The Breck Girl takes a beating, how not to run for President

[johnb]

The following email was sent to Johnny Edwards field staff:


Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2003 11:23:33 -0800 (PST)
From: "john barbara" <venturecrew212@yahoo.com>
Subject: Edwards in '04
To: iowa@johnedwards2004.com, NewHampshire@JohnEdwards2004.com, sgonzales@johnedwards2004.com, mich4edwards2004@aol.com, lpomerance@johnedwards2004.com, ttolbert@johnedwards2004.com, jtaylor@johnedwards2004.com, scarolina@johnedwards2004.com, ksasser@johnedwards2004.com, kwest@johnedwards2004.com, jkraus@johnedwards2004.com

As a registered North Carolina voter, neither a
Republican nor a Democrat, I feel qualified an
unbiased in offering you the following observation:

You are wasting your time.

Little Johnny Edwards isn't gonna be President, not
ever.

Here in NC he is NOT running for re-election to the
Senate for a simple reason, he wouldn't win. The
people of this state are by and large shocked at his
use of fraction of one Senate term as a lever to jump
to higher office. He is not qualified to be President,
he doesn't deserve to be President, and he will never
be President. Here in North Carolina we know that. Why
you people are wasting your time pushing his candidacy
is a mystery. You should see the letters to the editor
section of the average North Carolina newspaper. The
voters are not favorably disposed to little Johnny
here in NC. Hearing from contacts I have in the NC
Democratic Party he won't be competitive in the NC
Democratic Primary.

Stop wasting your time, sign on with a candidate who
actually has a chance to win the nomination.

John Barbara
Cary, NC

[Wuptdo]

Didn't know who the "Breck Girl" was till Sunday nights 60 Minutes. We call him either "Pretty Boy" or "Blinky." However, my wife did note that he was a very attractive man and why I can't look that good. Oh well, I may not be handsome, but at least I'm handy.

This brings up another point. Several years at NCSU, in PolSci class, my small group did a study on women voters in this State. One of the conclusions that we reached was something like this: Female voters between 21-50, unafillated, with only male candidates to choose from, will vote for the candidate they percieve as more (sexually) attractive. I know we used data from both parties and the PEW folks. Of course, we were branded "sexist" (3 girls, 2 guys) by some of our classmates; but data is data. May that as it may, I believe our research report got into Sen. Edwards hands, and now is the cornerstone or basis of his Presidential campaign.

Just a late night thought -

Wuptdo

The claim that Amercian women are downtrodden and unfairly treated is the fraud of the century.
Phyllis Schlafly (1974)

[Don]

Didn't know who the "Breck Girl" was till Sunday nights 60 Minutes. We call him either "Pretty Boy" or "Blinky." However, my wife did note that he was a very attractive man and why I can't look that good. Oh well, I may not be handsome, but at least I'm handy.

This brings up another point. Several years at NCSU, in PolSci class, my small group did a study on women voters in this State. One of the conclusions that we reached was something like this: Female voters between 21-50, unafillated, with only male candidates to choose from, will vote for the candidate they percieve as more (sexually) attractive. I know we used data from both parties and the PEW folks. Of course, we were branded "sexist" (3 girls, 2 guys) by some of our classmates; but data is data. May that as it may, I believe our research report got into Sen. Edwards hands, and now is the cornerstone or basis of his Presidential campaign.

Just a late night thought -

Wuptdo

The claim that Amercian women are downtrodden and unfairly treated is the fraud of the century.
Phyllis Schlafly (1974)


Didn't JFK appeal to a lot of women voters because he was good looking?

[BobHickey]

When the kids vote, they get a piece of paper with pictures of the candidates. I wonder if the better looking ones win then also. Guess it's good that adults don't vote the same way.

[Don]

If appearance can be a factor in winning or loosing an election.......
How the heck did Hillary win her seat? :wink:

[johnb]

Maybe the Guido's in Brooklyn have some wierd fetish for fat ankles and pumpkin thighs.

[Karen]

When the kids vote, they get a piece of paper with pictures of the candidates. I wonder if the better looking ones win then also. Guess it's good that adults don't vote the same way.

There have been studies done with babies that address this issue. When given several photos of woman to look at, brain activity increased, and the babies held their gaze longer, when looking at woman who were deemed to be "prettier" than those in the other photos. So I would assume this would be a factor as well with the kids voting process.

See Don F, I TOLD you you shouldnt've put your picture on your campaign material. :lol: (Sorry, too good to pass up. You know I'm just kidding!!!) :wink:

Karen

[Wuptdo]

If appearance can be a factor in winning or loosing an election.......
How the heck did Hillary win her seat? :wink:

Mr. Don,
My brother in New York told me she barely won. The big problem was the Republicans put out a "Pro-life" candidate that was a little too "right" for all those big city voters. I also believe that she is Anti-Christ and had lots of help from "down below."

