I'm sure there would never be a breach of anyones constitutional rights....what" imaginary" place is this you speak of??? insured by the constitution ? trust me , it is insured by the lawyers that fight for those whos constituional rights have been breached.

What's your point? I never said there would be no breach. I said if there is, there is a means to rectify it as you have already indicated.

Tom

First off we are not scared of the Liberals; you see when I say that word I also must list and include the Group of liberals of my intent! Traitors/Fifth column/ Marxist/ anarchists/so called revolutionaries, And the rest of that rabble scum.

For it is they who should be very afraid of us!!

Ok Homosexuality I view it as a severe behavior problem! And do not like my family exposed to it!

I have been in parts of the World where they would be LUCKY to spend the rest of their life in a Mental Hospital.

You see when it comes into my view…. it also enters my World…. and I then have a right to say what I feel. Deal with It!!

And I support the Boy Scouts in their stand...Were you ever a Boy Scout? I was and can think of nothing wrong with that organization Period!

You mentioned Bob Jones University: So what? they have standards like a Restaurant has dress codes. The University of Michigan on the other hand prefers a certain race over Academic Merit But that’s Ok Right ?????????

Now Amsterdam your utopia….. AMSTERDAM — A total of 36 percent of Amsterdam residents have been confronted with either aggression or violence in the past year, new figures revealed on Friday. A news excerpt!

SAN FRANCISCO San Francisco has become the latest in a growing number of liberal cities, run by Democrats, that are making it clear they have no intention of taking part in the War on Terrorism. San Francisco’s supervisors are considering passing a resolution that condemns the USA Patriot Act and encourages city employees not to help federal authorities conducting terrorism investigations Nice safe Place Tom !!

You guys are so much fun. Almost hate to get well and have to go back to work.;) ;)

Back to the so called war:

George W. Bush's followers hail his tough comments as proof of his straight-talking style and his "moral clarity." But his often-insulting remarks about political and international adversaries also raise questions about whether the president's loose tongue is becoming a national security danger to the American people.

Do Americans, for instance, face a greater risk of nuclear conflict because Bush indulged in a rant last year that included calling North Korea's leader a "pygmy" - or of terrorism because Bush termed U.S. military action in the Middle East a "crusade," with its Christian vs. Muslim overtones? Or does he exacerbate worldwide suspicion that Washington doesn't care much about the global environment when he mocks environmentalists to his White House aides as "green-green lima beans"?



Part of the job of any leader is to avoid careless talk that can complicate the always-tricky business of diplomacy. Publicly at least, effective leaders take pains not to personalize issues. But Bush consistently does the opposite, suggesting either a political tin ear to how he sounds to people around the world or perhaps a personality disorder that he can't control.

Either way, Bush's inability to make America's case to the world may become a political issue as the American people approach the exit ramp of Election 2004.

Bush & Anti-Americanism

The evidence is now clear that Bush's bellicose statements have contributed to a growing hostility toward the United States in all corners of the globe.

"Negative opinions of the U.S. have increased in most of the nations where trend benchmarks are available," reported the Pew Research Center for The People & The Press in a recent study. Even worse is the deterioration of U.S. standing in areas near the front lines of the war on terror, such as Jordan, Turkey and Pakistan. [For details, go to www.people-press.org]

Newsweek International editor Fareed Zakaria has written that anti-Americanism is emerging as the planet's "default ideology," which translates into deepening threats against Americans, both as individuals and as a people. But the anger may be less anti-American than anti-Bush. Respondents to international surveys often stress that they like Americans but oppose Bush administration policies.

Hostility toward Bush even is eroding U.S. standing among the staunchest of allies. In Great Britain, where Prime Minister Tony Blair is derided as a "poodle" for backing Bush's Iraq policy, politicians across the ideological spectrum are feeling "anxiety and antagonism" toward the U.S. president, reports Andrew Rawnsley, chief political commentator for the London Observer.

In a Jan. 15 dispatch, Rawnsley quotes a former Conservative Cabinet minister as likening Bush to "a child running around with a grenade with the pin pulled out." [For details, see "Why We Don't Trust Bush."]

Solidifying Image

This image of Bush is now solidifying around the world and is creeping into the consciousness of the American public as marked by Bush's weakening poll numbers. But there have long been warning signs about Bush's lack of discipline over the words coming out of his mouth.

Remember the scene in 1986 when Bush was miffed about a prediction made by WallStreet Journal political writer Al Hunt that Jack Kemp - not then-Vice President George H.W. Bush - would win the Republican presidential nomination in 1988. At a Dallas restaurant, the younger George Bush spotted Hunt having dinner with his wife, Judy Woodruff, and their four-year-old son.

Bush stormed up to the table and started cursing out Hunt. "You [expletive] son of a *****," Bush yelled. "I saw what you wrote. We're not going to forget this." [Washington Post, July 25, 1999]

While thin-skinned about criticism of himself or his family, Bush regularly pokes fun at others. While Texas governor, Bush lined up for a photo and fingered the man next to him. "He's the ugly one!" Bush laughed. [NYT, Aug. 22, 1999]

In one of Campaign 2000's most memorable moments, Bush uttered an aside to his running mate Dick Cheney about New York Times reporter Adam Clymer. "There's Adam Clymer -- major league ******* -- from the New York Times," Bush said as he was waving to a campaign crowd from a stage in Naperville, Ill. "Yeah, big time," responded Cheney. Their voices were picked up on an open microphone.

Or recall Bush making a joke about the condemned murderer Carla Faye Tucker pleading for her life to the Texas governor. "Please don't kill me," Bush whimpered through pursed lips in an imitation of the woman whom Bush had refused clemency.

In the second presidential debate, Bush continued to make light of people facing the death penalty in Texas. While arguing against hate-crimes laws, Bush said the three men convicted of the racially motivated murder of James Byrd were already facing the death penalty.

"It's going to be hard to punish them any worse after they're put to death," Bush said, with an out-of-place smile across his face. Beyond the inaccuracy of his statement -- one of the three killers had received life imprisonment -- there was that smirk again when discussing people on Death Row.

Presidential Humor

Bush's pleasure with jokes at other people's expense hasn't changed much since he became president. For instance, at a press conference on Aug. 24, 2001, after stumbling through an answer about his stem-cell research policy, Bush turned to a reporter who had covered him as Texas governor. Bush called the Texas reporter "a fine lad, fine lad," drawing laughter from the national press corps.

The Texas reporter began to ask his question, "You talked about the need to maintain technological ..." But Bush interrupted the reporter to deliver the punch line. "A little short on hair, but a fine lad. Yeah," Bush said, provoking a new round of laughter. The young reporter paused and acknowledged meekly, "I am losing some hair."

While many of Bush's backers find his biting humor refreshing - the sign of a "politically incorrect" politician - some critics contend that Bush's clumsy use of words and off-handed insults fit with a dynastic sense of entitlement toward the presidency.

"Although the GOP machine has spun his elementary goofs as signs of kinship with the Common Man, they are in fact an insult to the people," writes Mark Crispin Miller in The Bush Dyslexicon. "Every bit of broken English, every flash of comfy ignorance, reminds us of a privilege blithely squandered: Bush attended Phillips Andover Academy, then Yale - olympian institutions that would never have admitted him if he were not a Bush."

