Well all I gotta say is...those towel head's messed with the wrong mother ****er's...I just don't think they are taking us seriously when we say "DISARM" or we WILL come and basicly **** you up...let's put polotic's aside and just have fun..let's go get us some towel heads!!Who do they think they are anyway's..there is no way in hell I would mess with a country that has never lost a war..and has ben in plenty of em..and we are only getting stronger...Towel head's say your prayer's

 

who is this "bush" guy everone is talking about?.......is he on american idol or something?

 

He is my idol I really don't have anything against arabian's and or afgan's...but if you hit someone, expect to get hit back!

 

The beast makes some sense..


If there is a war on terroism why are we not helping those in south/central america against their tyrant leaders?




What country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time, that its people preserve the spirit of resistance.

 

My beef with Cllinton is basically the economy was doing wonderful then when it should the slightest downturn he would play with interest rates, and started using our resources we use to prevent a recession, which would cause the economy to boost again, making him look like this amazing leader who has boosted the economy.

Then, Bush came to office, and the economy was in a downturn, but the usual things we do to prevent a recession we cannot do because Clinotn already used them.

Basically clinton worked to get the economy to go straight up, problem is economy is a cycle that will drop, it should rise by at a gradual rate instead of a huge spike then huge recession.


I got have gotten a $1.75 an hour raise in the last year, but my pay is still impossible to live off of


I agree that Iraq shoudl have been more covert, small force or we train some people inside the country to uprise(Castro type of thing, but work it a little better ) So even if a tyrant goes into power, he will not be as organized and powerful as Suddam.

 

I've seen blackhawk down. Basically it was Vietnam mentallity. If you are going to do something dont do it half assed. You dont send soft skin Hummers through hostile territory, you send M1A1's and M2 Bradleys.

And I was in the last war in Iraq. I am not overly confident but it will be very one sided, with almost no American casualties. Just like last time. A lot of Iraq is a tankers heaven; no jungles to hide in. And we rule the air. You need to get your info from someone who was there, not Hollywood.

And no we dont need Nato or the UN or anyone else. In fact this war will be a lot smoother without anyone else. The Brits are welcome. They actually know how to fight. I saw how they operated. They got their stuff in a pile.

Semper Fi
Lance

 

Sounds to me like Lance (Lab) knows a bit more about actual combat in Iraq than some Hollywood movie producer. As far as Clinton being the great president. He was alright. What nobody has really touched on is that the economy was already heading south when Bush was elected. Add to this the events of Sept. 11th and big business getting caught fudging their numbers and you have a weakened economy. I agree that something has got to be done to kick start the economy I just don't like to hear how Clinton was this superb president.

Jim

 

sept. 11 wouldn't have happened if the guy who was in office for the previous 8 years actually took the situation seriously...

i mean come on, how could he have ignored these terrorists? they only...
supplied and supported terrorist acts all over the globe...
plotted and attacked US military forces
plotted and bombed two US embassay's in africa
plotted and bombed the world trade center (the first time)
plotted and was foiled by our own forces hundreds of times that we won't even hear about...

but noooo, they're not dangerous...


clinton, while he had some very good aspects, was not one of the best presidents.

 

Honestly, I could care less if Clinton got a little head action. To me, as long as he did his job as President. I could care less. Which clearly he did. Look at his record as far as the National debt (oops I meant Surpluss being that he is the only president to have one since before JFK), economic growth, unemployment, ect, ect.


As for worst president ever. If you know politics, you know who Helen Thomas is. And if she calls Bush "The worst president ever" Maybe there is something behind it.

AS for some of my personal reasonings.....

02-04-2003 10:39 PM

Bush Budget: Aliens May Be Out There

WASHINGTON - Proof that life exists outside the boundaries of Earth continues to elude scientists, but President Bush budget suggests that "space aliens" may be out there.

And it could just be a matter of time before they are discovered.

In a brief passage titled "Where Are the Real Space Aliens?" Bush's budget document released Monday says several important scientific discoveries in the past decade indicate that "habitable worlds" in outer space may be much more prevalent than once thought.

The finds include evidence of currently or previously existing large bodies of water — a key ingredient of life as we know it — on Mars and on Jupiter's moons.

Astronomers also are finding planets outside the solar system, including about 90 stars with at least one planet orbiting them.

"Perhaps the notion that 'there's something out there' is closer to reality than we have imagined," the passage concludes.


Budget of the United States Government
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2004/nasa.html



There is this too.....

Colin Powell, the United States secretary of state, yesterday appeared to pull back from claims that he would show the United Nations a link between al-Qa'eda and Iraq, amid anger among Washington's spies over the way intelligence was being distorted to prove the link existed.

