Conservative newspaper endorses Kerry

[Keith 0]

I thought this editoral was well written.

Keith

Don't Fuck with me Keith - J. Mandeville

[beowulf 1]

I don't understand why people seem to think that the Bush administration is the cause for Islamic extremist's hate of the US. Their hate goes much farther back then this administration. If Kerry were to be the next president it would not change the level of hate that these terrorists have for the US and would not deter them from attacking or planning new attacks. I don't think that giving in to all of their demands would help at all. The only thing that would be affective is to hunt them down and destroy them and any country that knowingly harbors these people.

My thoughts on the Iraqi War is that before the war began the US said if you don't give us definitve proof that you have destroyed the weapons of mass destruction then will come in there kick your ass. They didn't comply so we kicked their ass. That is good enough for me. Don't make a threat you can't back up. Pres. Bush followed through. That is a big plus in his favor as far as I am concerned. Did we step on some toes doing so Yeah. It isn't possible to accomplish anything with out stepping on some toes. Was it worth it? I don't know, but I do think it was the right thing to do. Our enemies need to fear us and know that when we say we will clean their clocks we will.

Pres. Bush has done a good job. I don't see Kerry being decisive in anything. He seems to just follow the polls and make the popular statments.

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

I don't understand why people seem to think that the Bush administration is the cause for Islamic

Neither do I, and I read nothing there that said they did. What they said was, "It [the election of Kerry] would also provide a chance to repair America's overseas relationships, both with governments and people, particularly in the world of Islam."

That 100% accurate. They're not talking about radical, terrorist Islams. They're talking about the Islamic world in general, in particular the moderate gov'ts among them. For example, Iran had a strong and growing moderate base that was reaching out toward the US. Since Iraq, that base still exists, but they're no longer extending a hand of friendship toward us.

[beowulf 1]

from that article I got the impression that they believed that there would be fewer Islamic extremists if Bush had not gone to war with Iraq. That may be so but I don't think it would be wise to not back up words with actions. You can't make everyone happy. Taking Saddam out was a good thing to do. There were plenty of good reasons for him to not be in power.

[billvon 3,118]

> from that article I got the impression that they believed that there would
> be fewer Islamic extremists if Bush had not gone to war with Iraq.

That's almost certainly true; killing people's families often angers them, and angry people bent on revenge become extremists.

>That may be so but I don't think it would be wise to not back up words
>with actions.

I agree 100% - which is why I was disappointed to see us backing off the hunt for Bin Laden. What kind of signal does that send the world? Kill 3000 americans, hide out for a few years - and we'll get distracted and go somewhere else.

> Taking Saddam out was a good thing to do. There were plenty of good
> reasons for him to not be in power.

Agreed. Unfortunately, it has not helped with the war on terror; indeed, the number of attacks has gone up since we invaded.

[lawrocket 3]

bill, this is politics as usual. Remember back in the 1980's when the war on drugs, and especially crack, was in the news? Drug Czar Bill Bennett approached it as a politician.

He directed resources towards guns (gangs sell drugs, gangs are violent, therefore take away gang guns and drugs will stop) and let the crackheads die off. Take credit for lower demand for crack.

Can't win an issue but want to look like you are? Do the little sidestep. The longstanding political game. I don't see how Kerry would be any different. I also don't see how Kerry could be any worse than GWB.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[Kennedy 0]

Quote

I also don't see how Kerry could be any worse than GWB.

{A} He would've done everything Bush did, including IRaq (he's said so himself - he would still have voted for use of force)

--therefore, he's just as bad as Bush--

{B} He will use any and every excuse to try to ban firearms from private ownership.

{C} He will invite the U.N. into US internal affairs (due deference, humility, etc) Sorry, I prefer my eleceted officials deciding for me. Also, it distrbs me that only half the senate is required to ratify an international treaty, and that it then becomes US law. (check into U.N. Summit on Illegal Trade it Small Arms - or some such name; it blames all guns for all world's gun crime/war/atrocities)

{A} makes him equally as bad as Bush, and {B} and {C} make him worse.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[christelsabine 1]

Quote

{B} He will use any and every excuse to try to ban firearms from private ownership.

What an imagination! Must be hell on earth!

Quote

{C} He will invite the U.N. into US internal affairs (due deference, humility, etc) Sorry, I prefer my eleceted officials deciding for me. Also, it distrbs me that only half the senate is required to ratify an international treaty, and that it then becomes US law. (check into U.N. Summit on Illegal Trade it Small Arms - or some such name; it blames all guns for all world's gun crime/war/atrocities)

see above

Well-founded, unbeatable arguments, indeed

Must be hard times for private gun owners, oh man

dudeist skydiver # 3105

[billvon 3,118]

>He would've done everything Bush did, including IRaq (he's said
>so himself - he would still have voted for use of force)

I agree, but we would have gone in as part of a UN force - and that would put us in a much better position today.

>He will use any and every excuse to try to ban firearms from private ownership.

I think the Patriot Act is pretty good evidence that Bush does not think highly of such freedoms either. Acts like the Patriot Act will do far more to prevent you from owning guns than Kerry ever could.

> He will invite the U.N. into US internal affairs . . .

Didn't we use a UN reason to invade Iraq (albeit without their support?) The UN is a stabilizing force in the world, one we should support. We should not allow them "into our internal affairs" but we _should_ support them in peacekeeping efforts. One reason Kerry is a better choice than Bush - he has nothing but disgust for the UN.

