freeflydrew

I saw the little clip about Kerry being back and forth about his opinion on the invasion of Iraq and decided to search google about Bush and post the results... I hope that you can take the time to look into these results and judge for yourself which candidate is more or less of a flip flop. A little searching with Google brought back many results... Bush Rhetoric vs Reality 3 Sets Of Quotes Bush vs Facts Actual Clips from Campaign and since "election" 21.2 MB I strongly suggest checking this one out...

San Francisco Chronicle, CA USA Today Reuters San Jose Mercury News (subscription), CA Seattle Post Intelligencer, WA Houston Chronicle, TX Los Angeles Times (subscription), CA etc...

It's not just the BBC reporting this... Google Results

Mount it on your leg strap... There'll be less burble, It's super easy to read under canopy, and it's safer than on your chest...

Hey Jim, I think Bill's logic was that, to generalize, most of the news from Fox, and most of the participants on this thread of dz.com are very Right-wing, Republican, and that for GWB to have the number of votes that he has (in this poll), people must be looking at other sources to form an opinion. Hope everything is going well in Spaceland. -Drew

Just because her political view is different than yours shouldn 't make it distorted Sorry to bring this up, but this is a contradiction, isn't it?

Considering that you don't know me, and have no idea of what my attitude may or may not be like, you're conclusion is without merit. I think that you've confused opinion with attitude. So I'll turn you're statement around, ok? Stuffit, Attitudes like yours are why people are so god damn uptight about every little fucking comment! Relax, it's only my opinion!

Please name these media outlets. I'm very curious, and can only think of one thus far. mh . If only I wrote the list... and disputing the ridiculous claims it makes was really the point... Geesh

Like I said, the post I copied was from today Here and the quotes, except the one from 2003, are all recent: Sunday, 13 July, 2003, 12:21 GMT 13:21 UK Saturday, July 10, 2004 (Washington) Monday, July 19, 2004 Wednesday, 14 July, 2004, 12:42 GMT 13:42 Like I said, I think a discussion with you will not be objective, nor without subtle insults, so I'll back away now... a second time

Ha Ha Ha... Very appropriate... It would be nice if all the politicians could use a little self control, and exercise some maturity. Name calling, swearing, and insulting shouldn't be the way our elected representatives conduct themselves... Whether serious or in jest, it's better to not offend or alienate someone or a group of people who may have elected them in the first place. Obviously this is my own opinion.

Source Data from 2002, but the idea still applies... There are so many different ways of sorting the numbers... In the US: Age 35 to 44 are the most infected age group White not Hispanic is the most infected Race Gay Male more than Straight male cases of Exposure Children with Mothers with HIV highest exposure by children. This is only in the US... Point--->Steel In Africa, the statistics are not the same, and the numbers are not the same. Point-->Nightingdale One is talking about the US specifically, the other mre of a global viewpoint... Not exactly sure what liberal has to do with anything here.

Wow, you managed to discredit 4 different sources, with absolutely nothing more than a couple sentances with no sources, and a comment about hanging onto the past... The post I copied was from today, and the quotes, except the one from 2003, are all recent. I think a discussion with you will not be objective, nor without subtle insults, so I'll back away now. Have a great day.

this is being covered extensively in the other thread about the exact same thing... I think you should read that discussion before you start this one, which really has no foundation anyway. Check out the other one, it's full of a lot of interesting viewpoints, and information. Here: Hhhmmmmmmm... http://www.ndtv.com/...d=56859&callid=1 [Quote] "Mayaki said a businessman helped set up the meeting, saying the Iraqis were interested in "expanding commercial relations" with Niger - which Mayaki interpreted as an overture to buy uranium, Wilson said." So Mayaki's interpretation of an event is solid evidence? This is the only specific event about these claims that I have found, and I'm sure that you'd agree that it is anything but solid. http://mostlyafrica.blogspot.com [Quote] "The US Senate committee's report mentions a meeting in 1999 as well ... can't tell if they're talking about the same meeting though. The meeting was mentioned in an intelligence report produced following Ambassador Wilson’s trip to Niger. The intelligence report indicated that former Nigerian Prime Minister Ibrahim Mayaki was unaware of any contracts that had been signed between Niger and any rogue states for the sale of yellowcake while he was Prime Minister (1997 – 1999) or Foreign Minister (1996 – 1997). Mayaki said that if there had been any such contract during his tenure, he would have been aware of it. Mayaki said, however, that in June 1999, [redacted] businessman, approached him and insisted that Mayaki meet with an Iraqi delegation to discuss “expanding commercial relations” between Niger and Iraq. The intelligence report said that Mayaki interpreted “expanding commercial relations” to mean that the delegation wanted to discuss uranium yellowcake sales. The intelligence report also said that “although the meeting took place, Mayaki let the matter drop due to the UN sanctions on Iraq.” (source) Here is the thing ... in an interview with the BBC conducted a couple of days ago, Mayaki said he has no recollection of such a meeting." http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/3891503.stm [Quote] "Niger's former prime minister has said that Iraq did not try to buy uranium, contradicting claims made in the build-up to the invasion of Iraq. Ibrahim Mayaki told the BBC that no Iraqi delegation went to Niger while he was foreign minister or prime minister...." I, still, have yet to see any solid evidence supporting these claims.

