi people they didn't care to help free in the first place?"
Because the list just doesn't make sense.  Examples:
* On List - Turkey - refused to let us use their airbases.
* Off List - Germany - let us use their airbases to stage attacks.
* Off List - Canada - contributed millions to Iraq and has troops in Afganistan.
* Off List - France - allowed use of their airspace.

If you spoke out against Bush at the UN, you're off the list.  Unless you recant now and send in troops.  So this brings to question, did those countries that sent in a handful of troops actually support our action as claimed by Bush?  Or did the do it so they could claim "the prize"?

"The idea is to stop another 3,000 innocent Americans from being killed."
Don't confuse the war on terror with the war in Iraq.  There are similarities but they are not the same.

[shmokes]

I thought the idea was to free Iraq?

The idea is to stop another 3,000 innocent Americans from being killed.

Well...you're already down 1000 and the death toll in Iraq is ticking away.  

[Dartful Dodger]

Don't confuse the war on terror with the war in Iraq.  There are similarities but they are not the same.

If you think Iraq had nothing to do with the 3,000 people that died in the World Trade Center, then you are confused.

America is safer without Sadam, so it is the same.

[patrickl]

Don't confuse the war on terror with the war in Iraq.  There are similarities but they are not the same.

If you think Iraq had nothing to do with the 3,000 people that died in the World Trade Center, then you are confused.

America is safer without Sadam, so it is the same.

Wrong on both counts. There is no link between Saddam and 9/11 and Americans (military and civilian) have been dying at an alarming rate.

If anything made the US safer then it's the attack on Afghanistan. I don't see how you could imagine a positive influence of the attack on Iraq for the US.

You need to have some proof that Saddam was involved with the world Trade center attack. Simply stating that there is no proof he was not involved does not count. Besides Bin Laden was pretty clear in his explanation for these attacks.

[Crazy Cooter]

America would be safer if many of the current leaders around the world were removed.  That doesn't pool them in with terrorism though.

[Dartful Dodger]

America would be safer if many of the current leaders around the world were removed.  That doesn't pool them in with terrorism though.

...and after seeing what we did to Sadam, they wont pool with them.

[Crazy Cooter]

I'd say the inverse is true.  Saddam was a single guy with a rough country and he got a beatdown.  Terrorists strike and hide.  Which is more "effective"?

Couple guys, couple planes = heavy casualties to the "enemy".
Waiting in your own country = heavy casualties to yourself.

I'm no military expert but of the two, which technique seems to work?  Does this mean we should cower in fear?  No.  Does this mean we should become a police state?  No.  I've been in the mood for quotations today:

[Crazy Cooter]

OK folks, this one is a straight rip on Bush.  Maybe someone can find some answers/explanations?

Some stuff Saddam did have.  Where is it now?
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6228800/

This is only a clip, more available by following the link:
"Satellite imagery shows that entire buildings in Iraq have been dismantled. They once housed high-precision equipment that could help a government or a terrorist group make nuclear bombs, the International Atomic Energy Agency said in a report to the U.N. Security Council.

The equipment

[shmokes]

America would be safer if many of the current leaders around the world were removed.  That doesn't pool them in with terrorism though.

...and after seeing what we did to Sadam, they wont pool with them.

Wow...Dartful.  Brilliant.  Who knew it was so easy?

[GGKoul]

I can't wait until Nov 3, 2004.. the day after election day...

[shmokes]

I wish I had your optimisim.  I'm pretty nervous about it.  If Kerry does win, though, it will be so much fun.  I live in rural Utah.  There is probably not a more concervative place in the nation.  I am part of a VERY small minority of liberals in the area.  I can think of about 20 or 30 people at work and school that I'll be able to have endless fun with if Bush gets the boot.

[Mameotron]

"I don't know how to break this to you, but the "looks" of people have everything to do with who we investigate."
and then:
"...fighting for OUR cause"
Is stopping people, questioning them, and threatening them for no reason OUR cause?  It's not mine.

Fredster:  He didn't do anything.  They told him they could detain him under the "Patriot" Act if he didn't answer their questions.  And yes, he was "just late".  Of course he wasn't paid for that lost time.  But if you and Drew feel safer because someone was stopped and threatened to be held indefinately simply because of how he looks, I guess all is well.  Maybe you'd feel better if they were somehow branded once their documents were checked?

This exact scenario happened to me, but it was around 1993.  I was driving on the interstate through Nashville, TN in the middle of the afternoon.  As I went around a curve, a police car in the opposite direction pulled an immediate u-turn, lights and sirens blaring.  I pulled over, and was told to get out, put my hands on the hood, spread 'em, etc.  Then about 4 more police cars all piled up on me.  I was questioned for about a half an hour while they ran my driver's liscense, plates, checked my VIN #, and asked me over and over:  is this your truck you're driving, where are you going, where did you just come from?  When it was all over, the origional cop said that he pulled me over because I had out of state plates and he wanted me to be aware that the speed limit was about to change.