Wuptdo

The evil of our time is the loss of consciousness of evil
Krishnamurti

[Don]

If appearance can be a factor in winning or loosing an election.......
How the heck did Hillary win her seat? :wink:

Mr. Don,
My brother in New York told me she barely won. The big problem was the Republicans put out a "Pro-life" candidate that was a little too "right" for all those big city voters. I also believe that she is Anti-Christ and had lots of help from "down below."

Wuptdo

The evil of our time is the loss of consciousness of evil
Krishnamurti

Ok, well that explains it.
I was thinking everyone in N.Y. thought it would be a good joke to vote for her - did so - and "oops" she won.

It still amazes me how she could stand by her man after he embarrased her nationally, broke every rule of marriage, and flat out lied over and over - Then used all the media coverage to win a senate seat. I guess you can never hide those "true colors".

[Karen]

I believe the main reason for Hillary winning the NY senate seat was because Rudy Giuliani dropped out of the race only 5 months before the election. He dropped out because he was diagnosed with prostate cancer. Up to this point polls had him beating Hillary. His replacement, Rick Lazio, was virtually an unknown with little name recognition. I'm thinking if Giuliani hadn't dropped out, she'd be looking for another state to be setting up residency in for another senate bid. :roll:

Karen

[Mark]

Thought I might link to an article I read today.

Bush and 9/11 (http://truthout.org/docs_04/010504A.shtml)

I haven't read any transcripts of Dean's remarks so I cannot comment on them directly. If he said that Bush knew Al Qaeda members were to hijack airplanes and fly them into the specific targets, then I agree that such a statement was probably ill founded. But, if his comments were that Bush knew or reasonably should have known of the possibility generally, and of this specific action particularly, and that it could have been prevented then I'll have to agree with that sentiment.

[dhyatt]

Thought I might link to an article I read today.

Bush and 9/11 (http://truthout.org/docs_04/010504A.shtml)

I haven't read any transcripts of Dean's remarks so I cannot comment on them directly. If he said that Bush knew Al Qaeda members were to hijack airplanes and fly them into the specific targets, then I agree that such a statement was probably ill founded. But, if his comments were that Bush knew or reasonably should have known of the possibility generally, and of this specific action particularly, and that it could have been prevented then I'll have to agree with that sentiment.


I read the article and I find the conclusion tenuous at best. The author is trying (rather poorly IMO) to make the case that 9/11 could have been prevented somehow. Do you really think Americans would have put up with the kind of increased hassle to fly that we have now - prior to 9/11? Do you really think we'd willingly toss out our toe nail clippers, doff our shoes and subject our bodies and luggage to search based on the possibility that some loons might want to use a plane a suicide bomb? Would you or other liberals have tolerated singling out muslim men for questioning? NO WAY! If you (or the author) truly believe that Bush had specific knowledge about flights, dates and targets and did nothing then we can politiely end the discussion right now.

[johnb]

The left is really pushing this "Bush new about 9/11 before it occured" theory.

I've poked around a few Democrat Underground / Indymedia and other leftist web sites and read some very disturbing, irrational, and hateful diatribes from "moderates". Isn't that what all leftists call themselves?

There is no logical way Bush could have or should have known anything at all about 9/11. *IF* you, Mark, really believe that can we NOT be hypocrits then and insist Clinton should have known about the east African embassy bombings, the USS Cole, Mogadishu, and any number of other events that occured during his watch? You folks are too tight with the conspiracy theory crowd.

[Don]

The left is really pushing this "Bush new about 9/11 before it occured" theory.

I've poked around a few Democrat Underground / Indymedia and other leftist web sites and read some very disturbing, irrational, and hateful diatribes from "moderates". Isn't that what all leftists call themselves?

There is no logical way Bush could have or should have known anything at all about 9/11. *IF* you, Mark, really believe that can we NOT be hypocrits then and insist Clinton should have known about the east African embassy bombings, the USS Cole, Mogadishu, and any number of other events that occured during his watch? You folks are too tight with the conspiracy theory crowd.

Of course Clinton knew those events were going to take place John. He just forgot to act on the information since he lost his short term memory due to all the mary-jane in college. Oh wait a minute.......he didn't inhale. My bad. :wink:

[johnb]

But of course!

I supose next we'll hear Dr Dean wonder out loud why all the Jews in NYC "knew" to stay away from the WTC on 9/11 and who the mystery gunman on the grassy knoll was.

...had to have been an employee of Haliburton.

[Mark]

There is no logical way Bush could have or should have known anything at all about 9/11.

That is patently false. Please click here (http://www.thememoryhole.org/911/911-preventable.htm) for some of your own saying otherwise.


*IF* you, Mark, really believe that can we NOT be hypocrits then and insist Clinton should have known about the east African embassy bombings, the USS Cole, Mogadishu, and any number of other events that occured during his watch?