From the DIA website: "We provide military intelligence to warfighters, defense policymakers and force planners, in the Department of Defense and the Intelligence Community, in support of U.S. military planning and operations and weapon systems acquisition." Not one single source that i have cited, nor read anywhere a all claimed that any sale had been arranged, written, or verified. I think you'll find that there hasn't been any single report written since Feb, 12, 2002, supporting the claims written in that document's title, and body... The document itself isn't even accessible on the

I just found the other post so ridiculous, and KAllend posted the link, I had to post this so hopefully the other side could see how ridiculous generalizations really are, and stop the labeling and name calling... source How to be a good republican 1.You have to believe that the AIDS virus is spread because people are evil and should be punished. 2.You have to believe that the evolution is a myth that shouldn't be taught in schools, despite the evidence of biochemistry and the fossil record. 3.You have to believe that there is no causal link between legal, easily-obtainable handguns and high murder rates. 4.You have to believe that unfunded arts and school programs are still subject to government control. 5.You have to believe that global temperatures are completely unaffected by fossil fuel emissions, that the best way to save the national forests is to allow logging companies to cut down old-growth timber, and the best way to save endangered species is to allow trophy hunters and wildlife traders to import more of them. 6.You have to believe that homosexuality is evil (despite the fact that it occurs in nature) and that women should stay at home to cook and bear children. 7.You have to be against abortion but support capital punishment 8.You have to believe that businesses never purposely hurt anyone to make money. 9.You have to believe that hunting requires an automatic rifle. 10.You have to believe that inherited wealth is more important than actually doing something to earn it. 11.You have to believe that war is an acceptable solution to any economic or social problem. 12.You have to believe that everyone should support the troops - except when it comes to paying them. 13.You have to believe the NRA is good because it supports certain parts of the Constitution, while the ACLU is bad because it supports certain parts of the Constitution. 14.You have to believe that taxes are for poor and middle class people, not the rich. 15.You have to believe that Oliver North and Monica Lewinsky are more important to American history than Martin Luther King and Robert Kennedy. 16.You have to believe that affirmative action is wrong, while still supporting discrimination against minorities. 17.You have to believe that Ann Coulter is normal and really a very nice person. 18.You have to believe that the only reason supply-side economics hasn't worked anywhere it's been tried is because the right people haven't been in charge. 19.You have to believe liberals telling the truth belong in jail, but a liar and draft-dodger belongs in the White House. 20.You have to believe that the Ten Commandments should be displayed in every public building regardless of the fact that not everyone in America is a Christian. 21.You have to believe that illegal Republican Party funding by corporations is somehow in the best interest of the United States. 22.You have to believe that the media are biased toward liberals, despite the fact that all the major media outlets are owned by ultra-rich conservatives.

Wait a second! This isn't one of those times when someone has spoken against the administration, and is discredited... Where did he admit to lying, and what did he lie about? I think that you may be misreading the article...

I think that the things you are writing are borderline offensive, and i would hope you'd cut back on the claptrap before you start offending someone. You have yet to write any solid evidence that supports your claim, and when i search the web for what you're supporting, i have yet to find anything solid supporting it. (Unless someone's interpretation of an event is solid) When Bush said it in his speech, there was no evidence that the claims were true... The CIA had already concluded that the claims were false, the White House soon apologized and said the 16 words should not have been used in the speech. "...the White House said including the 16 words in the State of the Union was a mistake because the assertion was not well enough corroborated to merit mention in a State of the Union speech". 2 Years later, British Intelligence Services are now saying the claim may have been true, and conclude that the sources may have been credible... What is that claim, who is the source, and how is it credible? "Wilson had said a former prime minister of Niger, Ibrahim Mayaki, mentioned a visit from an Iraqi delegation in 1999 that expressed interest in expanding commercial ties with Niger, the world's third largest producer of mined uranium. Mayaki believed this meant they were interested in buying uranium." (from Fox News) http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/3061957.stm(this is from 2003, but i believe still applies to the discussion) Hhhmmmmmmm... http://www.ndtv.com/template/template.asp?template=Newiraq&slug=Iraq+'sought'+uranium+in+SA&id=56859&callid=1 So Mayaki's interpretation of an event is solid evidence? This is the only specific event about these claims that I have found, and I'm sure that you'd agree that it is anything but solid. http://mostlyafrica.blogspot.com http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/3891503.stm I, still, have yet to see any solid evidence supporting these claims.