Later I saw on the news that they were looking for a kidnapping suspect, who was reported to be driving a blue truck just like what I was driving.

If this had happened today I'm sure they would have threatened me with the patriot act, too.  Sometimes these things happen.  I wish they didn't, but I'm glad they were looking for the bad guys.

[Dartful Dodger]

I wish I had your optimisim.  I'm pretty nervous about it.  If Kerry does win, though, it will be so much fun.  I live in rural Utah.  There is probably not a more concervative place in the nation.  I am part of a VERY small minority of liberals in the area.  I can think of about 20 or 30 people at work and school that I'll be able to have endless fun with if Bush gets the boot.

Again this is the only reason people have for voting for Kerry.  They just want Bush to lose.

[patrickl]

I wish I had your optimisim.  I'm pretty nervous about it.  If Kerry does win, though, it will be so much fun.  I live in rural Utah.  There is probably not a more concervative place in the nation.  I am part of a VERY small minority of liberals in the area.  I can think of about 20 or 30 people at work and school that I'll be able to have endless fun with if Bush gets the boot.

Again this is the only reason people have for voting for Kerry.  They just want Bush to lose.

Too bad they can't vote for Saddam

[Dartful Dodger]

This will be a good debate.

The Gun Debate

An interesting question on this website is:

Should the United States Senate support the proposed United Nations treaty that bans ownership of guns?

I didn't even know the UN had such a proposal.

Luckily for me the US doesn't take orders from the UN.

[TA Pilot]

I didn't even know the UN had such a proposal.

Oh, yes.   The UN is very anti-private ownership of guns.

And the answer to the question is obvious:
HELL no.

[Crazy Cooter]

Again this is the only reason people have for voting for Kerry.  They just want Bush to lose.

My reasons for voting for Kerry:
Kerry will get the Nuke stuff under control (old U.S.S.R. & N. Korea) sooner.
The "Patriot" Act is wrong.
Kerry can handle Iraq better.
I'm Pro-choice.
I'm afraid of who Bush would put on the Supreme Court.
The national debt.
Kerry won't shaft our Canadian friends over re: Iraq reconstruction.
Kerry will respect the International Laws that we agreed on.
Adult stem cells are junk.  Doesn't anyone watch PBS?  Call M.I.T. and ask them.
The list goes on.

Bush has already started taking away your rights, I'm voting Kerry so we can keep guns.  (I just don't think we need flash suppressors)

Nobody wants to respond to Bush not watching the equipment that was the main reason for going into Iraq?  Or him ignoring the Geneva Convention?

[TA Pilot]

Kerry will get the Nuke stuff under control (old U.S.S.R. & N. Korea) sooner.

Because....?


The "Patriot" Act is wrong.

Kerry voted for it.


Kerry can handle Iraq better.

Because...?  
Kerry plans to do exactly what Bush is already doing.  "More of the same" he calls it.


I'm Pro-choice.

Kerry believes human life begins at conception.


The national debt.

Kerry has proposed over $1,000,000,000,000 in new programmic spending.


Kerry won't shaft our Canadian friends over re: Iraq reconstruction.

So...  to the bystander goes the spoils?
Why shoud lcountries that did not participate in the war be allowed to profit from the war?


Kerry will respect the International Laws that we agreed on.

At the expense of our national security.


Adult stem cells are junk.  Doesn't anyone watch PBS?  Call M.I.T. and ask them.

No oneis preventing anyone from researching stem cells.


The list goes on.

And, most likely, whatever other reason you might gove, Kerry has taken a contrary stance.



Bush has already started taking away your rights, I'm voting Kerry so we can keep guns.  (I just don't think we need flash suppressors)

Kerry has sponsored gun bans.   He has supported and voted for them.  Kerry has voted for every single piece of federal gun control legislation thats made it to a vote.

How is it that Bush, not Kerry, is trying to take away your gun rights.

(Note:   Flash suppressors are not, and never were, banned)


Nobody wants to respond to Bush not watching the equipment that was the main reason for going into Iraq?

I thought there were no WMD/WMD programs in Iraq?


Or him ignoring the Geneva Convention?

Kerry is a self-described and self-admitted war criminal.

[shmokes]

Again this is the only reason people have for voting for Kerry.  They just want Bush to lose.

And again, what's your point?  How many times do you have to be told that we only have two viable choices.  I am required to be governed by one of them.  Does it make you feel any better to know that I didn't vote for Kerry in the primary?  That I would have preferred someone more liberal than Kerry?  Would it have made any sense to you whatsoever for someone who voted for McCain to turn around and vote for Gore solely because Bush was not his first choice EVEN THOUGH BUSH STILL REPRESENTS HIS VIEWS BETTER THAN GORE WOULD HAVE?

