Gravitymaster

The best move the Dems could make to assure GWB is re-elected would be to run Howard Dean against him. As a Republican, I support Dean because I feel he represents the value and ideology of the Democratic Party better than any other candidate.

Thanks for that information. You really made my day. I too wonder where these people who think Iraq is some kind of hell hole and all Iraqi's hate U.S. Troops get their information. What I hear from the families of soldiers who are actually there, is that day by day the situation is improving. Whether you agree with the decision to invade Iraq or not, we are there and we aren't leaving until we are sure another repressive dictitorial regime isn't coming in and usurping the power of an elected Iraqi Gov't. Our goal wasn't just to rid Iraq of SH. It was to bring Democracy to all of the Middle East. By doing so, we improve out own security. Too bad so many have trouble understanding this an relegate themselves to petty sniping.

your right aslong you dont take a life for a life/a human beeing for a human beeing ____________________________________________________ reply: Huh???? Whats that got to do with what I said?

Geeezus If we didn't show him, you guys would say GWB was cooking up some kind of propoganda. I can hear it now: "If we REALLY had caught Saddam, the Bush Admin. should put him on T.V. to prove to the world its true". " There's something fishy about their reluctance to prove they got him". "Probably a story cooked up in Texas". Would you guys just give it a rest? We got Saddam. He was put on T.V. to try to stop some of the homicide bombings on U.S. Troops and to bring closure for those Iraqis or the families of those who have been tortured by Saddam. Many Iraqis are suspicious of the U.S. and wouldn't have believed he had really been captured any other way. Now that we have given them proof he isn't coming back, perhaps the Iraqi people can move forward. Showing captured soldiers would not have been done for the same reasons as showing Saddam therefore the two don't equate.

Payspecial attention over the next few months at what is said by France, Germany, and Russia. I have no doubt they are going to get real cooperative with the U.S. I suspect Saddam is going to be talking about their involvement in circumventing the U.N. sanctions. Should get interesting.

http://www.eastvalleytribune.com/index.php?sty=14222 Unconstitutional campaign rules prompt NRA to seek media status Tribune Editorial New and unlovely creatures continue to emerge from the Pandora's Box of “campaign finance reform,” so avidly touted by such luminaries as Arizona Sen. John McCain as the true path to political righteousness. The latest is a plan by the National Rifle Association to have itself adjudicated through by the courts as a media outlet — and thus exempt from a provision in the McCain-Feingold law prohibiting it or any other group that accepts either corporate or union donations from airing TV and radio ads that mention federal candidates in the month before a primary election and in the two months before the general one. The NRA is also looking into the acquisition of a broadcast outlet to go with its several magazines. Announcing the plan to The Associated Press, NRA executive vice president Wayne LaPierre posed two rhetorical questions. ‘‘Why should they have an exclusive right to relay information to the public, and why should not NRA be considered as legitimate a news source as they are?” he enquired, referring to the news media that are exempt from the restrictions of McCain-Feingold. The speciousness of the latter question is at once apparent: NRA is not as legitimate a news source as, say, Fox News, the Los Angeles Times or the East Valley Tribune because news gathering and dissemination are not its raison d’étre: gun-rights advocacy is. The NRA's publications do not offer a balanced view of the controversy surrounding those rights, and they make scant attempt to cover any issues unrelated to their preservation. But in the former, LaPierre has a perfectly valid point — one made much more so by news organizations' own frequent failure to live up to their ideals. Why indeed should the media have “an exclusive right to relay information to the public” in the weeks before federal elections? On what basis is mentioning federal candidates in that time frame by groups such as NRA proscribed? Certainly not that of the First Amendment, which states unequivocally that “Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech.” Moreover, it is an unhappy fact that the mainstream media are hardly so even-handed in their reportage as to merit such an exemption, particularly in the case of gun-rights advocates. The NRA can hardly be blamed for seeking a way around so unreasonable a set of rules as is set out in McCain-Feingold — but if it succeeds in its quest, a stampede of applications for exemption may be expected from every other advocacy group so restricted. Eventually defining and even licensing media outlets might fall under the purview of government, which would truly be a malign outcome. The right outcome, of course, would be a Supreme Court ruling throwing this pernicious provision onto the judicial dunghill as unconstitutional.

I've been polled several times.

Anybody have any idea what could have caused this? I'm thinking microwave power downlink path.

I heard one of these Bimbo's on the radio. They asked her who the Vice President of the United States was and she got all upset about being "ambushed" with a tricky question. She didn't know it was Cheney. LOL...............If this is the kind of opposition Bush can expect, we might as well not waste time and money with another election.

http://www.panicware.com

Like I've been saying, judges and justices seem to be deciding their answer and then trying to find law to rationalize it. What ever happened to checking the law then finding your answer? Gee, then you won't get the answer you want.

I thought you were for free speech? How is a law which is clearly designed to protect incumbency a good law?

Kallend will be pissed about this. He's for unrestricted free speech.

This is terrible news for Democrats. Edited to add: But, they will find something negative to say about it.

I'm against CP for many of the same reasons stated here already. As an alternative I'm for setting up a "Hard Labor Camp" in some place like Alaska and sending violent felons there instead of the death sentence. I would also change the law so that anyone sentenced to "Life with hard labor" would have no chance of parole. I would also require all available technology in DNA testing be required before imposing such a sentence. Once senteneced to the camp life would be very difficult. Long days spent at hard labor and it would be the goal of the camp and convicted felon to be self-supporting so as few of our tax dollars as possible are used to support such a place.