Sure can. It is very likely that the Clinton administration had actionable intelligence for at least some, but not all, of those events- an it very well could have been that preventative measures should have been taken - I fully grant that. I do not offer this as a defense, but it is interesting to note that the events you chose to highlight occured exclusively on foreign soil, where action is legally, politically, and possibly morally, more complicated than action in U.S. territory.

On a somewhat related note for future reference, should it come up again... Perhaps unlike most self declared liberals I am no admirer of Bill Clinton. Far from it, I think he should be in prison having been another in a lamentably long line of U.S. presidents that should have been charged with war crimes. So, should we ever be engaged in some polemics again, you need not pull out the "but Clinton" response as I typically find it, like in this example, utterly uncompelling.


You folks are too tight with the conspiracy theory crowd. This may, in fact, be true... only that we're in good company with the party that thinks it's a liberal media, homosexuals are out to undermine society, and old Europe is trying to thwart the benevolent U.S. at every turn.

It comes in all flavors.

[johnb]

The interesting thing with your accusation/insinuation that Bush "should" have known about 9/11 is that given the blizzard of facts concerning Iraq he took action and you attack him. Whether Bush acts or doesn't act to thwart threats to the US the extreme left is going to trash him. There is no way nor reason to bother defending his actions to the extremists. You folks "know" he is guilty/evil/etc. Bush needs only to explain his actions to the rest of the country. He will be re-elected in a landslide this fall, wining 45 states BECAUSE the Donkeycrats believe as you do and THAT is an extreme and unreasonable position.

--On a somewhat related note for future reference, should it come up again... Perhaps unlike most self declared liberals I am no admirer of Bill Clinton.--

I have made statements like that before and neither conservatives nor Donkeycrats get it. Clinton was the Donkeycrats worst nightmare. He "triangulated" against his own party in Congress. He cost the Donkeycrats control of the House. He has cost them state races from governors mansions to state houses in state after state. The bleeding is most severe in the South and out in the mountain states. The Donkeycrats are, in the words a Zell Miller, a national party no more. Because of Clinton, a northern or midwestern Donkeycrat will NEVER be elected president. He has destroyed the Donkeycrat party in the South and has caused it severe harm in the moutain states and upper midwest.

-Far from it, I think he should be in prison having been another in a lamentably long line of U.S. presidents that should have been charged with war crimes.-

That is just foolish. Granted, I too enjoy seeing politicians in handcuffs getting pushed into a squad car, but there is NO US President guilty of any "war crime". Aside from Lincoln of course.

[Mark]

The interesting thing with your accusation/insinuation that Bush "should" have known about 9/11 is that given the blizzard of facts concerning Iraq he took action and you attack him. Whether Bush acts or doesn't act to thwart threats to the US the extreme left is going to trash him.

Wait a minute. For this statement to have any force whatsoever the several situations in question would have to be similar enough to make your analogy work. Clearly, they aren't so similar. Clinton, if this was in fact the case with the USS Cole, African emabassies etc., would rightly be criticised for not acting on intelligence that indicated a direct risk or threat to Americans. Bush, as is the case with 9/11, would rightly be criticised for not acting on intelligence that indicated a direct risk or threat to Americans. That's as far as the analogy goes. Iraq is a different situation entirely; considering that it is unlikely that anyone seriously believes that Iraq was a direct or immediate threat to Americans.

Even if, and only if, it was the case that Iraq was such a threat, one still has the liberty to criticise the methods taken to resolve the threat.

That the Bush administration had a blizzard of facts about Iraq means little if the facts aren't of the sort that would lead a reasonable person to believe that the situation in Iraq was similar, to take but one example, to 9/11. Because only in that case, that of a direct, immediate threat does aggression win the right to be called self defense.


He will be re-elected in a landslide this fall, wining 45 states BECAUSE the Donkeycrats believe as you do and THAT is an extreme and unreasonable position.

Noted and recorded for posterity. Yours is the most optimistics prediction I've heard or read. I'm not saying the Dems will win, but if they don't you've given me cause to laugh at least once on election night.


That is just foolish. Granted, I too enjoy seeing politicians in handcuffs getting pushed into a squad car, but there is NO US President guilty of any "war crime". Aside from Lincoln of course.

I'll ask you then to justify from either a perspective of military necessity, political expediency, or moral superiority the numerous and undisputed cases of the U.S. military's violation of article 54 of the Geneva convention regarding the deliberate destruction of civilian infrastructure necessary for human survival.

Once you're done, you can then explain why many (but not all, those conspiracy theorists again...) of the actions listed at THIS SITE (http://www.serendipity.li/cia/cia_time.htm) do not run afoul of the U.S.'s own definition of terrorism which, should you or anyone else need reminding, is found at title 50, chapter 36, subchapter 1, section 1801 of the U.S. code and reads:

''International terrorism'' means activities that -
(1)
involve violent acts or acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State, or that would be a criminal violation if committed within the jurisdiction of the United States or any State;
(2)
appear to be intended -
(A)
to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
(B)
to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or
(C)
to affect the conduct of a government by assassination or kidnapping; and
(3)
occur totally outside the United States, or transcend national boundaries in terms of the means by which they are accomplished, the persons they appear intended to coerce or intimidate, or the locale in which their perpetrators operate or seek asylum.