Can you not extend your silly logic one step further and see the inevitable conclusion that if I want Bush to lose, I, by default, want Kerry to win?

Dartful, you keep coming back to this, and when I explain it to you I get nothing.  I'm sure I can explain this to you if you just tell me what you don't get about it.  

Would a picture help?  Here...let me draw you a little picture...

[TA Pilot]

Can you not extend your silly logic one step further and see the inevitable conclusion that if I want Bush to lose, I, by default, want Kerry to win?

Anyone But Bush!  Anyone But Bush!  Anyone But Bush!  
Anyone But Bush!  Anyone But Bush!  Anyone But Bush!
Anyone But Bush!  Anyone But Bush!  Anyone But Bush!
Anyone But Bush!  Anyone But Bush!  Anyone But Bush!

The Democrats could run Yassir Arafat!!!!
I'd vote for him!!!

Anyone But Bush!  Anyone But Bush!  Anyone But Bush!
Anyone But Bush!  Anyone But Bush!  Anyone But Bush!
Anyone But Bush!  Anyone But Bush!  Anyone But Bush!
Anyone But Bush!  Anyone But Bush!  Anyone But Bush!



Your graph is ridiculous.   Kerry isnt conservative, except in realtion to a (very very) few people that are to the EXTREME left.

[DrewKaree]

Would a picture help?  Here...let me draw you a little picture...

I think that's funny as all get out!  

[DrewKaree]

Adult stem cells are junk.  Doesn't anyone watch PBS?  Call M.I.T. and ask them.

and yet they happen to be the only ones people are claiming to show promise, while they pound away at embryonic cells, and have yet to have something to show for it.

results vs. no results.  Somehow that = junk, but I don't have the number for M.I.T. to verify it.  

Again it comes down to "semantics".  Bush hasn't banned research on embryonic stem cells, and has funded stem cell research, INCLUDING embryonic stem cells.

There's even a link provided so you can see the limitations regarding embryonic stem cell research.  Why would there be limitations on something that is banned?  I'll call M.I.T. to see if they can get me an answer to THAT that makes sense.

[shmokes]

Your graph is ridiculous.   Kerry isnt conservative, except in realtion to a (very very) few people that are to the EXTREME left.

Don't get your panties in a twist, TA.  The graph isn't exactly scientific.  I made it in about two minutes.  It's there to illustrate a point.  If you want to move Kerry further to the left, fine; the better my point is illustrated.  You know what's ridiculous?  It's ridiculous that you can't understand what I'm saying.  The only way you could refute my point would be to move Kerry to the right of Bush, or to move me to the right of Kerry.  As long as Kerry sits between Bush and myself on the graph his views are closer to mine than Bush's.  This ain't rocket science.  Do you need me to draw another picture, but with crayons this time?

And Kerry is conservative.  He may be liberal compared to other senators, but the senate is bereft of liberals.  The Democratic party has largely left liberalism behind in favor of moderatism (if that's even a word), hence the emergence of the Green party.  Compare him with politicians in Europe and he is conservative.  Our country as a whole, can certainly be characterized as puritanical and conservative.  The political spectrum does not begin and end with democrats and republicans.  If Kerry is at the fringe of the left-wing, where the hell do you put socialists?

edit:  BTW, Mosely-Braun and Dean are both more liberal than Kerry.

[TA Pilot]

This ain't rocket science.

And yet, you blew it.



And Kerry is conservative.  

Really.
And which of traditionally conservative principles does he stand for?

I bet I can find something in his voting record that says otherwise.



He may be liberal compared to other senators,

Almost all of them, you mean.

but the senate is bereft of liberals.  

I know.   Kinda heightens my point.



The political spectrum does not begin and end with democrats and republicans.

This is true.   But to lable the Dems as anyting but a moderate-left to hard left party is either deny reality or to delude yourself.



If Kerry is at the fringe of the left-wing, where the hell do you put socialists?

Kerry IS a socialist.

[Crazy Cooter]

[Kerry will get the Nuke stuff under control (old U.S.S.R. & N. Korea) sooner.
Because he will begin additional talks directly with N. Korea and will speed up the plan to account for the old U.S.S.R.'s weapons.

The "Patriot" Act is wrong.
Bush wants to extend the portions of it set to expire and add more to it.


Kerry can handle Iraq better.
Because he will allow more countries to do more work rather than throw a flaming bag of... on their doorstep.  I've never heard or seen anything where Kerry plans to do "More of the same".  That's Bush talking.

