In 1812 we engaged England (the world naval power) at sea because it was sinking our ships, in 1860 we invaded the south, In the 1900`s we attack the Spanish in Latin America
Interesting perspective, so you invaded the south, was that not a civil war?
Interesting perspective, so you invaded the south, was that not a civil war?
Yes, it was. What's your point?
Isaiah, I would say you've got a pretty good perspective on this, and I'd add that whenever an election is lost, the ones who supported that party will ALWAYS say it was rigged. Not everyone can win, that's why there's an election. And you can take the numbers from any poll anywhere about anything and skew them to show what you want them to show.
I'd also have to say that Kerry's position was VERY hurt when he tried to use his "service" record and it came back and bit him on the a$$. I especially appreciated your very last comment. Very good!
[FONT=Arial Black]I hope you cherish this sweet way of life, and I hope you know that it comes with a price. ~Darrel Worley~ [/FONT]
Bullet's trial was a farce. Can I get an AMEN?????
I agree he tried to use his "service" record and it came bact to haunt him , as it should have , if you've read the book by the swift vets you know he's not a great man at all. Also your question about what liberals can or can't see . This was the first election I voted in despite being in my mid 30's . (Shame on me!) I voted because I was afraid the public wouldn't see the truth only what the left wanted them to see. Hollywood and the media seem so left I really was afraid the regular people out in America weren't hearing all that I was, I think the same can be said for alot of the new voters. :-6
Interesting perspective, so you invaded the south, was that not a civil war?
Yes, it was. What's your point?
Was following this earlier paragraph
[QUOTE]Every time in American history when a country attacked America’s sphere of influence we responded by outward aggression and often unilaterally.
lynny wrote: if you've read the book by the swift vets you know he's not a great man at all.
Neither is Bush...read "House of Bush, House of Saud."
The Bush family is responsible for putting and keeping the Saudi family in power, the Saudis let the Mullahs in their train the young to be Anti-American, the young then boarded jets and destroyed the Trade Center. Therefore, Bush is responsible for 9/11.
Transitive property of Mathematics:
A=B, B=C, So C=A.
All the world's a stage and the men and women merely players...Shakespeare
In this highly critical report, an investigative reporter examines the decades-long but little known business ties between the Bush family in Texas and the House of Saud and its associates in Saudi Arabia. David Unger recounts the interests of the house of Saud in the oil business in Houston and tells how the Saudis were especially helpful to President George H.W. Bush during the first Iraq war, when they benefited militarily and economically from U.S. contracts.
During the 2003-04 Iraq war, the Saudis allowed the US to stage an invasion from Saudi soil. Unger questions whether the relationship between the two families might in any way have colored post-9/11 actions by the White House, and he looks into whether the House of Saud, followers of the Wahhabi sect, can be implicated in supporting and funding Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda. In addition, he examines the question of why members of the Saud and bin Laden families were granted special exits on jetliners from the US just after 9/11.
All the world's a stage and the men and women merely players...Shakespeare
lol. Ok Anny, you got me, but seriously, food sources and politics don't equate. But I'll give you that my logic was flawed.
And also, you really, really should read "House of Bush, House of Saud." It's really startling, and yet, it doesn't seem to be biased, it's just a straight account of the facts.
All the world's a stage and the men and women merely players...Shakespeare
Jives wrote: lol. Ok Anny, you got me, but seriously, food sources and politics don't equate. But I'll give you that my logic was flawed.
if i might ask a favor now - i don't much care for the nickname 'anny'. no, i'm not sitting here on the other side of the screen with my face red as a beet and pounding my fists on the desk! it's just a minor irritation, like anal itching. i'd prefer either anastrophe or just plain old paul.
if you keep calling me anny, i should note that i will NOT hunt you down and kill you. i won't even steal your newspaper.
And also, you really, really should read "House of Bush, House of Saud." It's really startling, and yet, it doesn't seem to be biased, it's just a straight account of the facts.
i'm not much of a book reader myself. i don't doubt it's an interesting read. and i've no doubt that bush and the house of saud are buddy-buddies. many people got rich from oil. the saud family 'owns' saudi arabia, where the largest oilfields thus far have been tapped. oil and politics have a long history.
Plain-ol-Paul: You don't read???? That absolutely blows my mind. With your debate skills and extensive vocabulary, I'd have thought you'd read everything under the sun! I'm floored!
[FONT=Arial Black]I hope you cherish this sweet way of life, and I hope you know that it comes with a price. ~Darrel Worley~ [/FONT]
Bullet's trial was a farce. Can I get an AMEN?????
BabyRider wrote: Plain-ol-Paul: You don't read???? That absolutely blows my mind. With your debate skills and extensive vocabulary, I'd have thought you'd read everything under the sun! I'm floored!
well, it's books i don't read. i just don't have the patience to sit down and turn pages. i've done a bit of book reading in the past of course, and i have tons of reference books. but since the whole of humanity's knowledge will soon be reachable via a web browser, i find the need to refer elsewhere has dwindled substantially.
it's actually quite the mind-blower to me. then years ago, if i wanted to learn about the history of the french having tucked their tail between their legs after meeting a tiny bit of resistance to their 100 years of colonial control of indochina, i'd have had to get in the car, drive down to the local library, search through the card catalog for books on the matter, gather up the books from the shelves, sit down at a table and read what i could - taking notes of salient points along the way of course, and keeping a separate list for annotation of sources for attribution, then return the books, drive home and go over my notes, hoping there weren't any related matters that i forgot to look up.
now, it's right here. a few seconds of googling, a bit of browsing, and all that knowledge is right there in front of me, in no time flat.
the change this has wrought in the rapid expansion of each person's ability to learn is unparalleled in human history. we're living in a time where anyone can learn as much as they want about anything under the sun - and beyond - instantly. the potential this creates is extraordinary.
There's porn on the web???!!!?!!?! Good grief, all this time I've been going to the damn video store...:yh_rotfl
With all there is to learn on the web, I still love my books. Nothing is more relaxing to me than curling up in my jammies with a book for 3 or 6 hours. Eh, to each his own, I guess, huh?
[FONT=Arial Black]I hope you cherish this sweet way of life, and I hope you know that it comes with a price. ~Darrel Worley~ [/FONT]
Bullet's trial was a farce. Can I get an AMEN?????
He lost the election because he could not debate. He could not keep his story straight from one interview or public debate to the next one. He kept changing his opinions - indecisive or undecided on issues as the polls went - I could not figure him out.
The growth of knowledge depends entirely on disagreement..........Karl R. Popper
canaan wrote: John Kerry lost because he spent more time chasing his tail than he did trying to get his message across. And he was as dull. Very dull. At least if you didn't like W you would still watch to see what kind of new words he invented. Nothing at all interesting about John Kerry...unless you count the 3 purple hearts he mentioned every time he opened his mouth.
You know there is a such thing as a sore WINNER! Geez, leave Lt. Kerry alone!
YOu're still awesome dubs!
I'm against picketing. But, I don't know how to show it. - Mitch Hedberg
Winners forget they're in a race. They just love to run. -Simon Wilder
Could it be that Kerry had no significant record? Just what legislation did he ever propose that was enacted? Could it be that he was inconsistent on different issues? Could his absenteeism on voting hurt him? Was a glowing war record the only thing going for him?