I eagerly await your responses.

[johnb]

"For this statement to have any force whatsoever..."

No, let's take a deep breath Mark, if you cannot be honest enough to admit you would attack Bush REGARDLESS of what action he may have taken on Iraq then there is no point to continuing. You are attacking him because you are a radical leftist and hate the President. The extreme left hates Bush with a passion so intense it seriously compares him to Hitler. That's not just the loons at moveon.org, that's the left at the Democratic Underground, counterpunch.org, and indymedia.org among numerous "mainstream" Democratic sources. Your boy Dr Dean touched on it recently only to have the left's hallelujah chorus kick in and give him an AMEN!

There is NOTHING Bush can do that will not draw your ire, except drop dead and I'm sure you'd find a reason to criticize him there as well. I'm seeing only hatred and bile in your attacks on Bush. There is no substance there, there is a whiff of a conspiracy theory but little else. I'm not even a registered Republican, Bush ain't my candidate, but when he was innaugurated I gave him a fair chance, and he's done well. Too bad the looney left won't give him any chance.

"Yours is the most optimistics prediction I've heard or read. I'm not saying the Dems will win, but if they don't you've given me cause to laugh at least once on election night. "

Then you aren't too well informed. You see, there are several states that had a Donkeycrat lead in voter registration in 2000 which Gore won by a few points, and now have swung to a Republican lead in voter registration and in other battleground states the GOP is making massive gains in voter registration(Minnesota, Iowa, Michigan). America is NOT a 50-50 nation my friend. This election will be very 1972-ish.

Tell you what, special deal just for you. If Bush does not win 45 states I'll buy you a beer for each one. CaryPolitics can have a party at some local dive where we can gather to watch the results. For every state Bush wins over 44 you buy me a beer. If he wins 38 states I'll buy you 6. You have the potential to get quite drunk if Bush does badly. Of course, if Dean pulls a McGovern I'll have to have JULIEFORCARY! call Ctran for me. Dean will be the nominee because the extremist elements in the Donkeycrat party will not accept a less ideologically pure candidate. It'll be fun to watch this ultraleftwing Jihad at the Donkeycrat convention this summer.

When Dean and Bush go head to head in November Dean will lose every state in the South. He will lose every state in the west except California.
He will loose every state in the midwest. He will carry Vermont, Mass, Rhode Island, and New York.

Outside of those five his only chances are in Connecticut, New Jersey, and Hawaii.

When push comes to shove, the first priority is national defense/national security. The only Donkeycrat that is reasonable in that area is Joe Lieberman. He is a hated man within his own party. None of the other dwarves can be taken seriously.

"I'll ask you then to justify from either a perspective of military necessity, political expediency, or moral superiority the numerous and undisputed cases of the U.S. military's violation of article 54 of the Geneva convention regarding the deliberate destruction of civilian infrastructure necessary for human survival. "

Can you perhaps demonstrate with anything aside from wild eyed conspiracy theories, what portion of the Iraqi populace was deliberately exterminated or otherwise destroyed during the war? For your crazed accusations to have any merit you kinda need to demonstrate that civilians were actually and deliberately killed.

The only people who have a LEGITIMATE gripe against the US government for being the targets of the US military are the Indians and the citizens of the Confederate States of America. Of course, it's politically incorrect to notice that the largest population of civilians the US Army deliberately and willfully made war on were the citizens of the CSA.

[Mark]

I wonder if conservatives generally ever wonder why those they label as Bush haters would hate the president so much? That's rhetorical, you needn't spend any time on it.

Anyway, I criticise Bush when he makes bad decisions. He is, of course, always free to make good ones, which would not inflame me to rail against him, it is simply that he rarely, if ever, does so. There were several policy options that he could have choosen regarding Iraq and, like everyone else in the world, I have my view on which was best - it lay somewhere between doing nothing and invading a sovereign nation. I reject, as should all reasonable people, that those were the exclusive choices. Bush could have taken this middle road for it was being espoused by many but he seemed either unwilling or unable to take it. Bad decision, worthy of criticism. It is not, as you suggest, that I held him in an impossible situation where he could do nothing to satisify me.

Again, you lament that the left and myself haven't given Bush a chance. Failing to notice, I suppose, the obvious that there was plenty to dislike about Bush prior to his assuming office. Upon his innauguration the attitude was one of pessimistic hope that he wouldn't turn out quite so bad as we feared. The compain rhetoric of compassion and uniting founded that slim hope. Alas, twas not to be for George. Issue by issue he failed, almost without exception, to advance the shared goals of the more progressive element in this country. And, in many cases, he failed even to maintain what was an acceptable status quo. And, finally, I am right to dislike anyone who condones killing, period.