[mnealtx 0]

What an imagination? Why don't you look up Kerry's voting record regarding 2A issues? Add to that the fact that he came off the campaign trail specifically to vote against a gun-related bill makes Kennedy's statement FACT not fantasy.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[Kennedy 0]

Who's imagining things?

This guy thinks England and Australia are just a good start! He wants guns and self defense outlawed here in the States.

Have you bothered to look into anything I've said, or are you one of those open-minded, understanding continentals, who think everyone is ok as long as they agree with you?

It's called the 'UN Conference on the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons in All Its Aspects.'
Yeah, I trust Finland to help decide US laws. Right, I want a country that blames the victim and bans tools to form our self defense laws.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[christelsabine 1]

Quote

This guy thinks England and Australia are just a good start! He wants guns and self defense outlawed here in the States.

That's not the worst way to a better world...

Quote

Have you bothered to look into anything I've said, or are you one of those open-minded, understanding continentals, who think everyone is ok as long as they agree with you?

I'm not here to look for agreements to my opinions.
Continentals are open-minded, or why do you think so many Europeans enter this site?

And referring to your posts: I enjoy + read many of them and just see a red line on which I made my own personal judgement.

Did you ever discuss any news in a (Continental) European site? I can tell you, having a view on both sides of a medal, is opening one's mind

dudeist skydiver # 3105

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

That's not the worst way to a better world...

Ok, so you appease the criminal and give him your wallet...what do you do when he wants....

....your body?
....your child's body?
....your life?
....your child's life?

Still think giving them whatever they want is such a good thing?

christelsabine, I'd be happy to discuss this with you more on one of the self-defense threads...

My apologies for the hijack...we now return you to your regularly scheduled thread

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[juanesky 0]

Nah, set them criminals/terrorists free ala Munich 72'....

"According to some of the conservatives here, it sounds like it's fine to beat your wide - as long as she had it coming." -Billvon

[Kennedy 0]

Quote

That's not the worst way to a better world...

Skyrocketing crime is a good way to get a better world?

What has the UK got going for it that the US doesn't?

Quote

having a view on both sides of a medal, is opening one's mind

Seeing both sides does not equal having an open mind. I met some racists who were the most well read people I've encountered in Alabama recently.* I still thought they were scum of the earth, but they keep up with current events, and were very knowledgable.

(* - I work in a bookstore)

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[christelsabine 1]

***
Ok, so you appease the criminal and give him your wallet...what do you do when he wants....

....your body?
....your child's body?
....your life?
....your child's life?
***

It is impossible to give one good answer on all. We -and with that "we" I mean the Germans itself, or let's say, the normal Europeans, too - use to live w/o a permanent expectation of attacks, permanent menace. Use to live w/o weapons. Oh yes, we are facing murder cases, the worst you can imagine, the full range of criminal cases... but it is not considered as a daily, permanent danger to be expected behind every next corner. Not even in big cities' downtowns.

We have our own rate on that cases. For sure. And for sure is, that the average citizen is living a normal life w/o any need for hand guns etc. That's all I can tell you on that without writing a complete book.

We never can solve this difference between your and (our) my mental attitude on that by just asking/answering in a forum like that. You/we live in our ways since too many decades. My view on that -even I own weapons - in your eyes seems to be so far beyond imagination........ Your view on that is doing same for mine.

It slightly is getting off-topic, right?

So, to come back to the thread:

How is it possible that such a question - if Kerry is a hunter, a good one or not - could be any argument for voters? What does it tell to the world if he is killing the deer with 1 or more bullets? Does this tell me anything about his political capability?

Our Mr. Schroder was married several times: I do not mind. In my eyes he is not the best chancellor we ever had but, I don't mind if he was a lousy husband: The way he acts in his job for Germany and the world around us, that is important, that's counting, nothing else.

Christel

dudeist skydiver # 3105

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Quote

Neither do I, and I read nothing there that said they did. What they said was, "It [the election of Kerry] would also provide a chance to repair America's overseas relationships, both with governments and people, particularly in the world of Islam."

That 100% accurate. They're not talking about radical, terrorist Islams. They're talking about the Islamic world in general, in particular the moderate gov'ts among them. For example, Iran had a strong and growing moderate base that was reaching out toward the US. Since Iraq, that base still exists, but they're no longer extending a hand of friendship toward us.

Since the mainstream part of the Islamic world is the only part that would sit down at a table with us and have an interest in peace with us -- and they are NOT the part that does the terrorist attacks in the first place -- it wouldn't make any difference as far as safety from terror to have Kerry as president.

The dangerous, extremist element of the Islamic world is the problem we face, and they don't give a shit about who is the sitting U.S. president, and they don't give a shit about any mollification and stroking we give the middle east. They want us dead. Period. And they won't stop til they get us dead, so apparently if we want to live, we have to destroy them. I think it's all pretty simple.

-

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Quote

>That may be so but I don't think it would be wise to not back up words
>with actions.

I agree 100% - which is why I was disappointed to see us backing off the hunt for Bin Laden. What kind of signal does that send the world? Kill 3000 americans, hide out for a few years - and we'll get distracted and go somewhere else.

Don't you think it's naive to think that just because our government, military and spy agencies are not publicizing a hunt for Bin Laden that it must not be going on? I do.

If you were hunting for someone like him, wouldn't it make more sense to keep your progress, and how much intel you have on his possible whereabouts, as quiet as possible so as not to tip him off as to how close you are to finding him?

So it's pretty simplistic and naive to believe that the search for him is utterly stalled out. They wouldn't send you emails to keep you updated, if that's what you're expecting, bill.

-

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"