There will be "no smoking gun" in the evidence he will present to the Security Council tomorrow in an attempt to persuade it to back force against Iraq, he said.

It will just be "a straightforward and compelling demonstration that Saddam is concealing evidence of weapons of mass destruction, while preserving the weapons."

He faces a tough task made far tougher by President George W Bush's promise in his State of the Union address last week that Mr Powell would prove a link between al-Qa'eda and Iraq that, intelligence officials say, does not exist.

The intelligence shows that Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, a leading member of al-Qa'eda, was treated in hospital in Baghdad last spring but provides absolutely no evidence of any contacts with Iraqi officials.

CIA still Resists Bush Admin Proaganda



You also have this......




******************
Scientists say bioterror threat 'exaggerated'
By Clive Cookson, Science Editor
Published: January 29 2003 16:22 | Last Updated: January 29 2003 16:22


Politicians and the media have greatly exaggerated the likely consequences of any use of biological or chemical weapons for terrorism, scientists said on Wednesday.


Even the most feared weapons, such as smallpox or nerve agents, would cause far fewer casualties that most people imagine, according to experts at a press briefing in London.

John Oxford, professor of virology at Queen Mary's medical school, London, said: "The smallpox virus is an old plodder, not a sure-footed fast-moving virus like 'flu or measles."

Prof Oxford, an expert on smallpox, said he did not recognise "the virus I know" in some scenarios presented, particularly in the US, in which a smallpox epidemic started by terrorists could end up killing millions of people.

According to Prof Oxford, smallpox can be passed on from person to person only by close physical contact, not simply by being in the same room as someone who is infected, and the number of cases in historical outbreaks of the disease built up quite slowly. And he said that people who were vaccinated against smallpox before the disease was officially eradicated in the 1970s would still have residual immunity 30 or 40 years later.

Prof Oxford acknowledged that it was reasonable to take some precautions against bioterrorism, for example by building up stocks of smallpox vaccine, but added: "It would not take much to divert all of us [infectious disease specialists] into anthrax and smallpox, when we should be focusing on the great natural killers such as HIV, TB and influenza."

Tom Inch, who chairs the UK chemical weapons convention advisory committee, told the meeting that if terrorists used a chemical agent in a confined space such as the London Underground, "some people would die but not a huge number - high explosives would be far more dangerous." Fear and panic would probably do more harm than a nerve agent or toxin such as ricin.

The problem for terrorists, Dr Inch said, is that even the deadliest chemicals are extremely difficult to distribute in a way that causes mass casulties.

Steve Emmett, an expert on nerve agents at Oxford University who now works for Synaptica, a university spin-out company, agreed. "It's easy to play up the risks and encourage panic," he said. "In fact the risks of mass poisoning [from any chemical agent] are very low."


Exaggeration of bio/chemical weapon dangers

 

How about destroying a little thing like the constitution. Ever hear of seperation of church and state? Guess Bush doesn't care.

Bush Plans to Let Religious Groups Get Building Aid
By ERIC LICHTBLAU


WASHINGTON, Jan. 22 — The Bush administration plans to allow religious groups for the first time to use federal housing money to help build centers where religious worship is held, as long as part of the building is also used for social services.

The policy shift, which was made in a rule that the Department of Housing and Urban Development proposed this month, significantly expands the administration's contentious religion-based initiative.

The White House says it wants to end discrimination against religious groups. Opponents say the policy breaches the separation of church and state.

Current regulations generally prohibit religious groups from using federal housing and community development grants, which totaled $7.7 billion last year, to build or rehabilitate structures. The new rules, still subject to final approval by housing officials, allow the use of federal aid to acquire, rehabilitate or build centers used for religious and specifically approved nonreligious activities, so long as no federal money is used for the religious section.

A church could erect a building using federal money to create a shelter for the homeless in one part and private money to create a sanctuary in another part, officials said. A synagogue could use a grant to rehabilitate part of its building for a counseling center for AIDS patients or the poor. A Muslim group could apply for federal money to upgrade the lighting and equipment in a room in its mosque to allow it to be used as an counseling center for single parents.

Bush administration officials, who have made religion-based initiatives a cornerstone of their agenda, said that religious organizations had historically been discriminated against in the fierce competition for federal grants and that the change was simply intended to level the field to compete for the pool of money.

"We see no reason to exclude religious organizations from participation in these programs if there can be a reasonable mechanism to ensure that a program has no particular religious connotation one way or another," the general counsel of the housing department, Richard A. Hauser, said in an interview. "There's no reason you can't have a cathedral upstairs and something that would look like any other room in the basement" for counseling.