I think your predicition is absolutely ridiculous. I'll take your bet, though I feel bad about doing it... I don't know if anyone is following this thread besides us at this point - I'd like to get a third party to verify the terms so I can take your money in November :)

Regarding your hand waving around the war crimes question- You wrote, "Can you perhaps demonstrate with anything aside from wild eyed conspiracy theories, what portion of the Iraqi populace was deliberately exterminated or otherwise destroyed during the war? For your crazed accusations to have any merit you kinda need to demonstrate that civilians were actually and deliberately killed. " That is not, in fact, what I have to demonstrate. The article to which I'm referring deals with infrastructure, and I chose it precisely because I find it unassailable - others have, like you, attempted to skirt or shift the issue. It is well documented and acknowledged by U.S. officials that the U.S. military has, at several occassions in its history, deliberately targeted civilian infrastucture necessary for human survival. The most serious of these crimes came to light during Vietnam when the U.S. engaged in a campaign to bomb dams and dikes, again, expressly for the purpose of reducing water supply in some area and flooding crops in others to produce shortages and starve the civilian population. This is documented and acknowledged, and, I should add, shrugged off by the so called moral leaders of this society.

The trend continued to contemporary times. Clinton, too, was guilty as more evidence has arisen that his administration didn't really expect the Al-Shifa asprin factory to harbor the weapons he previously claimed it did. Both Iraq wars also featured this type of bombing and destruction, usually on electrical systems in this case, intended to causes disturbances in the population.

But, more disturbingly, is the tone in your post that implies that you don't think it immoral that Iraqi civilians have died, a fact which no one disputes, unless they were deliberately killed. This suggests to me an unwillingness to deal with the unpleasant, and unjustifiable, fact that while I don't seriously suggest that the U.S. specifically targets civilians, some methods and techniques employed by the military do not sufficiently discriminate between combatant and innocent. In the same way that lies of comission and omission are both wrong, failure to protect human life is as wrong as the willful taking of it.

I will also note that you seized upon that one portion of my post while ignoring the more difficult and much more pertinent question I asked to close it. I will therefore assume that overwhelmed by the evidence presented of U.S. military affairs and other operations and by the utter incompatibility of those operations and the stated policy of the U.S. to not support international terrorism you grant my original premise that there are members of perhaps every presidential administration that should be held accountable for something roughly equivalent to war crimes. Having granted that and having noted your unwillingness to debate honestly about the topic, I find the matter, for the time being, closed.

[Don]

"I think your predicition is absolutely ridiculous. I'll take your bet, though I feel bad about doing it... I don't know if anyone is following this thread besides us at this point - I'd like to get a third party to verify the terms so I can take your money in November :) "

I'm still watching and have no problem verifying the bet. John says Bush wins 45 states. While I think Johns prediction is a bit over-zealous, he isn't too far off. Dems just don't have a chance with the candidates they have to choose from. Dean is their star? Hmm.......

I have found both of your posts interesting, and agree with points in both. However, I wish to ask Mark to give an example of documented destruction of infrastructure in Iraq. An example of something that happened in Vietnam, in this conversation, is irrelevant. What did BUSH do?

[dhyatt]

[snip]

But, more disturbingly, is the tone in your post that implies that you don't think it immoral that Iraqi civilians have died, a fact which no one disputes, unless they were deliberately killed.

[snip]

I should really stay out of the sense most of it's just senseless but I will dispute your premise that it's immoral that Iraqi civilians have died. Unfortunate, yes. To be avoided if reasonalbly possible, yes. Immoral that some die accidently (they always do in war), no. Immoral to kill them on purpose as Hama, Islamic Jihad, Al-Queda, and other terrorist groups do (and then brag about it), absolutely. Immoral to tolerate additional civilian deaths to save a few bucks on more expensive weaponry, yes. Assuming you don't buy into the nonsense that every life should be protected at any cost, then loss of civilian life in times of war in order to prevent greater loss of civilian life is morally justified. Do the math.

If someone would have killed Hitler and saved 6 million Jews, most people agree it would have been the morally correct thing to do. If you could have saved 5 million of them by sacrificing 1 million, it's a much more difficult thing to do but still morally justifiable. The US would not have needed to act unilaterally if the UN and its member nations had been willing to really enforce sanctions against Iraq. Instead, they instituted a sham "oil for food program" knowing that any aid always winds up lining a dictators pocket - and rebuilding their military. That's one lesson we seem to forget whenever it's politically convenient.

You should really take a step back and see how Bush's policies across the board may affect you individually vs. how the affect the majority of Americans. Do you really want Islamic rule in the US? That's what they want - and they're more than willing to kill civilians to get it.

[johnb]

-I wonder if conservatives generally ever wonder why those they label as
-Bush haters would hate the president so much?