I'm Pro-choice.
"Kerry believes human life begins at conception."
Yes, he does.  And so do I.  However, I think that women should have the right to choose.  So does he.  Bush rips on him because Kerry wouldn't vote for a bill that would require a girl to inform her father she wanted an abortion even if he was the one who raped her.  That's plain wrong.


The national debt.
"Kerry has proposed over $1,000,000,000,000 in new programmic spending."
Go to his site and browse.  It doesn't bite.  Send an email to them if you need more info.

Kerry won't shaft our Canadian friends over re: Iraq reconstruction.
"So...  to the bystander goes the spoils?
Why shoud lcountries that did not participate in the war be allowed to profit from the war?"
Canada isn't a bystander.  I believe they have sent something in the neighborhood of $190 million to Iraq and they have troops in Afganistan.  Bush doesn't like the fact they wouldn't stand behind him at the UN.

Kerry will respect the International Laws that we agreed on.
"At the expense of our national security."
Does the end justify the means?  How many rights are you willing to give up?  What if Bush wanted to take away the 2nd amendment?
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -- Benjamin Franklin (1759)


Adult stem cells are junk.  Doesn't anyone watch PBS?  Call M.I.T. and ask them.
"No oneis preventing anyone from researching stem cells."
Yes, they most certainly are!  The term "stem cells" is like the term "automobile".  There are types of stem cell research.  Bush likes ADULT stem cell research.  I like EMBRIONIC stem cell research.  You need to understand what a stem cell is.  An EMBRYONIC stem cell can be used for anything and comes from an ebryo (I think about four days old).  An ADULT stem cell has already gained a "disposition" for something less generic.  I'll give an example from the M.I.T. lab and answer Drew at the same time.  I saw this on a program called "Body Building" on PBS.  On this program, M.I.T. showed off some heart muscle they made.  It was grown in a petree dish and when it was jolted with an electric current, it started beating all on it's own.  Sure makes patching somebody's heart easier when the stuff actually IS heart.  they have also taken adult stem cells from a rats brain and got new neurons.  Nice way to get someone paralyzed moving again huh?  Only the neurons didn't all work right.  Is it because they were adult stem cells?  Nobody will know because we can't do the same experiment with embryonic stem cells.  IMO, embryonic stem cells are to modern medicine as the atom is to modern science.

On August 9th, 2001, President Bush announced that his administration would ban federal funding of human embryonic stem cell research, characterizing the embryos these cells come from as "the seeds of the next generation." But, acknowledging that "research offers hope that millions of our loved ones may be cured of a disease and rid of their suffering," Bush also said he would allow funding research on the sixty lines of stem cells already harvested by private researchers. <- THAT is how you put limitations on something that is banned.  The limits apply to what was already aquired.  Bush's full speech can be found here: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/08/20010809-2.html

So we have 60 stem cell lines available right? Wrong.  This is a good article about the show i watched: http://www.pbs.org/saf/1209/features/stemcell.htm
"Of those 60 lines, Melton estimates only 20 are still able to give rise to useful cells. Of those, about half are owned by private companies or foreign countries, neither of which are under any obligation to share their wealth with American government researchers. Of the handful remaining, some simply don't work. They don't propagate new cells, and researchers do not yet know why.

"While, this number 60 seems stuck in everyone's head, the number is definitely less than ten," says Melton. "So there is an insufficient number.""

Bush has already started taking away your rights, I'm voting Kerry so we can keep guns.  (I just don't think we need flash suppressors)
"How is it that Bush, not Kerry, is trying to take away your gun rights."
TA, you know very well how many people don't like guns.  Bush is already trying to take away some of your rights with "Patriot" Act II.  With more & more people willing to give up our rights in order to feel "safe", how long before they knock on the door of the 2nd Amendment?  Here's a good quote: "We must always remember that terrorists do not just target our lives - they target our way of life. John Kerry and John Edwards believe in an America that is safe and free, and they will protect our personal liberties as well as our personal security."  Ripped from their website.  I can't find anything on the Bush site about protecting our liberties.  We have thousands overseas fighting for freedom, let's protect it here while they're away.

"(Note:   Flash suppressors are not, and never were, banned)"
IMO, they should be.  No reason for them.  Unless I can get grenades or at least TNT.  Then we'd have some F U N  

Nobody wants to respond to Bush not watching the equipment that was the main reason for going into Iraq?
"I thought there were no WMD/WMD programs in Iraq?"
Read the link.  High precision tools etc.  that could be used for that purpose.  Follow that link and all will become clear.

Or him ignoring the Geneva Convention?
"Kerry is a self-described and self-admitted war criminal."
Homework TA: http://www.factcheck.org/article244.html

[patrickl]

I wonder why we even respond to that "clone of the Floyd script". Scripts don't "understand", they merely ask semi-related questions to keep the conversation going. If we keep this up someone is gonna win a turing test.