Civil rights advocates, legal experts and Congressional critics attacked the change. They said it moved the government dangerously close to financing the building of houses of worship in violation of the separation of church and state.

"This is probably the most clearly unconstitutional aspect of the White House's faith-based initiative that we've seen up to this point," said Christopher Anders, legislative counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union. "What this does is take federal money that is serving the neediest of the needy in our society and diverts it to the bricks-and-mortar construction of churches and sanctuaries and other places of worship."

Opponents said the change forced the government into the difficult position of having to determine which part of a building is used for worship and which is for social services.

"You run into the nightmarish problem of having the government monitor what goes on inside churches" and sanctuaries, said Representative Barney Frank, Democrat of Massachusetts, who promised to seek hearings on the change. "Are we going to start sending in the inspector general to charge people with committing a bar mitzvah?"

A spokeswoman for the housing department, Diane Tomb, said the proposed change grew out of misinterpretations of past policy that effectively blocked religious groups from access to housing programs.

In a New York City case, Ms. Tomb said, a religious group was wrongfully blocked from activities in a common area of a publicly financed housing project. "That's discrimination," she said.

President Bush made headlines in a speech on Dec. 12 when he bypassed Congress and issued an executive order to make it easier for religious groups to receive federal money for welfare programs.

Like most of the debate in the two-year push for initiatives that involve religious groups, the order focuses on the social services that many groups rely on the government to pay for. In the change, released on Jan. 6 without fanfare, officials proposed a potentially far-reaching shift that centers not on services but on how buildings run by religious groups are financed and built.

The rules have consistently banned grants for buildings with any religious component, officials said. The current regulations for one popular home investment program, for instance, ban grants to "primarily religious organizations" and say housing projects "must be used exclusively" for secular activities.

The new regulations set up a system for programs at mixed-use sites "where a structure is used for both eligible and inherently religious activities." The change does not spell out how the proportion would be formulated. Officials said that would have to be determined case by case.

The public has until March 7 to comment before the department is scheduled to issue its final approval. The change would apply to all HUD grants, including programs for economic development in low-income areas, emergency shelters and housing aid for single-parent families, young people and AIDS cases.

Many funds like the widely used community development block grants are sent through cities, which give them to local groups. Other funds go directly to private providers.

Advocates for religious groups applauded the shift, saying it sends a message of inclusion and predicting that it will open financing avenues that had been closed to many groups.

"This should be a welcome step," said the Rev. Eugene F. Rivers III, president of the National 10-Point Leadership Foundation, a coalition of groups that represents primarily black churches. "It's entirely reasonable."

Some civil rights advocates and Congressional critics promised to fight the change. Several legal experts said the new policy might not pass muster under a 1971 Supreme Court case, Tilton v. Richardson, that restricted aid to religious institutions.

"The question is whether you can legitimately allocate, say, 80 percent of a building for religious use and 20 percent for secular use and say that the federal money is only paying for the secular use," said Douglas Laycock, a professor and religious liberties specialist at the University of Texas Law School. "The answer to the allocation question right now in the courts is no, you can't do it."

A professor at the Cardozo Law School, Marci Hamilton, said that it might be difficult for government lawyers to argue that they can truly separate a religious and social functions in a building and that many religious groups might not even want to try to do so.

"Once religious entities start arguing that any portion of their building is for nonreligious purposes," Professor Hamilton said, "they start opening themselves up to all sorts of problems like their tax-exempt status as religious institutions. It's a whole Pandora's box."

Billy Terry, who oversees religious issues for the National Congress for Community Economic Development, said that the change sent "an important message, and it denotes the tenor of this administration."

Although many religion-based groups do a good job of distinguishing between religious and social service components, Mr. Terry said, separating them can prove messy.

"It's like trying to take the sugar out of cupcakes," he said. "The line can get blurred."

 

Heres some more....



Taken from Paul Begala's "It's Still the Economy, Stupid"

One of the most amusing things to watch in Washington these days is the right-wing blowhards trying to blame President Clinton for the economy and wave of corporate crime that's been sweeping America. As these pages prove, the record is clear; President Clinton and his administration fought the Republicans from the first day to the last to prevent coporate ripoffs. And, as more than one expert has said, had Clinton's reforms been enacted, there would have been no Enron.

So, stymied by the facts, the right blames Bill Clinton's philandering for corporate America's lawlessness. As he often does, Rush Limbaugh makes the case: "Who taught us how to get around laws? A, Ronald Reagan. B, Bill Clinton. Who taught us how to have his way with words and women? Who taught us, my friends, how to lie under oath and get away with it? Who taught us that oral sex isn't sex, and now kids across the country in grade school try it out?"