Hate is what the left is about. Especially when their political opponents stand between them and power/money. There is nothing mysterious about it at all.

- It is not, as you suggest, that I held him in an impossible situation where
- he could do nothing to satisify me.

You are not unique, ie, irrational leftists seeing conspiracies and making absurd claims about the war in Iraq. There is no reason to believe, as noted earlier, that the only action Bush could take that would not drawn leftist condemnation is for him to drop dead. It is almost as predictable as it is pathological. You attack Bush for not being clairvoyant and pre-emptively stopping the 9/11 attacks yet you attack Bush for taking action pre-emptively to eliminate the only regime in the world to have used chemical weapons since WW1. Against both civilian and military targets no less.

-Issue by issue he failed, almost without exception, to advance the shared
-goals of the more progressive element in this country.

Have you stopped to ponder that the reason he isn't pushing your agenda is because your agenda is one shared by a small and increasingly irrelevant minority of people in the US Mark? If it were otherwise Gore or Nader would have won the 2000 election and this fall we get to see your buddy Dr Dean go down to a smashing defeat. It could only be worse for you all if Dennis the Menace were going to be the nominee.

-And, finally, I am right to dislike anyone who condones killing, period.

Is that a sentiment that extends to abortion doctors as well or no?

-I think your predicition is absolutely ridiculous. I'll take your bet, though I
-feel bad about doing it... I don't know if anyone is following this thread
-besides us at this point - I'd like to get a third party to verify the terms so
- I can take your money in November

Beer, not money Mark, and the thread will still be here. Besides, even if I loose the bet, which is unlikely, Bush still wins. The Donkeycrats have ZERO chance of winning the 04 Presidential election. You'll see JULIEFORCARY! convert to Islam and wear a full length burkha before you'll see a Donkeycrat take the oath of office for President next January.

-The article to which I'm referring deals with infrastructure, and I chose it
-precisely because I find it unassailable - others have, like you, attempted
-to skirt or shift the issue.

Oh, so using your example then what Federal General William Sherman did in Tennessee, Georigia, and the Carolinas then was a war crime? How about Grant in Mississippi and Virginia? If we are dealing with supposedly illegal wars you are living in illegally occupied territory.

"Infrastructure" targets are valid military targets, again, you are skirting the issue. No Iraqi civilians were marked for elimination. The US went to great lengths to ensure accidental deaths were minimized.

-Both Iraq wars also featured this type of bombing and destruction, usually
-on electrical systems in this case, intended to causes disturbances in the
-population.

So the Iraqi military didn't use electricity? They had some other way to power their telecommunication systems, radar, et al?

-But, more disturbingly, is the tone in your post that implies that you don't
-think it immoral that Iraqi civilians have died, a fact which no one
-disputes, unless they were deliberately killed.

It have been regretable. It may not. An Iraqi civilian may have been a Saddam body double, a Sadaam Fedayeen terrorist, or an interrogator at a political prison. It would not have been immoral for any or all of those three to die in a bombing run on, say, a bombing run on the Baathist party hq in Baghdad.

-do not sufficiently discriminate between combatant and innocent.

How long were you in the military and what training did you get on this subject? Or are you just another leftist yapping about that which you have zero practical experience with?

-...you grant my original premise that there are members of perhaps
-every presidential administration that should be held accountable for
-something roughly equivalent to war crimes.

No, it's simply too bizarre and beyond the pale to consider reasonable. I also don't believe the government killed JFK, nor do I believe there is an alien spacecraft at area 51, and I'm not too worried about the flouride in the water either.

[johnb]

-John says Bush wins 45 states. While I think Johns prediction is a bit
-over-zealous, he isn't too far off. Dems just don't have a chance with the
-candidates they have to choose from. Dean is their star? Hmm.......

This fall is going to be a debacle for the Donkeycrats. They are loosing the following senate seats, no contest: Georgia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Florida, and Louisiana. Long time Donkeycrat incumbents retiring in states trending increasingly Republican.

There is but one state South of the Mason Dixon line where the Donkeycrats will be competitive and they'll loose Maryland anyway. Going into this fall here are the questions to ask:

1-in what states are the Donkeycrats creating or increasing their lead over the GOP in voter registration?

2-in what states have the Donkeycrats been gaining in strength in state legislative elections?

3-in what states have obvious leftists, Dean Donkeycrats, done well in the past two election cycles?

4-in what states have "liberal" candidates won US Senate races?

Think about that. The Donkeycrats are getting stronger, in the very part of the country where it does them the least good: New York and New England.
The GOP owns the sunbelt and is solidifying that control every election cycle. Until this past election cycle the upper midwest was 50-50, it is trending increasingly GOP.

People and policies of the extreme left like Mark scare the hell out of the soccer moms. They may buy a lot of bull from the leftists, BUT none will vote leftist when that means compromising with Islamofascists.