Miller continues, "Thus, in the matter of his education, this president, despite his folksy pretense, is something of an anti-Lincoln - one who, instead of learning eagerly in humble circumstances, learned almost nothing at the finest institutions in the land. When he comments on how many hands he's 'shaked,' or frets that quotas 'vulcanize' society, ... he is, of course, flaunting not his costly education but his disdain for it - much as some feckless prince, with a crowd of beggars watching from the street, might take a few bites from the feast laid out before him, then let the servants throw the rest away."

'Glib, Dogmatic'

Indeed, Bush's short temper and imperious treatment of those under his power have become hallmarks of his governing style during his two years in the White House, according to recent accounts of insiders and others who have dealt with him.

In the new book, The Right Man, former Bush speechwriter David Frum paints a generally flattering portrait of Bush and his leadership skills, while acknowledging Bush's autocratic behavior. Bush is "impatient and quick to anger; sometimes glib, even dogmatic; often uncurious and as a result ill informed; more conventional in his thinking than a leader probably should be."

Bush describes environmentalists as "green-green lima beans" and has built a White House staff with a "dearth of really high-powered brains," Frum writes.

"One seldom heard an unexpected thought in the Bush White House or met someone who possessed unusual knowledge," Frum writes, adding that by comparison the TV show, "The West Wing," with its dialogue imbued with sophisticated political thinking "might as well have been set aboard a Klingon starship for all that it resembled life inside the Bush White House."

Frum, who drafted the phrase "axis of evil" for Bush's State of the Union speech in January 2002, resigned from the White House after a flap over an e-mail that his wife sent to friends boasting of Frum's authorship of the phrase. Since then, Frum has defended his former boss when Bush's motives for starting a war with Iraq have been questioned in other countries.

Last October, Frum dismissed rumblings in the British press that Bush was engaged in a family vendetta against Saddam Hussein. Bush had brought on this suspicion himself in September by calling Saddam a liar and adding, "After all, this is the guy who tried to kill my dad," a reference to an alleged assassination plot against former President Bush in Kuwait in 1993.

The word "vendetta" soon became common in the British press as one of the reasons for Bush's obsession with Saddam and Iraq. Frum tried to refute the claim in an article he wrote in London's Daily Telegraph. "I'll concede that, like the others, this myth also contains its particle of truth," Frum wrote. But "the idea that an outburst of family pique and pride can move the gigantic and sluggish American democracy to the edge of war is simply - why be polite? - nuts." [Daily Telegraph, Oct. 23, 2002]

sorry Donzi ....misread that and shouldn't have even commented......I'm on a bit of a contitutional kick these days...I'm out of this debate as I think I fall somewhere in the middle. is that possible ? .interesting reading though..

Unneeded Hazards

Still, a president who consistently shows a lack of discipline in his choice of words creates unneeded hazards for the country.

Rhetorical sloppiness can have real consequences, including an erosion of international support if war with Iraq or North Korea proves necessary. That, in turn, can mean more danger to U.S. soldiers in the field, a higher cost borne by U.S. taxpayers and a greater likelihood that anti-Americanism will lead to more terrorism.

There is an obvious reason why the rest of the world takes the words of a president seriously, even if many Americans make light of Bush's so-called gaffes. More than any other single person, the U.S. president has the power to wage war anywhere in the world. What presidents say and how they say it can dampen tensions - or enflame them.

Take the current crisis with North Korea. Early in his administration, Bush signaled that he wanted a harder approach toward North Korea than President Clinton's. But Bush and his foreign-policy team caused confusion and anger from the start.

On March 6, 2001, Secretary of State Colin Powell indicated that Bush would use Clinton's North Korea policy as a jumping-off point. "We do plan to engage with North Korea to pick up where President Clinton and his administration left off," Powell said. "Some promising elements were left on the table, and we'll be examining those elements."

The next day, however, Bush met with South Korean President Kim Dae Jung and had a different policy in mind. After the meeting, Bush embarrassed Kim, a Nobel Peace Prize winner who had promoted a "sunshine" policy toward North Korea's communist government. Bush declared that the U.S. would not be resuming talks with North Korea.

"We're not certain as to whether or not they're keeping all terms of all agreements," Bush said, also expressing "some skepticism about the leader of North Korea."

The following week, on March 13, North Korea abruptly postponed meetings with South Korea that had been planned for a few days later. Rather than following Powell's strategy of seeking improvements in Clinton's negotiated restrictions on North Korea's nuclear weapons program, Bush's decision heightened tensions on the Korean peninsula. Ever since, the U.S.-North Korean situation has deteriorated.

'Axis of Evil'

Less than a year later, in his State of the Union address, Bush included North Korea in the "axis of evil," a point that raised eyebrows among some foreign policy experts who wondered what North Korea had to do with al Qaeda's Sept. 11 terror attacks or, for that matter, with Iran and Iraq, the other members of the "axis."

Apparently, the decision to include North Korea was made without consulting the State Department and Powell, who was told about it only shortly before the speech. On CNBC's Hardball (now on MSNBC), Newsweek's Howard Fineman reported a few days after Bush's speech that the decision to include North Korea came at the last minute more as a way to balance the "axis" than as well thought-out policy.

Bush didn't want to single out Iraq for fear that the world would expect "daisy cutters" to start falling right away, Fineman said. Bush first added Iran, but was then concerned that the "axis" would be perceived as simply an anti-Islamic construct. So, Fineman said, North Korea was included because it was not a Muslim country. [Hardball, Feb. 11, 2002]

North Korea didn't treat Bush's memorable line as just a rhetorical flourish, however. The Foreign Ministry called Bush's warning "little short of declaring a war."

The "axis of evil" speech also came about the same time as reports that Bush had put North Korea on a list of countries that would be possible targets of a U.S. nuclear attack. This decision, which was made in Bush's "nuclear posture review" sent to Congress in late 2001, reversed Clinton's policy against targeting non-nuclear states with nuclear weapons.

Then, at a meeting with Republican senators last spring, Bush launched into a disjointed, lectern-pounding tirade on issues ranging from the Sept. 11 attacks to the Crusader weapons program. Bush ended with a denunciation of North Korean leader Kim Jong Il.

"He's starving his own people," Bush said about Kim Jong Il. Bush compared Kim to "a spoiled child at a dinner table" and called him a "pygmy." The senators were "stunned," with one of them telling Newsweek magazine that "it was like in church, when the sermon goes on too long and you're not sure what the point is. Nobody dared look at anybody else." [Newsweek, May 27, 2002]

Loathing

In interviews with Washington Post reporter Bob Woodward taped a few months later in August 2002, Bush grew agitated again in talking about Kim Jong Il. In Bush at War, Woodward reported that Bush began shouting and wagging his fingers as he vented, "I loathe Kim Jong Il -- I've got a visceral reaction to this guy."

Bush also talked about his policy toward North Korea as part of a plan to reorder the world, if necessary through preemptive and unilateral military action.