To a certain extent, it already has happened. ____________________________________________________ reply: True. It just happened today when the Supreme Court decided to allow the Govt to define when and what type of speech is acceptable. Thanks McCain/Feingold.

____________________________________________________ reply: How much more would you like?

Two points: When I report here that our own government says a tie exists I call it a fact and you call it bashing. ____________________________________________________ reply: Read it again. I wasn't referring to that specific statement you made. ____________________________________________________ Further -- fatalities, especially skydiving fatalities as discussed on this web site, are a completely different issue with issues of privacy to be considered. Business relationships with governement officals do not have that same privilege. ____________________________________________________ reply: Thats only part of the reason. The other part is we don't want to draw any conclusions until "all the facts are in". Nice try though. ____________________________________________________ Please don't muddy the issues. I would hope we can all see the differences. ____________________________________________________ reply: Too funny.

Well I never stated that all the statements were wrong, just said they were only telling one side of the story and not giving the whole picture. I then put some context around it - try to read the post again. These things are complex and I said all the time that progress has been made. You seem to have problems seeing the full picture. ____________________________________________________ Reply: How could I have trouble seeing the whole picture? Every time I turn on my T.V. or radio or sign on to this site or many others, all I hear are the naysayers and bomb throwers whinning and complaining. The purpose of the post you are referring to was to add some balance to the "whole picture". To say it isn't all bad. With this said, I find it interesting how you think "I" don't see the whole picture. ____________________________________________________ In other words, it’s great if schools are being re-opened and electricity restored. On the other side it makes it all difficult if people get blown up walking the streets and the electricity supply constantly sabotaged. ____________________________________________________ Reply: We all know that Mikkey. Do you really think it's necessary to keep reminding people. The media does a great job of it hourly. ____________________________________________________ If you do not control the security situation the rebuilding of the infrastructure is very problematic. ____________________________________________________ Reply: The people in Govt. are well aware of this fact and are doing the best they can give the task at hand. As we both agree, it's complex and sometimes you're damned if you do and damned if you don't

Quote: This can be debated. As I documented in my post many of the “one liners” you copied from somewhere were only "half the picture" - I documented some of the other "half". Please document where I have done this. Before you accuse people of "oversimplifications, one-sidedness and constant whining " better get your facts right first. ____________________________________________________ O.K. how about we use your statement in the above paragraph where you admit you only documented "half" the picture ____________________________________________________ Quote: Some of the statements you used - especially where current numbers where compared to May numbers when the infrastructure just had been "flattened" by US air attacks - were oversimplifications and construed. ____________________________________________________ Nope, wrong again the numbers were Pre-war. That means before the war started in case you didn't understand. ___________________________________________________

Here Mikkey. I think Paul Bremer has a little more credibility and first hand knowledge than you. I suppose you will accuse him of oversimplifying? http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Oct2003/n10102003_200310101.html Edited to add: I can't get the Url button to make this clicky. Can someone else do it for me?

Quote: "I have no problems with companies making money as long as they do so in a way that is fair and honorable". ____________________________________________________ Fair and honorable by who's standards. I though it wasn't right for us to impose our morality on other countries. ____________________________________________________ Quote: If a company wants to exploit people in a sweatshop in Bangladesh -- yeah I have a problem with that. ____________________________________________________ Even if it's in full compliance with the laws of that country? I must say again, I thought you liberals were against us imposing our morality and values on other countries? Do you think the appropriate response is a gov't or citizen boycott? Own anything made by Nike? ____________________________________________________ Quote: If a media company wants to start a war so they can reap profits -- yeah I have a problem with that. ____________________________________________________ As do I. ____________________________________________________ Quote: In a company has ties to people that can start wars and both can reap profits from the deaths of innocent people as well as our own soldiers . . . well, I have to at least queston the possiblity. ____________________________________________________ Questioning the possibility, yes. Insinuating something without any proof, no. I seem to remember reading Paul Quade telling people on this very site not to make any judgements until we know the facts. My point is a connection isn't necessarily an unlawful collusion. ____________________________________________________ Quote: Is it just me or should we simply and blindly follow the leader? ____________________________________________________ Nobody is suggesting that. Only suggesting you tone down the bashing and insinuation without any facts in the same way you would advise if we were talking about a fatality.

I agree. Besides, who would protect these contractors from non-coalition countries? Their own Gov't refused to send troops. Are U.S. Forces supposed to protect them? I don't think so.

You did suggest it was improper to contract with a company that had no ties to Washington AND had the type of experience necessary to perform the needed reconstuction services to rebuild Iraq. In a perfect ideological world, yes. In the real world, no. With the exception of career politicians, most who make the decision to serve their country politically come out of either the military of the corporate world. So why is it such a surprise they may have close contacts with the companies they did business with when they were CEO's? In addition, I fail to understand why you liberals have such a problem with a Corporation making money. Corp. make money, they hire people and they pay bonus's, give people raises and pay dividends to their shareholders. Isn't creation of jobs something the left has been bashing GWB about for 2 years? Oh, now I guess they aren't the "RIGHT" kind of jobs, huh?

Tell you what Quade, why don't you give us a list of American Companies that are "qualified' to contract for Iraqi Reconstuction that are being left out because they "don't" have ties to someone in Gov't.