[Brent]

It could only be worse for you all if Dennis the Menace were going to be the nominee.

John, I think you discount the abysmal outlook that would occur if Carol Mosely-Braun or "Rev." Al were the nominee. :lol:

[Don]

"It have been regretable. It may not. An Iraqi civilian may have been a Saddam body double, a Sadaam Fedayeen terrorist, or an interrogator at a political prison. It would not have been immoral for any or all of those three to die in a bombing run on, say, a bombing run on the Baathist party hq in Baghdad."

Using the "Vietnam comparison", how about all those cute little boys and girls who ran up to GI's and played the human bomb game? Were they civilians or combatants?

It IS sad that sometimes civilians get caught up in war. It IS sad that civilians are sometimes killed due to a stray, or not-so-stray bomb. It IS sad that civilians lives are changed forever because of war. Unfortunately it is inevitable.......War Is Hell.

I would have to agree with John and Don H. If a few, whether that be 3 or 3000, civilians loose their lives as a result of war and the end result is hundreds of thousands are saved, The price may need to be paid.

If we had known about 9/11 and were able to missle the planes out of the sky, killing the hundreds of passengers aboard but saving those at the Pentagon or WTC, would that not have been acceptable?

[Mark]

compromising with Islamofascists.

Ah, the truth comes out. Very reasonable, this one.

/sarcasm

[johnb]

Perhaps you wish to hide from reality Mark....

I prefer to engage the world as it is.

http://www.dhimmitude.org/

Fundamentalist Islam, whether of the Wahabbi Sunni variety or any of the more unhinged Shia' brands is not simply a religion. It is a political ideology written as a religious manifesto. A religion created by and for warlike tribes, raiders, on the fringes of civilization. Islam means peace the way chattel slavery means peace.

I am not a leftist, I see no way to compromise with a rabid dog and won't make any effort to do so. I suggest you educate yourself on the goals of and past record of Islam with respect to it's political enemies. We are locked in a confrontation not unlike the one we prevailed in over Communism.

You're still not upset about your guys losing that one are you? :P

[johnb]

Here, Mark, is a hint at what the militants are fighting for:


http://www.answering-islam.org/NonMuslims/rights.htm

Concept of "Islamic State"

"An Islamic state is essentially an ideological state, and is thus radically different from a national state." This statement made by Mawdudi lays the basic foundation for the political, economical, social, and religious system of all Islamic countries which impose the Islamic law. This ideological system intentionally discriminates between people according to their religious affiliations. Mawdudi, a prominent Pakistani Muslim scholar, summarizes the basic differences between Islamic and secular states as follows:

1)
An Islamic state is ideological. People who reside in it are divided into Muslims, who believe in its ideology and non-Muslims who do not believe.

2)
Responsibility for policy and administration of such a state "should rest primarily with those who believe in the Islamic ideology." Non-Muslims, therefore, cannot be asked to undertake or be entrusted with the responsibility of policymaking.

3)
An Islamic state is bound to distinguish (i.e. discriminates) between Muslims and non-Muslims. However the Islamic law "Shari`a" guarantees to non-Muslims "certain specifically stated rights beyond which they are not permitted to meddle in the affairs of the state because they do not subscribe to its ideology." Once they embrace the Islamic faith, they "become equal participants in all matters concerning the state and the government."

[johnb]

Brent,

You have me there, Check Mate.

Thinking of the hilarity/absurdity of Rev Al "Freddies Fashion Mart Race Riot" Sharpton being the Donkeycrat nominee would be as ridiculous as the little Donkeys nominating Carol "Da ho's gonna bust-a-move with the dictator of Nigeria" Braun.

I don't know how exactly Lieberman can keep a straight face when on stage at these debates with these idiots. In his position I would refuse to attend any function with Sharpton, Braun, and Kucinich. They're Larouche style candiates, running only to be an embarassment. It is good to see the leftists go on a crusade to drive out the less ideologically pure. :)

[kellyc]

Honestly John,

I think I might would even pay some money to see a debate between Al Sharpton and George Bush. I think my sides would almost split open from laughter.

On a serious note...I really wish the democrats could give me someone to vote for. I like George Bush, but I detest the AG Ashcroft. He is the main reason I dont want to vote for GW. But no matter how angry I get at Ashcroft, I just couldnt vote for Howard Dean.

Kelly

[johnb]

You realize that that makes no sense whatsoever don't you?

Being bothered by any possible issues with the current AG (to be blunt, it's all rumour/"everybody knows"/nonsense and such) to the point of looking at voting Donkeycrat is absurd.

*IF* you consider protecting freedom / liberty a campaign issue you simply cannot vote Donkeycrat. Every one of their candidates is all about increasing the size, the scope, and the power of the Federal government. That is the polar opposite of maximizing and preserving individual liberty and freedom.

This is like claiming to be interested in Jewish issues and saying in the next breath you're looking at the NSDAP candidate.