It remains unclear why Bush has such a "visceral reaction" - defined as "intensely emotional" - to Kim Jong Il, as opposed to scores of other unsavory leaders around the world who oppress and abuse their own people. Perhaps Bush is projecting frustration and impatience with a situation he can't control.

Whatever Bush's reasons, most world leaders are careful about using personal and racially charged insults against other leaders because such comments can complicate or even poison government-to-government relations.

Beyond Question

In the interviews with Woodward, Bush also described how he viewed his judgments as beyond questioning. Bush said, "I am the commander, see. I do not need to explain why I say things. That's the interesting thing about being the president. Maybe somebody needs to explain to me why they need to say something, but I don't feel like I owe anybody an explanation."

Bush also described himself to Woodward as "fiery," "impatient," "instinctive," and "a gut player."

That "fiery" and "impatient" Bush was on display again at a New Year's Eve question-and-answer session with reporters while Bush vacationed at his ranch in Crawford, Texas. The situation on the Korean peninsula was escalating into a full-blown crisis as Kim Jong Il's government renounced its 1994 nuclear arms agreement with the Clinton administration. In the Middle East, Bush's showdown with Iraq was progressing toward what looked like inevitable war.

A reporter asked Bush a simple question: "Mr. President, looking ahead here, with a possible war with Iraq looming, North Korea nuclear conflict [sic] as well as Osama bin Laden still at large, is the world safer as we look ahead to 2003?"

The vagueness of the question made it one of those softballs that skilled politicians hit out of the park. It was an easy opportunity for Bush to reassure the American people and the world that everything will turn out just fine and that he had everything under control.

"Yes, it's a lot safer today than it was a year ago, and it's going to be safer after this year than it was this year because," Bush said, "the United States of America will continue to lead a vast coalition of freedom loving countries to disrupt terrorist activities, to hold dictators accountable, particularly those who ignore international norm and international rule."

But as he continued to emphasize his commitment to peace, Bush suddenly veered off into challenging the reporter. "You said we're headed to war in Iraq -- I don't know why you say that. I hope we're not headed to war in Iraq. I'm the person who gets to decide, not you," Bush said.

`C'est Moi'

The jarring comment had a whiff of megalomania to it, an echo of past royalty when monarchs declared, "l'etat, c'est moi," as New York Times columnist Paul Krugman noted. [NYT, Jan. 3, 2003]

But other parts of the remark raised potentially more substantive questions. Bush's declaration of holding dictators "accountable, particularly those who ignore international norm," suggests an even broader scope of potential military interventions than had been understood from his West Point speech in June declaring his intention of using preemptive attacks to stop rogue states from obtaining weapons of mass destruction.

The sweep of Bush's news conference language - which could apply to dozens of world leaders including U.S. allies - recalled his open-ended post-Sept. 11 pledge to "rid the world of evil."

Reporters covering Bush are inclined to treat these remarks as insignificant, simply examples of Bush's fondness for imprecise and melodramatic rhetoric. But these comments can have real consequences in the capitals of other countries.

It's one thing for a president to challenge U.S. adversaries by speaking about American ideals of freedom and democracy, such as President Reagan's famous call in Berlin to then-Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev. In addressing Gorbachev rhetorically, with a deft diplomatic politeness, Reagan said, "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall."

It is altogether different to announce, off-the-cuff, a plan "to lead a vast coalition" that will "hold dictators accountable." The language conveys a threat of war, especially when added to a long list of other comments threatening preemptive strikes. Countries on Bush's enemies list can be expected to react accordingly. In the cases of North Korea and Iran, that likely means a speed-up in plans to build nuclear bombs while the U.S. is distracted by Iraq.

I especially liked the part about Tony Blair being called a "Poodle"

rest of the story:

Exit Ramp

How much of the North Korean crisis is attributable to Bush's statements may never be known. Nor is it clear how much of the swelling anti-Americanism around the Iraq crisis comes from the world's "visceral" reaction to Bush. But what is increasingly clear is that Bush's loose tongue is adding to the many dangers now confronting the American people.

This reality seems to be dawning on a growing number of Americans. The CNN-USA Today-Gallup poll of mid-January found Bush's overall approval rating slipping to 58 percent, down from a high of 90 percent after the Sept. 11 attacks. But more strikingly, the poll showed only 36 percent of voters in favor of a Bush second term, with 32 percent set to vote against him and 31 percent undecided, remarkably low re-elect numbers for an incumbent.

For now, however, the American public is like a passenger riding in a speeding car with a dangerous driver. As he weaves through traffic shouting and gesturing at other drivers on the highway, there's not much to do but tighten the seat belt and urge more responsible behavior. There may be no reasonable chance to wrestle the steering wheel away without making a bad situation worse.

But the next time an exit ramp comes along - in, say, 2004 - a growing number of Americans appear to be thinking about easing the driver off the highway and into a rest area, where they can leave him behind and drive off with a more responsible president behind the wheel.

Reprinted from Consortium News:
http://www.consortiumnews.com/
2003/012203a.html

Well if we are gonna cut and paste:

Hillary Tainted by Bin Laden Cash?

New York Sen. Hillary Clinton's household income for 2002 included $750,000 in payments from three Arab nations with ties to the 9/11 hijackers, including a $267,000 speaking fee from a group funded by the family of Osama bin Laden, NewsMax.com has learned.

In late January 2002, ex-president Bill Clinton traveled to bin Laden's hometown of Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, to address a group of Saudi businessmen. He was paid $267,000 for a 40-minute speech, according to a Jan. 25, 2002, report in The Middle East Newsfile, a British-based news service specializing in coverage of the region's business developments.

Contemporaneous reports in London's Financial Times revealed that the audience included representatives of the BinLadin Group, which helped fund the Jeddah forum. The BinLadin Group is a leading Saudi construction company run by relatives of the 9/11 terrorist mastermind. Osama bin Laden grew up in the Red Sea port city of Jeddah.

"The conference was dominated by the Saudis' desire to overcome the pressures of September 11 and strengthen U.S.-Saudi ties," the Times said. "The BinLadin Group, one of the forum's backers, has been battered by its association with Osama."

The Times also noted that the forum's "pro-western businessmen are also some of the kingdom's biggest donors and they give generously to Muslim charities out of religious duty. The U.S. believes some of the contributions were siphoned off by some charities to finance terrorism and it wants better control over donations."

During his January 2002 visit to the region, Clinton also collected nearly a half-million dollars for speeches in Egypt and the United Arab Emirates, the Middle East Newsfile said. Investigators probing the backgrounds of several of the 9/11 plotters have uncovered links to both countries.

Some members of the Jeddah forum were mystified over the payments to Mr. Clinton. "How could we invite him to get $750,000 from us and for what? This is a strange situation," Prince Talal ibn Abdul Aziz said in an interview with Al-Jazeera television station. "What use does Clinton have now?" he added.

But it's not clear whether the Saudi royal realized that Mrs. Clinton, who had just been elected to the Senate, was planning her own run for president of the United States before the decade is out.