Since it was on the radio, I can't promise you he got through it with a straight face. But let's pretend for the sake of arguement that Limbaugh meant it. The logic goes like this: Once Clinton became the first man in the world to cheat on his wife, the decent men of corporate america were so shake, so rocked, so scandalized that they decided to look their companies, cheat their investors and rip off their workers.


Man, that was one powerful B.J.

As Peter Beinart pointed out in the New Republic, to suggest that corporate swindlers became greedy because Clinton was amorous, you'd have to believe that Ivan Boesky and Michael Milken, who pillaged in the Age of Reagan, "lost their moral bearings, because the Gipper was a divorce' who neglected his children."

Still, foam-at-the-mouth Clinton haters argue Clinton should be responsible cause, as president, he "set the moral climate." 'It's impossible to understand Enron," The Journal pontificated, 'outside the moral climate in which it flourished.. the Clinton years, when we learned that 'everybody does it'." Okay, Beinart replies, if we're going to blame Clinton's sin for corporate criminality and all moral deviance, don't we have to give Clinton credit for everything that went right morally in America under his watch? When Bill Clinton was in the White House teen pregnancy fell 22 percent. The crime rate fell to it's lowest levels in a generation. Welfare rolls were cut by nearly half. Divorce, abortions, teen suicides, unwed pregnancies--they all fell under Clinton moral tutelage.

Clinton's private sinfulness notwithstanding, he and his administration worked tirelessly to protect us from corporate crooks, while the Republicans did everything but drive the getaway car for the bandits. Maybe that's why they want to blame it all on Clinton getting to "third base" with a young woman. I'll tell you this: if I had to choose my sinners, I'd rather my president be in bed with a young woman than with Enron.


Lastly.....Ill leave you this very revealing graph...

 

Seems to be some Florida bashing going on. Remember I95 and I75 still go north. Every day all day.
Dont want your kid learning in a trailer. Spend some of your own money.
Want class size restrictions, pay more taxes to build the schools.
Here in Brevard the retirees dont want the schools in their neighborhood.
Suntree and Veira are too good for schools. Need more malls and adult living communities. Need a Walgreens and 7-11 on every corner.
Just my rant, but I've lived here for over 30 years and heard all the excuses about schools and school taxes. I went to school here and have done all right. Some in trailers before most of you were born.

 

Education is our future and we need to make sure it stays that way.. Who cares if your 80, pay your share I know my SSN is paying for your old ***..... Shut up and enjoy and be glad those with eduction will make more so you can have more as an old dude...

 

Clinton never had any of these problems because our country was not attcked during his term. Just the attack on 9/11 will cost the country 200 Billion in redevelopment,lawsuits,lost wages, lost business and insurance.
What would good ole Bill have done different? Pray tell. Had a party and play the sax? Bang an intern? Lie some more? Reduce military spending more?
And who cares if NATO backs us up?
Dont make enough at the SO? Get another job. None of us make enough. Quit bitchin.
"Iraq will hit us with all they've got" So what. One attack that can be traced to Iraghead will seal their fate forever.
Damn right they dug up in his personal life. He was the President for Christ sake. He has no personal life. WE are his personal life.
He was and is a disgrace. Before his presidency,during and now after.
100% US casualties? Hows that possible? Oh I see you quoted a MOVIE. Based on a true story. But a movie none the less.
Desert storm. Almost 100% Iraqi casualties. Read your history.
Were you even born then? How could you have missed it.

 

Ok.....if you think Clinton is Immoral, I suggest you at very least do a little research on Bush and his business dealings before he was president.

Particularly check....

His baseball dealings
His Oil Dealings
And Lets not forget what roll he played in helping his Enron buddies.



You think Clinton lies, better dig into Mr. "Yeah, Ive been to Kennedy space center" Bush. After the tragedy. Only to be later called out by the Space center as to never being there....Ever. At least not as a public official.

Youd rather have a proffessed drunk, who was busted for driving drunk on the same streets that someones kids may of been near, than a guy who got caught copping BJ's. Would rather hate the cheater of wives than the Beater of Wives.

Youd rather have a guy lie about his Virtual non existant military career, and have daddy hide him from any wars than a guy who Copped a BJ and tried to cover it up.


Takle the real issues. Like Clintons accomplishments vs Bushs........oops are there even any to speak of except to about to be blatantly hypocritical.

Is it not hypocritical to want to invade Iraq for non compliance with Nato Treaties...yet be willing to go against Nato in a "I dont care if Nato is behind us or not, WE going to WAR baby"


Not to mention the fact that the world leaders consider him a dolt and an idiot. If I hear the man butcher basic words and sentences anymore then Im going to scream.