[kellyc]

Sure it does. I think GW has surrounded himself with people I dont like or care for. I see a vote for GW as a vote of support for his cronies. I don't like Ashcroft, I certainly don't care for Rumsfeld....even if he does have Rum in his name. I agree the democrats are bad, but I think Ashcroft is even worse.

Kelly

[johnb]

Is it the overt Christianity, the Republican political affiliation, or the law and order mentality that sets you off?

[Wuptdo]

Hiya Folks,

Was doing a little crusing on the Web and came across this little gem:

http://www.intellectualconservative.com/article4001.html

Another view of Sen. Edwards- I know ho-hum.

Wuptdo B-)

[johnb]

The Breck Girl got his clock cleaned in 6 out of 7 states.

The d@mn Donkeycrats are too stupid to see the graffitti in the underpass.

They're nominating a leftwing fanatic who has a well established voting record to compliment his involvement in a communist front group during the early 1970's, the VVAW (Vietnam Veterans Against the War). Edwards had one clear benefit in a general election, he had no voting/public service record to defend. He's said some pretty strange stuff and his is one dopey SOB, but he is a good actor and can milk an audience. The best thing about him, as far as the donkeycrats are concerned is that he is an unknown quantity. He doesn't have to lie or hide his record, he doesn't have one.

Kerry is the second worst candidate the little donkeys could have nominated. The only way it would have been worse is for them to nominate the beltway sniper.

[Brent]

Little Johnny, protestations aside, is running for VP. A Kerry-Edwards ticket now seems quite likely.

[Wuptdo]

It is very possible Brent. As long as Johnny boy doesn't trash Kerry in the primaries and basically sticks to his "feel-good" campaign. However, Kerry is better off finding someone who is currently not running for office. Kerry needs balance on his ticket and someone from the East Coast or South won't cut it. A Sunbelter or West Coaster is the way to go. Also, taking a women as VP will also score a lot of points with unaffilicated voters. However, I can't think of any women candidates from the West Coast that voters are willing to tolerate (Diane Feinstien?) :lol:

However, just for fun, suppose the Hollywood/Music elites decide they like Johnny Boy. If Brittney Spears, Justin Timberlake, P.Diddie, Snoopy-dog Dawg, and Alec Baldwin (and such), get behind Johnny Boy (because of his "boyish" charm and good looks) he could be unstoppable. The MTV crowd is very much into style over substanance. :roll:

Back to reality. If Johnny boys stays good and really supports Kerry-VP and they do win (I doubt it but...), I see Johnny boy as either AG or Sec of (Blank). Stranger things have happened. :wink:

Preparing for high winds and heavy seas!

Wuptdo B-)

[johnb]

Edwards can't be a serious VP contender. He'd loose re-election to the Senate here in NC if he were on the ballot this fall. Kerry knows that. Edwards would do for a Donkeycrat nominee what Algor did, ie, not carry his home state.

[johnb]

Well here it is, mid-March, and nationally the only reference one hears to Johnny Edwards is a collective "Who?".

This guy won't even be a trivial pursuit question ten years from now.

He is the electoral equivalent of toast. He did so poorly in the southern primarys that he proved to everyone, including the junior Senator from France, that it would be pointless to ask Edwards to be the VP nominee.

Look for Gephardt.

[Don]

I hate to say it, but I was looking forward to watching Dean continue to make a fool of himself. The guy was at least entertaining.

[Wuptdo]

I was watching one of the late night news shows a few weeks ago. They did a spot on Sen. "Raceway" Edwards. I have to admit, he is a very good stump speaker (I wonder how much plastic surgery has he had?).
What was funny, we that he kept mentioning that he defeated Jesse Helms in the Senate, or he defeated Jesse Helms candidate in the Senate (he got caught by the press at one stop.) And what two America's did he represent? bah-bah-bah

Now suppose that Cheney decides not to be VP due to "health" reasons. Call to Sen. Edward from GW: "Johnnie, I would really like you to be my next VP, how about it! Now you understand, that you must change parties, but how about it, join the club officially." Do you think that Edwards would change parties to get higher office?

However, he has the bug, and he will not go away. Democrats like candidates that can fund their own campaigns. I look for him to run against Libby in 2008 or run for Governor in 2008. Guys like Edwards need the public to feed their ego's.

Food for thought.

[johnb]

Don,

Don't worry, Dr Dean has a reflexive need to make an a$$ of himself. He was on TV two days ago stating Geo. Bush was responsible for the Madrid bombing.

Wup,

There is no doubt that little johnny edwards would change parties if promised the vp slot....heck, he'd do a Monica for it.......but he really has discredited himself...that doesn't mean he is unelectable.....the little donkeys have nominated pure, unmitigated crimminals on the one hand and amoral opportunists on the other in the past and have no reason to discontinue the practice....the sad thing is oftentimes the voters fall for it.