That's part of this article... the other part is the claim/prediction that the US will strike Iran's nuclear facility before Russian fuel rods are delivered next year. Article Here This is little bits of the article... "Iran gave free passage to up to 10 of the September 11 hijackers just months before the 2001 attacks and offered to co-operate with al-Qa'eda against the US, an American report will say this week. The all-party report by the 9/11 Commission, set up by Congress in 2002, will state that Iran, not Iraq, fostered relations with the al-Qa'eda network in the years leading up to the world's most devastating terrorist attack. The bipartisan commission has established that between eight and 10 of the September 11 hijackers, who had been based in Afghanistan, travelled through Iran between October 2000 and February 2001. The terrorists in question are believed to have been the "muscle" - hired to storm the aircraft cockpits and overpower crew and passengers. Iranian officials were instructed not to harrass al-Qa'eda personnel as they crossed the border and, in some cases, not to stamp their passports. "The report is expected to confirm the claim by Thomas Kean, its chairman, last month that "there were a lot more active [al-Qa'eda] contacts, frankly, with Iran and Pakistan, than there were with Iraq". It will further inflame tensions between Washington and Teheran, where hardliners are threatening to restart its uranium enrichment programme, a key step towards building nuclear weapons. A commission official, quoted in the latest edition of Time magazine, alleges that Iranian officials approached Osama bin Laden after the bombing of the USS Cole in 1999, proposing a joint strategy of attacks on US interests. Some Bush officials are privately contemplating a possible military strike against Iran's nuclear facilities before Russian fuel rods are delivered next year." Topic also covered here

You can download the entire 9-11 Commission Hearings for free from the iTunes Music Store. It has been broken down into 36 different parts. This is a great medium to share the report through.

It seems to me that there isn't any news covering these claims as being true or false... Probably because there's still no evidence supporting the arguement, and the media knows the viewing public is over it... so, in some funny way, there's only me and you saying that our respective claims are true or false... You have no solid evidence to support what you're saying, and I haven't seen any solid evidence to dispute what I'm saying. What I did see on the news, however, is that there were 14 more civilian casualties as a result of US airstrikes. This brings the Iraqi civilian death toll well past 13,000. BAck to the Iraq nuclear program for a second... There's no evidence that Iraq had a nuclear program. That has been made clear by the US media, the Butler report, the UN weapons inspectors, and the Kay report. But I bet you're convinced that it did, right? Vinny, I could care less if Gore was in office... If the US was doing what it's doing now with Gore as Pres, I would feel exactly the same way I do now, and argue the exact same things I do now... so please don't confuse this with some petty political stance. Labeling democrat, republican, conservative or liberal is so freakin' stupid and elementary... You guys use it like you're name calling, and generalizing. geesh. Hello? We, the citizens of this country, have been lied to repeatedly by this administration! How can you not have a problem with that? I had a problem with it when it was Clinton.

If only Cheney came off as an honest man. There's no evidence to support the claim that Iraq had a nuclear program. That's the core of the arguement here (now that this thread has evolved), and there's no evidence to support otherwise. A reality check is in order.

God forbid someone changes their opinion about something...

From the Relative Workshop Site: While a normal RSL automatically pulls the reserve ripcord pin following a breakaway, the new RWS Skyhook RSL goes two steps further. It automatically releases the non-RSL riser in case the RSL riser was released prematurely (ensuring your reserve will not deploy with half your main still attached). The Skyhook then uses your departing malfunctioned main canopy as a super pilot chute to deploy your reserve canopy, taking about ½ second from breakaway to line stretch (reserve canopy out of the bag). This is 3 to 4 times faster than a pilot chute can do alone, and means that the average sport reserve can be open in 75 to 80 feet after breakaway. This puts the argument of which rig has the fastest reserve deployment to bed forever. It has been asked if the Skyhook is like the device used on the Sorcerer BASE rig. Although there are similarities, the Sorcerer system is designed for an externally mounted RESERVE hand deployed system and lacks the automatic release features of the Skyhook making it unsuitable for use with internal spring-loaded pilot chute rigs. The Skyhook sits inside your reserve container, on top of the #2 kicker flap, right under your reserve pilot chute. A small cover flap protects the SkyHook assemblage. The SkyHook Lanyard is approximately six inches long, and branches off from the normal RSL lanyard. A specially designed metal "cam" to receive the loop is attached to your reserve freebag bridle, about five feet below the pilot chute. If you disconnect the RSL, you also disconnect the SkyHook. Hope this clears up any confusion anyone may have been having

That website is super cool!

Considering that George Bush said, before he was electedf that it wasn't the US's job to police the world, I think it's safe to assume that the US has chosen itself to police the world, much more than it has been asked to...