Throughout their years in the White House, the Clintons filed joint income tax returns, which, if still the case, would mean the bin Laden-Saudi cash was co-mingled with Mrs. Clinton's other income, such as the $8 million book advance she collected to write her memoirs. The former first couple has refused to release their tax returns since leaving the White House.

A call to Sen. Clinton's office inquiring about the bin Laden-tainted payment was not immediately returned.

Last week, Sen. Clinton accepted a coveted spot on the Senate Armed Services Committee, where she'll play a key role in congressional decisions affecting the U.S.'s war on terrorism.

Another speaker at the Jeddah forum was first brother Neil Bush, but coverage of the event makes no mention of his being paid.

While the Saudi royal family had reportedly donated $1 million to former President Bush's presidential library in College Station, Texas, in the early 1990s, there is no report of any Saudi payment to a Bush family member in the period since the 9/11 attacks.

In March 2002, columnist Robert Novak, citing "high-ranking" Saudi sources, reported that, in addition to the $750,000 in speaking fees he collected last January, Mr. Clinton obtained a pledge from the Saudi royal family to bankroll his own presidential library with donations estimated to range from "less than $1 million to $20 million."

Former White House adviser Dick Morris has predicted that monies collected by the Clinton library will be used to help fund Mrs. Clinton's presidential campaign.


Oh yeah, this is fun
:rolleyes:

And here's a good liberal:

Byrd's KKK Alibi Comes Unraveled

Sen. Robert Byrd, D-W.V., has said repeatedly over the years that he joined the notorious anti-black hate group the Ku Klux Klan during World War II - not because he was a racist but because the Klan had taken a strong stance against communism, a system of government that then existed only in the Soviet Union.

But Byrd's KKK alibi doesn't stand up to even the most cursory historical scrutiny, as a World War II veteran pointed out to NewsMax.com Wednesday.

"When Byrd said he joined the Klan, it couldn't have been famous for being anti-Communist, since in 1943 the Soviet Union was our crucial ally in World War II," said our source, who served in the Air Force, then known as the Army Air Corps, in preparation for the Normandy invasion.

"In 1943 Franklin Roosevelt was still calling Stalin 'Uncle Joe'," he added. "And I remember U.S. military maps that showed the Red Army's advances toward Berlin, which was something we were all happy about."

Further puncturing Sen. Byrd's KKK alibi, the World War II vet recalled, "There would have been no reason for any patriotic American to have been anti-Communist in 1943 - because we were doing everything we could to help the Reds beat Hitler on the Eastern Front."

In fact, anti-communism didn't emerge as a genuine force in American politics until 1947, with the outbreak of the Cold War - four years after Byrd says he left the Klan. Two weeks ago the West Virginia Democrat's press secretary Tom Gavin said his boss had belonged to the Klan for only "a number of months."

It was during this period that Byrd - supposedly by then an EX-Klansman - was advising Grand Imperial Wizard Samuel Green on whom to appoint to important posts in the hierarchy of the hate group. In a letter to Green, Byrd urged, "the Klan is needed today as never before and I am anxious to see its rebirth here in West Virginia" and "in every state in the Union."

A year later, in 1948, Byrd opposed President Truman's initiative to integrate the Armed Forces - and he did so using the language of a very much active Klansman.

The powerful Senate Democrat vowed then that he would "never submit to fight beneath that banner [the American flag] with a Negro by my side. Rather I should die a thousand times, and see Old Glory trampled in the dirt never to rise again, than to see this beloved land of ours become degraded by race mongrels, a throwback to the blackest specimen from the wilds."

"If Byrd said he thought the Klan's main job was fighting communism, he's either not being honest about why he joined - or he was a Klansman a lot longer than he now wants to admit," said the World War II vet.

Oh, and here's an article on why it's so great to be a gay guy:

Why he wants HIV

And just for the record-I couldn't care less about gay people, it's a choice for them, nothing more, nothing less. But I do not want them to get special priveledges or consideration because of it.

And here is a great standard bearer for the Dems:

Springer Considers Return To Ohio Politics
January 23, 2003


Talk show host Jerry Springer, a former Cincinnati mayor, says he is considering re-entering Ohio politics, but hasn't decided when or where.

In Columbus last night for the winter meeting of the Ohio Democratic County Chairs Association, Springer said he might challenge Republican U.S. Senator George Voinovich in 2004. He said he'll decide by summer.

But Springer said he hasn't dismissed a run for Cincinnati mayor in 2005 or governor in 2006.

Mainly, he said he wants to help rebuild the Democratic party in Ohio.

In his speech, Springer castigated President Bush for squandering America's goodwill around the world and for policies making the nation vulnerable to terrorist attacks and economic chaos.

Ok Tom Now Korea Who created the Korea Problem initially and who Left the Problem with the current administration??

So I can take from your Post you agree with sending the Army of North Korea…. Food, Oil….And Two Nuclear Reactors…. this same people who have weapons pointed at Americans? And a just small time before they are tipped with Atomic weapons!

Got some Bad News for you Tom we may have to take them out!

But you feel this is ok for our children to have to live in that world?? And you buy their Dirty word of Honor I cross my heart and hope to die??

What is your opinion on the Missile shield??

As far for as you’re silly Rants on Bush I could do mine on Clinton as he was a filthy mouthed legend at the Whitehouse and behind the scenes. But once again that is ok he was a Liberal: Traitor/Rapist/perjurer and follow my list of 274 Crimes!

TOM THE KOREA PROBLEM WHO CREATED IT?? Who left the North Koreans there??

Do you think we should bribe them with say a Los Angles class nuclear submarine complete with missiles??

Tom your inflicting your problem on us and we are going to fix it once and for all! And you have the unmitigated gall to complain!!!!!!

NASTY HABIT
 

No problem, if my family were going through what you are, I'd be on a kick as well. I wish it wasn't happening but I'm confidant you will prevail. And to answer your question about the middle, absolutely possible.

Thanks Ted,
Said server not found on the HIV article. If not too long maybe you could cut and paste.

The other two articles were great. Wasn't Neil Bush the one who almost bankrupted the savings and loan industry when he ran Silverado Savings and Loan in Denver? I think I remember he got off as scott free as Lay from Enron.

This is fun. :D :D :D :D

We should bring up all the dirt we can find on all of them. Not a clean one in the bunch. I understand the kennedy's made all thier money illegally during prohibition. Not sure why we should waste all out time on Clinton though. Hillory is not running yet and we don't want to waste the good stuff till it counts.

How about that Torricelli guy?

The only clean politician is Ghandi, but then maybe we can even bash him while we are at it. Better leave Jesus out of it though. Might be going a little too far for some.;)

Steve,
I knew if I pushed you far enough you would become lucid. It actually makes sense when you string more than two words together. All that name calling was not making too much sense for me.

The official story on Iraq has never made sense. The connection that the Bush administration has tried to draw between Iraq and al-Qaida has always seemed contrived and artificial. In fact, it was hard to believe that smart people in the Bush administration would start a major war based on such flimsy evidence.


CONTRIBUTORS TO 2000 REPORT
"Rebuilding America's Defenses," a 2000 report by the Project for the New American Century, listed 27 people as having attended meetings or contributed papers in preparation of the report. Among them are six who have since assumed key defense and foreign policy positions in the Bush administration. And the report seems to have become a blueprint for Bush's foreign and defense policy.


