SkyDekker

Who says he is an AQ leader?

True Though this particular attitude comes from growing up in The Netherlands. I believe the same principle holds true for drugs and sex etc. The more you forbid something, the more you make soemthing very hard to get, the bigger the attraction becomes. Quite frankly, theconcept of drinking to get drunk was foreign to me until I came back to Canada. I also see quite a bit more drug use here in Canada than I did in Holland. (and I am talking mainly about marijuana and other "soft" drugs.)

I agree with that principle. But then I also agree with it in other forms like drinking etc.

Thanks Michele and others. It is similar too, yet completely different (lol) to the Canadian system. In our system the political parties hold conventions at which time party members vote a leader. The party in the end decides which candidates run in the different districts. This system is the same for federal and provincial elections (At least in Ontario).

Nah, I know it is hard to imagine for Americans, but there was a time in different countries where people didn't constantly shot at eachother. Where even a majority of criminals had some sense of respect for life.

Sorry for asking a stupid question, but what is the puspose of the primary?

Bush has done both of those things. Wouldn't you agree? He more or less abandoned the fight against AQ and then increased the threat tremendously by invading Iraq. But you have, you have run away from the actual war on terrorism in Afghanistan.

Thanks, you raise some more valuable points, all very true.

Then, I withdraw my statements about the priest dude until more is known. The concept stands though.

No, I don't agree with that part. I agree that "what a person does in their personal life is nobody's business". These people have made value judgements about other people's personal life though. I believe that once you do that, that portion of your personal life becomes open for judegment as well. If I am a very vocal supporter of PETA, my personal actions in my personal life become relevant. If I am openly anti-gay, then my own sexual preferences become relevant. If I am openly supporting traditional family values and publicly run an a campaign based on that. Then, my own personal behaviour relating to family values become relevant. I don't care this priest paid to get fucked up the ass. I do think that it is important to point out such a public person is a hypocrite. I doin't care this politician was banging his mistress (don't know enough about the abuse thing), I do think it is important to point out the guy his a hypocrite. In summary, when you are very vocal about a certain issue, your private life as it relates to that issue no longer is private in my eyes.

You really think the "fishing frenzy" in the 80s has very little to do with this?

In a way I agree with you. I do think there in these two cases there is a bit of a difference. That difference being that these two people have publicly and vocally denounced the exact things they were found doing. The Republican was known for his vocal stance and support of "family values" fucking your mistress (never mind if he really abused her) is not really part of those grand "family values" The priest guy, was a very vocal opponont of anything to do with homosexuality. Next thing you know, turns out he has been paying a guy to have sex with him. I do think that creates a bit of a different situation. Otherwise, I would wholehartedly agree with you.

I have a hard time believing that a senior police officer would have always maintained a professional manner in his dealings with junior officers, then one day looks around, sees fat cops and decides not be professional anymore. I agree that there should be a fitness standard for cops in the field, I doubt this was the first time this senior officer was unprofessional in his communication though. As usual, there is probably much more to this story.

Now why doesn't that surprise me?!? The guy was pretty intimitaly involved with the process. Any reason you don't believe him? Not give the guy a verbal tongue lashing while your diplomats are trying to do a deal with him. Wrong timing. Had he not done that, multilateral talks could have taken place prior to and possibly prevented the nuclear test.

I am trying to figure out why you said: he didn't like Clinton's apprach either? Does that have any bearing on whether or not Bush may have damagaed earlier diplomatic efforts by his actions?

In my opinion? 1. To let the issue die 2. the fines compared to his legal costs to fight it, plus the income from speaking arrangements and books wasn't worth it. 3. His expulsion from the bar didn't matter, he would never act as a lawyer again anyways. 4. In the end, it was just in HIS best interest. (And to be fair the sequence I quoted was from the Paula Jones deposition, which was initially included in the impeachment process, but didn't make it through. Out of for 4 articles, 2 were dismissed, this was one of them. Below I will quote how supposedly it happened. There is some abiguity in the whole thing. I still think under those circumstances, a case of perjury would have been very hard to prove)

Speaking of Hijacks... Still think your master was this Great Leader when it comes to Korea? Or, since this guy didn't like Clinton's apprach either, it's all okay?

I wear mine with pride.

turns out your reference check turned up negative....

Why would they maintain a professional appearance if they can't be treated in a professional manner?

If that's your biggest problem in life, life is pretty good for you....

Do you agree that Bush has only added to the threat against the US. or do you disagree with the US Intelligence community?

Not quite sure I understand what you are saying here.

Yup, but I am sure it was all Clinton's fault in your eyes.

well, according to the intelligence community, Bush really has only increased the threat to the US.