Paul Wolfowitz
Political science doctorate from University of Chicago and dean of the international relations program at Johns Hopkins University during the 1990s. Served in the Reagan State Department, moved to the Pentagon during the first Bush administration as undersecretary of defense for policy. Sworn in as deputy defense secretary in March 2001.

John Bolton
Yale Law grad who worked in the Reagan administration as an assistant attorney general. Switched to the State Department in the first Bush administration as assistant secretary for international organization affairs. Sworn in as undersecretary of state for arms control and international security, May 2001.

Eliot Cohen
Harvard doctorate in government who taught at Harvard and at the Naval War College. Now directs strategic studies at Johns Hopkins and is the author of several books on military strategy. Was on the Defense Department's policy planning staff in the first Bush administration and is now on Donald Rumsfeld's Defense Policy Board.

I. Lewis Libby
Law degree from Columbia (Yale undergrad). Held advisory positions in the Reagan State Department. Was a partner in a Washington law firm in the late '80s before becoming deputy undersecretary of defense for policy in the first Bush administration (under Dick Cheney). Now is the vice president's chief of staff.

Dov Zakheim
Doctorate in economics and politics from Oxford University. Worked on policy issues in the Reagan Defense Department and went into private defense consulting during the 1990s. Was foreign policy adviser to the 2000 Bush campaign. Sworn in as undersecretary of defense (comptroller) and chief financial officer for the Pentagon, May 2001.

Stephen Cambone
Political science doctorate from Claremont Graduate School. Was in charge of strategic defense policy at the Defense Department in the first Bush administration. Now heads the Office of Program, Analysis and Evaluation at the Defense Department.


The pieces just didn't fit. Something else had to be going on; something was missing.

In recent days, those missing pieces have finally begun to fall into place. As it turns out, this is not really about Iraq. It is not about weapons of mass destruction, or terrorism, or Saddam, or U.N. resolutions.

This war, should it come, is intended to mark the official emergence of the United States as a full-fledged global empire, seizing sole responsibility and authority as planetary policeman. It would be the culmination of a plan 10 years or more in the making, carried out by those who believe the United States must seize the opportunity for global domination, even if it means becoming the "American imperialists" that our enemies always claimed we were.

Once that is understood, other mysteries solve themselves. For example, why does the administration seem unconcerned about an exit strategy from Iraq once Saddam is toppled?

Because we won't be leaving. Having conquered Iraq, the United States will create permanent military bases in that country from which to dominate the Middle East, including neighboring Iran.

In an interview Friday, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld brushed aside that suggestion, noting that the United States does not covet other nations' territory. That may be true, but 57 years after World War II ended, we still have major bases in Germany and Japan. We will do the same in Iraq.

And why has the administration dismissed the option of containing and deterring Iraq, as we had the Soviet Union for 45 years? Because even if it worked, containment and deterrence would not allow the expansion of American power. Besides, they are beneath us as an empire. Rome did not stoop to containment; it conquered. And so should we.

Among the architects of this would-be American Empire are a group of brilliant and powerful people who now hold key positions in the Bush administration: They envision the creation and enforcement of what they call a worldwide "Pax Americana," or American peace. But so far, the American people have not appreciated the true extent of that ambition.

Part of it's laid out in the National Security Strategy, a document in which each administration outlines its approach to defending the country. The Bush administration plan, released Sept. 20, marks a significant departure from previous approaches, a change that it attributes largely to the attacks of Sept. 11.

To address the terrorism threat, the president's report lays out a newly aggressive military and foreign policy, embracing pre-emptive attack against perceived enemies. It speaks in blunt terms of what it calls "American internationalism," of ignoring international opinion if that suits U.S. interests. "The best defense is a good offense," the document asserts.

It dismisses deterrence as a Cold War relic and instead talks of "convincing or compelling states to accept their sovereign responsibilities."

In essence, it lays out a plan for permanent U.S. military and economic domination of every region on the globe, unfettered by international treaty or concern. And to make that plan a reality, it envisions a stark expansion of our global military presence.

"The United States will require bases and stations within and beyond Western Europe and Northeast Asia," the document warns, "as well as temporary access arrangements for the long-distance deployment of U.S. troops."

The report's repeated references to terrorism are misleading, however, because the approach of the new National Security Strategy was clearly not inspired by the events of Sept. 11. They can be found in much the same language in a report issued in September 2000 by the Project for the New American Century, a group of conservative interventionists outraged by the thought that the United States might be forfeiting its chance at a global empire.

"At no time in history has the international security order been as conducive to American interests and ideals," the report said. stated two years ago. "The challenge of this coming century is to preserve and enhance this 'American peace.' "

Familiar themes

Overall, that 2000 report reads like a blueprint for current Bush defense policy. Most of what it advocates, the Bush administration has tried to accomplish. For example, the project report urged the repudiation of the anti-ballistic missile treaty and a commitment to a global missile defense system. The administration has taken that course.

It recommended that to project sufficient power worldwide to enforce Pax Americana, the United States would have to increase defense spending from 3 percent of gross domestic product to as much as 3.8 percent. For next year, the Bush administration has requested a defense budget of $379 billion, almost exactly 3.8 percent of GDP.

It advocates the "transformation" of the U.S. military to meet its expanded obligations, including the cancellation of such outmoded defense programs as the Crusader artillery system. That's exactly the message being preached by Rumsfeld and others.

It urges the development of small nuclear warheads "required in targeting the very deep, underground hardened bunkers that are being built by many of our potential adversaries." This year the GOP-led U.S. House gave the Pentagon the green light to develop such a weapon, called the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator, while the Senate has so far balked.

That close tracking of recommendation with current policy is hardly surprising, given the current positions of the people who contributed to the 2000 report.

Paul Wolfowitz is now deputy defense secretary. John Bolton is undersecretary of state. Stephen Cambone is head of the Pentagon's Office of Program, Analysis and Evaluation. Eliot Cohen and Devon Cross are members of the Defense Policy Board, which advises Rumsfeld. I. Lewis Libby is chief of staff to Vice President Dick Cheney. Dov Zakheim is comptroller for the Defense Department.

'Constabulary duties'

Because they were still just private citizens in 2000, the authors of the project report could be more frank and less diplomatic than they were in drafting the National Security Strategy. Back in 2000, they clearly identified Iran, Iraq and North Korea as primary short-term targets, well before President Bush tagged them as the Axis of Evil. In their report, they criticize the fact that in war planning against North Korea and Iraq, "past Pentagon wargames have given little or no consideration to the force requirements necessary not only to defeat an attack but to remove these regimes from power."

To preserve the Pax Americana, the report says U.S. forces will be required to perform "constabulary duties" -- the United States acting as policeman of the world -- and says that such actions "demand American political leadership rather than that of the United Nations."

To meet those responsibilities, and to ensure that no country dares to challenge the United States, the report advocates a much larger military presence spread over more of the globe, in addition to the roughly 130 nations in which U.S. troops are already deployed.

More specifically, they argue that we need permanent military bases in the Middle East, in Southeast Europe, in Latin America and in Southeast Asia, where no such bases now exist. That helps to explain another of the mysteries of our post-Sept. 11 reaction, in which the Bush administration rushed to install U.S. troops in Georgia and the Philippines, as well as our eagerness to send military advisers to assist in the civil war in Colombia.

The 2000 report directly acknowledges its debt to a still earlier document, drafted in 1992 by the Defense Department. That document had also envisioned the United States as a colossus astride the world, imposing its will and keeping world peace through military and economic power. When leaked in final draft form, however, the proposal drew so much criticism that it was hastily withdrawn and repudiated by the first President Bush.

Effect on allies

The defense secretary in 1992 was Richard Cheney; the document was drafted by Wolfowitz, who at the time was defense undersecretary for policy.

The potential implications of a Pax Americana are immense.

One is the effect on our allies. Once we assert the unilateral right to act as the world's policeman, our allies will quickly recede into the background. Eventually, we will be forced to spend American wealth and American blood protecting the peace while other nations redirect their wealth to such things as health care for their citizenry.

Donald Kagan, a professor of classical Greek history at Yale and an influential advocate of a more aggressive foreign policy -- he served as co-chairman of the 2000 New Century project -- acknowledges that likelihood.

"If [our allies] want a free ride, and they probably will, we can't stop that," he says. But he also argues that the United States, given its unique position, has no choice but to act anyway.

"You saw the movie 'High Noon'? he asks. "We're Gary Cooper."

Accepting the Cooper role would be an historic change in who we are as a nation, and in how we operate in the international arena. Candidate Bush certainly did not campaign on such a change. It is not something that he or others have dared to discuss honestly with the American people. To the contrary, in his foreign policy debate with Al Gore, Bush pointedly advocated a more humble foreign policy, a position calculated to appeal to voters leery of military intervention.

For the same reason, Kagan and others shy away from terms such as empire, understanding its connotations. But they also argue that it would be naive and dangerous to reject the role that history has thrust upon us. Kagan, for example, willingly embraces the idea that the United States would establish permanent military bases in a post-war Iraq.

"I think that's highly possible," he says. "We will probably need a major concentration of forces in the Middle East over a long period of time. That will come at a price, but think of the price of not having it. When we have economic problems, it's been caused by disruptions in our oil supply. If we have a force in Iraq, there will be no disruption in oil supplies."

Costly global commitment

Rumsfeld and Kagan believe that a successful war against Iraq will produce other benefits, such as serving an object lesson for nations such as Iran and Syria. Rumsfeld, as befits his sensitive position, puts it rather gently. If a regime change were to take place in Iraq, other nations pursuing weapons of mass destruction "would get the message that having them . . . is attracting attention that is not favorable and is not helpful," he says.

Kagan is more blunt.

"People worry a lot about how the Arab street is going to react," he notes. "Well, I see that the Arab street has gotten very, very quiet since we started blowing things up."

The cost of such a global commitment would be enormous. In 2000, we spent $281 billion on our military, which was more than the next 11 nations combined. By 2003, our expenditures will have risen to $378 billion. In other words, the increase in our defense budget from 1999-2003 will be more than the total amount spent annually by China, our next largest competitor.

The lure of empire is ancient and powerful, and over the millennia it has driven men to commit terrible crimes on its behalf. But with the end of the Cold War and the disappearance of the Soviet Union, a global empire was essentially laid at the feet of the United States. To the chagrin of some, we did not seize it at the time, in large part because the American people have never been comfortable with themselves as a New Rome.

Now, more than a decade later, the events of Sept. 11 have given those advocates of empire a new opportunity to press their case with a new president. So in debating whether to invade Iraq, we are really debating the role that the United States will play in the years and decades to come.

Are peace and security best achieved by seeking strong alliances and international consensus, led by the United States? Or is it necessary to take a more unilateral approach, accepting and enhancing the global dominance that, according to some, history has thrust upon us?

If we do decide to seize empire, we should make that decision knowingly, as a democracy. The price of maintaining an empire is always high. Kagan and others argue that the price of rejecting it would be higher still.

That's what this is about.

Tom,

Very interesting article. It is funny how the same man acused of not thinking before acting by the earlier article is placed at the center of a very complex thought out plan. Anyway if this is indeed the case I can't say I object. It would seem that England would so far be the only of the allies on board. That would certainly fall into the idea that most would choose to benefit without bearing the costs.

Cat,
As usual you have managed to take an idea and twist it completely out of context. And by the way, the world policeman role is not new and has been admitted by the past administration as well as this one. And in addition, the iraqi people do not benefit from their oil today as a matter of fact they are worse off from it due to it providing wealth to their oppresor AKA Saddam Hussein.

I fixed the HIV link and notice that the "Bush Plan" is not attributed- Came from Dems.com I suppose??

Amazing that this dunce that can't even pronounce "nuclear" properly can implement such a master plan.

Oh well, more cheap gas for the boats-cool.

Hmmm... I don't think I would want people to know where to find this article either-not very pretty Tom and Cat.

http://www.abusaleh.com/index.php?id=427

Steve,
I knew if I pushed you far enough you would become lucid. It actually makes sense when you string more than two words together. All that name calling was not making too much sense for me.
==============================================
Tom that’s a nice try Laughable as it is..BUT it will not work with me, look just answer the questions.
I can also fill this Thread with useless copy/paste drivel

Personally I would suggest a little travel in your life. BTW Have you ever read on Saddams mind set as painted by an Ex concubine?

How many Iraqis have you ever sat down and talked too??

You know Mr. Bush Senior .Cheney .Powell have all spent considerable time in that area with heads of State and the feedback from our Ambassadors gives them a pretty good insight.

Ambassadors gee even I have dined with them.

All I see from your side aside from The Gross Ignorance is a couple Traitors bootlicking in Baghdad What Gives?? Expert?? You rely on second, third ,fourth hand Information.

All this article posting is making me dizzy.....:D :D :D

Tom, NOt sure why you are stating that conservatives make more laws to stop behavior of others they disagree with. Dems are the big government people, the ones who make a practice of creating more laws as opposed to enforcing the current ones. I assume that not tolerating the behavior of others includes murder, rape, assualt......are the dems not notorious for being soft on crime and punishment, undermining law and law enforcement?? Too much codeine in your blood stream.

I respect your statements, but you are factually wrong on so many of the things you say. Your philosophies are of someone who is still lighting dumpsters on fire at Woodstock. You speak of North Korea almost fondly.....concerned Bush has spoken negatively about their commie regim that is starving their own people. Who cares?? What, you don't want to hurt their feelings, they have nukes and would like to burn our country to the ground. Who cares what a bunch of communist pigs think about us?? Oh let's be nice so they like us .......you haven't figured out by now that trying to be everyone's freind and not upset anyone is a one way ticket to failure...and in this case...DEATH???!!!???

It's this simpathy crap that has us here in the first place.....this "let's be tolerant of others" crap that has and is threatening our lives. It's this....."let's be less stern and down size the military and let the crooks run free...I.E CLINTON V. BIN LADEN"......HOW DO YOU NOT SEE THIS AS A SERIOUS THREAT TO YOUR LIFE?????????????????? I just DO NOT understand the liberal viewpoint on things. They try the same lousy policies and principles over and over again, only to see them fail. Then, most commonly, feel that ......"well there was just not enough funding", so they dump all sorts of our money into these programs that have failed miserably for years....and when it fails again, they spend more.....like that is the answer.....like the answer to poverty is money. No people, the answer to poverty is not money, it is employment, it is making decisions for your own betterment, it is taking responsibiblity for your own actions=results. So now we are at war and you guys are worried about upseting other countries. Is it just me, or did we see over 3,000 Americans murdered on live TV?? That is what this "let's be freinds" attitude has brought us. I am just baffled beyond sanity as to why this is such a difficult concept to grasp. The more you guys type, the more dillusional I realize the liberals are.

Now wonder the Democratic party is spirling downward.......the public is finally realizing that the modern liberal viewpoint is lunacy, horribly ineffective and just about as close to socialism as any US policy makers have ever been..........

Maybe they can make it by spring so we can have cheap gas all summer.

Not sure where it came from. Somebody sent it to me as email. I try to include where things come from in case anybody wants to see the rest of the garbage related to it for further entertainment.

Followed the HIV link when I figured out the mistake. Thanks for fixing it. Now THAT one was interesting. Belongs in the "whats your favorite fetish" thread.;) ;)

Loved the Robert Byrd article. Stinking conservatives even lie and claim to be Democrats. Do they have no morals at all? ;)

Steve,
Sorry you are not comfortable in Amsterdam. Seems it is hard to feel safe even in an all white rich High School anymore. Your missing out on a great time. Where else can you choose your pot at a coffee house, cruise hundreds of hookers on display like Macy's windows, visit the famous banana show(I got to bite the banana right out of her once), clubs open all night, and when you have to pee there is the worlds largest urinal. You don't even need to flush, they do it every other day. Been there twenty times, never any problems. Did almost get mugged in Paris once though. Wimpy Arab guy with a knife no longer than my fingernails. Hang out in the sleasy districts and what do you expect.

Yeah....I read on a daily basis the about the thriving industry in Amsterdam, how Jumbo Jets are built in Amsterdam and how Amsterdam is the hub of biotech advancements, and let's not foget how Amsterdam exports about 50% of the globes automobiles. Ahhhh yes........Amsterdam.....certainly the most productive region on the planet.....such a magnetic economy and contribution to the rest of the world.......

Hookers and Pot.....sounds like a great combo to me, maybe that is how you become the most dominate, free society on the planet......with hookers and pot.

Cool place.......but a bad place to footnote in a political debate......

Never read a painting, but while on acid I thought I could taste "Inna Gadda Da Vita" by Iron Butterfly (is that who played it?)

I had sex once with a woman who claimed to be an ambassador from Japan. She even paid for the hotel and gave me $200.00. Only conversation was 'wow your such a big american" and 'give me more, i can take it." Everything else was in Japanese and I didn't understand any of it, but imagine it had something to do with her religion. (Must have been the same for you with the Iraqees, what with your head under the robes and all.) I didn't let it go to my head though because you have to consider the source. Some stereotypes are true you know. Learned a lot about liberal diplomacy. Did you know they sell tiny condoms labelled large in Japan?

Thank you all for keeping me going while home sick. I have to get some work done tomorrow, but I will try to check in.

I'm sorry, I thought the political debate ended after post #1. I did get you to think about some things you may never have thought about before though. I'll agree some even that you wish you hadn't.;) ;)

Gotta hand it to OSO members. Most people can't even mention politics or religion, much less be so blasphemous about them both. I think we bantered about pretty entertainingly.

Tom, I'll plainly admit that I am not as knowledgable as yourself or Steve1 on the historical topics and foriegn affairs. But I try to keep up on current pressing issues in America. More so however, I base my arguements from the most practical view possible. I feel that reason, reality and proven methods are of irreplaceable value. I think that changing just to change is risky, but changing for a need and doing so with great insight and research is progress.

Sure, anytime I read these posts I learn and think, but it does not sway me from my practical nature. I like to hear what the opposite side has to say, I feel that is healthy, but I get frustrated with you and Cat man becasue I feel you spin. So, as I read and learn, I also realize that the one certainty in debates is that there are two distinct sides. I choose to go with facts and proven theories, usually whether I like the outcome or not. Much more often than not however, the outcome is predictable. No disrespect, that is just how I base my decisions. I do feel however that most politicians have a dark side we do not want to know. This I feel goes in layers and levels.....and the Clinton bunch is about as bad as they come. But, I am for the least gov involvement possible in our lives, and a great apposer to tyranny and big government. I'll take capitalism over government intervention anyday......it just makes too much sense to me. It's the most practical approach becasue we KNOW it works. Let the market decide, not some elected bone head, whether Dem or Rep.

Cat......I think I may have had something to do with switching topics ............:D

Oh yeah, and I agree totally with the OSO'ers reading and writing this stuff. Probably a small number of people continuing to write and check in, but that really does not matter to me, there are threads I find boring as well. I figure as long as everyone is having fun then so be it........and you say republicans do not tolerate others......:D :D ;)

OK, Cat do you think that the People in Iraq benefit from their own oil ??? yea like they get some kind of profit sharing check like the people who work at Ford and GM???? I doubt tha they put in 7 12hour days so they could save thier money and send their kids to good schools and colleges ?? I dont think so but I could be wrong. Have to go to work guys will check in later.

Steve,
Sorry you are not comfortable in Amsterdam. Seems it is hard to feel safe even in an all white rich High School anymore. Your missing out on a great time. Where else can you choose your pot at a coffee house, cruise hundreds of hookers on display like Macy's windows, visit the famous banana show(I got to bite the banana right out of her once), clubs open all night, and when you have to pee there is the worlds largest urinal. You don't even need to flush, they do it every other day. Been there twenty times, never any problems. Did almost get mugged in Paris once though. Wimpy Arab guy with a knife no longer than my fingernails. Hang out in the sleasy districts and what do you expect.
==============================================
What the Hell are you talking about??

Seem's like it is impossable to get a straight answer from you!

Now you are having Flashbacks from Iraq we move to Ansterdam.

BTW Tom in case you did not Know AMSTERDAM, July 30 (IslamOnline) – A population statistic in the Netherlands unveiled that Islam comes on top of the list of religions in the capital Amsterdam. Other religions, such as Christianity (Catholics and Protestants), Judaism and other registered religions come after Islam.

Here you go Tom They need some of your personal Pot stash.

Pro-Palestinian youths clashed with riot police in the heart of Amsterdam on Saturday after a 10,000-strong demonstration against the Israeli army's offensive in the West Bank turned violent.

Tom this Guy needs a pair of your Sandals

AMSTERDAM - Intelligence services have got strong leads that Richard Reid, the man that tried to blow up a plane with a shoe-bomb, was a test person from an organization that is plotting much larger terrorist attacks. His exploding sneakers were handed to Reid in Amsterdam.

Here you go Tom

Amsterdam your utopia;

Income tax - 50% - 60% brackets for the wealthiest, 33.9%-37.95% for the poorest (SS tax included) The more wealthy pay an ADDITIONAL SS tax!

Salary tax - whatever that is, in addition to income and SS

WEALTH tax - .7% of your NET WEALTH, every year


Corporations - 25% on dividends to govt PRIOR to distribution

Corporations - 30%-35% of profit

Inheritance taxes in a graduated scale

Games of Chance - 25% OFF THE TOP

Value Added (VAT) Sales Tax - 17.5% (6% food/medicine)

Excise taxes on gasoline, tobacco and alcohol

Transfer Tax - 6% of market value WHEN REAL PROPERTY CHANGES HANDS

Capital invested in a company - .9% Tax

Car/Motorcycle Purchases - 10% of value

Motor vehicle tax, heavy vehicle tax and Environmental Taxes, plus local taxes!!!

Tom here is a side note from someone who lived there!

I lived there for about three years. My impression was, about 60 percent of the country is on the dole ("uitkering"), supported by a heavily-taxed 40 percent. Tax fraud is about the only offense that is considered truly heinous there (well, that and speaking negatively about the gay and lesbian lifestyle).

A murderer might get five years in the pokey, but tax cheat could get ten. Automobiles are obscenely expensive to own and operate so most of the Dutch ride bicycles. Holland reminds me of nothing so much as an upscale Cuba.

Tom more of your wonderland!

Everyone there is "the same." They do have an excellent educational system, from reports, but it so socialistic that the life style of a doctor or engineer is not that much different than the plumber. Talk about the ultimate results of "school to work" programs!

There has been a true epidemic of stabbings in Amsterdam this year. April was an especially bad month according to the police.

The police spokesman admitted in the same breath that last year's major campaign to turn in knives and other weapons did not reach the aggressive types as had been envisioned.

Particularly those who pull a knife at the least provocation are the least impressed by any form of protest against street violence.

Unfortunately, this last realization should not be too surprising. Only the most unusually optimistic person would have expected last year that hard core violent perpetrators would embrace the opportunity to surrender their weapons during the amnesty period.

But this realization does not help make the increase in violence in the city of Amsterdam any less ominous.

It is sad that current initiatives such as knife prohibition in several neighborhoods have not had anywhere near the desired effect.

There is only one thing to do: knife prohibition must be extended to the entire city.

It is now up to the politicians to allocate additional funds for maintaining the safety to which every citizen has a right.

Amsterdam Knife Bans What next??

Let's see the order would follow these rules

1.Gun Bans
2.Knife Bans
3.Rock Bans
4.Wood Bans

Oop's forgot Ice Picks !! a Locking Cork on the pointed end would make that ok.

You could eat with a fork and spoon untill they Banned them I guess.

The Cook would have to precut your Meat after permission was granted with his Registered Numbered Knife then return it to the Dutch Knife Safe.

Tom again I ask in the most humble way what the hell are you talking about ?????????

<-------------------------------------------------------------------------------->
Never read a painting, but while on acid I thought I could taste "Inna Gadda Da Vita" by Iron Butterfly (is that who played it?)

I had sex once with a woman who claimed to be an ambassador from Japan. She even paid for the hotel and gave me $200.00. Only conversation was 'wow your such a big american" and 'give me more, i can take it." Everything else was in Japanese and I didn't understand any of it, but imagine it had something to do with her religion. (Must have been the same for you with the Iraqees, what with your head under the robes and all.) I didn't let it go to my head though because you have to consider the source. Some stereotypes are true you know. Learned a lot about liberal diplomacy. Did you know they sell tiny condoms labelled large in Japan?
<-------------------------------------------------------------------------------->
Ok I will Decode it!

A lot of Bad Acid huh Tom!!

Tom the Head under Robe Thing would be your forte, Deemed Perfectly normal In the Liberal Transsexual World!

You must have had a very Small Japanese Woman or a Schoolgirl is that point you were trying to make?

DONT WE READ ENOUGH ABOUT AL QUEDA IN THE LOCAL NEWS WHY SHOULD WE HAVE TO READ IT IN THE BOATING FORUM.

Doesn't anybody have a sense of humor? I hope at least some lurkers get my jokes. ;)

Never read a painting, but while on acid I thought I could taste "Inna Gadda Da Vita" by Iron Butterfly (is that who played it?)

This was an obscure joking reference to your own dictionary and misuse of the language. Unless you are more sophisticated than you seem, you view or see a painting, not read it. In mind research they call it synthesthesia when you experience something with a sense that was meant for other uses. The movie "Fantasia" was based on it as well as the one called "Altered States." I know some of the researchers mentioned in "Altered States" and it is amazing research. Yes LSD and advanced stages of meditation do help people to experience it.

I had sex once with a woman who claimed to be an ambassador from Japan. She even paid for the hotel and gave me $200.00. Only conversation was 'wow your such a big american" and 'give me more, i can take it." Everything else was in Japanese and I didn't understand any of it, but imagine it had something to do with her religion. (Must have been the same for you with the Iraqees, what with your head under the robes and all.) I didn't let it go to my head though because you have to consider the source. Some stereotypes are true you know. Learned a lot about liberal diplomacy. Did you know they sell tiny condoms labelled large in Japan? As a general stereotype, black guys are better hung than whites, so either get a bigger boat or one of those pumps if you think size means anything.

I was cracking up when I wrote this. Translation as an answer to your statement about dining with Ambassadors:
Big Friggen deal, so you had dinner with one or more. We all have had experiences that could have helped us to learn something and with foriegn languages and cultures it is hard to fully understand it all. I did have such experience and it does not make me an expert on what is happening in the world any more than your dinner with an Ambassador when most the time you have your head up your arse with your own dictionary and prejudice. (Amazing how you actually got the reference of the robes.;) )Even if you are an expert that does not make everyone who does not agree evil, stupid, etc. The tiny condom thing is a reference to the fact that sometimes stereotypes are true.

Dutchman:
I thought you were coming on to defend your homeland. Al Queda has not been mentioned on this thread for a long time. If you do not find this entertaining and hate the fact that now you keep getting email about it, go to your user control panel and unsubscribe from the thread. Maybe we can enjoy some boating discussions together on another thread.

Allan4:
Great to see you see learning value in this thread, me too. I finally made a breakthrough from what Donzi has mentioned several times and will post a rough draft of my thoughts when I get a chance.


I strongly encourage everyone to go up to a stranger and tell them you are interested in learning more about their culture and beliefs. Tell them you feel if we all understood each other better the world would be a better place. Ask them anything you want, but no matter what they say DO NOT challenge them as an attempt to prove your point of view. The only thing you will learn by challenging them is how to alienate a potential friend. I gaurantee it will change your life forever and make the world an incredibly interesting place in spite of all that is wrong with it. You will find that if you are loving and considerate in your asking then you can soon ask them anything and they will give you the inside scoop. Remember - the objective is NOT to prove your point of view, but to learn about theirs. I have done this all over the world, but opportunities are right in your own town. You will soon know more than any world traveller who hangs out in the American majority hotel bashing the natives.