Replies

"Did the U.N. or any of the countries involved in the U.N. give Saddam Insane the go ahead to make all those chemical weapons."

I don't know. Did the UN give us permission to make our chemical weapons?

"Did the U.N. or any of its members give Saddam the green light to kill all of those people in his country who opposed him."

I doubt it.

"We don't need anybody. We are the freedom fighters of the World now. When our freedom or anybody elses is in jeparody, I say it's time to act."

Well, then join the army, or get yourself elected to high office.

"Also for all of those out there who are protesting the war. Get off the meth."

I don't take meth. Actually I don't protest against the war, though I don't want it to happen.

"You keep saying that we are doing it for OIL? If that is the case, why don't we just declare victory in Saudia Arabia and Kuwait."

We are not at war with Saudi Arabia and Kuwait.

"We have enough troops there now to take over if we really were there for the oil."

Have you been there. I have, and I don't think we have enough people to take over two of our Middle East allies.

"The stories coming out now of teachers ridiculing families for going to the gulf because it's their duty really make me furious."

I haven't heard those stories, but if they're true, then it pisses me off too.

"I'm 33 years old. I would like to say to all vets including those who fought in Vietnam, here's a great big thank you for doing something for me even though you don't even know me. I really appreciate everything you guys and gals have done for me. God Bless All Of You!"

You're welcome, and thank you for the sentiment.

My kids go to a real small school here in Texas and their teachers have even told them that the Republican party is the party of the rich. Where in God's name did that come from."

Census data. I believe it too. I'm not saying that there aren't filthy rich dems, or greens, or my own non-affiliateds, but by and large, if you are rich and want to stay that way, you vote GOP.

"The bias in the schools, the media, and everywhere else is poison to our society."

By this, I'm assuming you aren't referring to the heavy conservative bias of Fox News, Rush, Savage and other media.

Another thing that really has gotten under my nerves here lately is this SUV nonsense. WHAT?? Don't we have more important things to consider at this point in time.

Some people feel that if we drive vehicles that consume less gas, we can become more self sufficent as a oil-consuming nation.

Something else. This ONE man who is trying to get God out of the pledge, needs to be stopped. ONE MAN. That's pretty pathetic. I guess it is just like the ONE WOMAN who took prayer out of schools.

Prayer, and 'under God' are fine in private (i.e. no federal funding) schools. If it is a public school, then the laws governing the separation of church and state apply. If you want to pray in school, go ahead, it is your constitutionally protected right, as is saying 'under God' during the pledge, or not saying the pledge at all. The teacher just can't lead students in these acivities, it is not in a public schools purview to do so.

Though I disagree with a large amount of your points, I would like to address the idea of "heavy" media bias as you have presented it. 86% of the news media are registered democrats. Fox News is the ONLY channel where there is any form of moderation of conservative and liberal viewpoints. If you want to throw out speculations about how conservative Fox News is, perhaps I'll give you mine. I would venture to say that those who call Fox News a conservative network only say that because they are used to the left being the reporters of the news (I.E. Communist News Network, ABC, NBC) with constant liberal spins and imbalanced talk shows. Fox News has some shows with arguably conservative hosts - But there are reasons that they are not anchors, but simply those who present their opinions just like Chris Matthews or Phil Donahue, like Neil Cavuto. The other shows that Fox News regularly programs such as the shows (The name eludes me at the moment) with Fred Barnes, Mara Liasson, Brit Hume, and Mort Kondracke as well as Hannity and Colmes provide clearly balanced opinions from both sides of the fence. Most other news channels have shows hosted by a progressive liberal, and just a flat out liberal. MAYBE a moderate. Clearly the premise that Fox News is heavily biased in the conservative direction is not only speculative, but factually untrue. Perhaps you have never seen their slogan "We Report You Decide". This is not just a random saying but a clear mission statement of the channel. You can choose to believe the credibility of their dedication to achieving this goal, but I believe my previously stated points concerning the content of Fox News offer some degree of proof that Fox News is not heavily biased in the conservative direction, but simply to the right of what has been previously accepted as the "news".

As well, Rush Limbaugh and Michael Savage have every right to assert whatever political opinions they hold. They are not neutral news anchors, but controversial talk show hosts who are not obligated to present anything with equal coverage to both sides. It is the anchors that twist and spin the facts in the news that I believe the original poster was referring to.

It is a sad testament to the depths of ignorance and superstition to which our society has fallen when irrefragible arguments for the correctness of conservatism can be made by doing nothing more than providing academic scholiums to existing, relevant material and objectively measurable reality. And no, I do not think that belief in God is necessarily ignorant OR superstitious. But that's another tangent.
The controlling legal passage at hand in this discussion reads:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."
Nothing more than a scholium on English grammar can clear this up immediately.
1.) To say that "Congress shall make no law..." means, just that. I challenge anyone to find any clause, statement, section or; to wit, any law written in USC (which constitutes all laws established by Congress) that has anything to do at all with the Pledge of Allegiance; much less a law that in any way prohibits or infringes on the recitation of it. In other words, this clause speaks only to specific laws as coded in USC and enacted by Congress, not policies, governement procedural mandates, local law or whatever else.
2.) "...respecting an establishment of religion..." means, you guessed it, just that. There are no laws in USC that respect "an establishment of religion", which distinguishes said establishment as a particular sect, order, or denomination of religion, not religion itself. While the term 'God' may be specific to some subset of religion, that alone does not establish your case, Mr. 'Bad_Samaritan'. For example, this clause tells us that Congress may pass no law that favors Presbyterians over Baptists, for example, but says nothing more.
3.) Given that your argument at least fails point one (1), it is then required of Congress to pass no law "...prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." which is so determined subjectively and may indeed involve recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance, or the use of the term 'God' in it. In interpreting the law, the judiciary likewise may pass no judgement to that same effect. Notice that there is no provision therein for those who might take umbrage at the verbal recitation of the word "God", or who might see such a verbalization as in any way untoward.
In other words, you lose. There is simply no constitutional basis whatsoever for these typical 'anti-God' claims made so often in American jurisprudence. The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution simply doesn't even speak to the matters you draw in your posted complaint, other than to counter your claims clearly and without ambiguity.
For over fifty years we have been failing to educate our children in the most basic core subjects and, with all due repsect, your post only illustrates that point. They all race off to graduate school and the ivory towers of imagined brilliance, only to find themselves flailing and falling down on the most basic of facts and comprehension. But I digress.

Census data. I believe it too. I'm not saying that there aren't filthy rich dems, or greens, or my own non-affiliateds, but by and large, if you are rich and want to stay that way, you vote GOP.

Your statement is ludicrous. If that were the reality, then Ted Turner, Ted Kennedy, 90% of Hollywierd, professional sports atheletes, etc. would be Republican. Or they don't care to retain their wealth, which I certainly do not believe to be the case. So if your statement were even remotely the truth, how would you explain so many wealthy Democrats? Not just a handful as you seem to imply, but rather large numbers.

If census data shows that the Republican Party has more money, it's only attributed to the fact that more of the middle class (middle and upper middle) belong to the Republican Party while more of the lower middle to lower classes belong to the Democratic Party. This is because the middle to upper middle class are tired of having their earnings taken from them to be redistributed, while the lower middle class and lower class are looking for something for nothing as they rarely pay any taxes at all but are usually the recipients of social programs.

Very few thinking individuals want war, but sometimes war is the only option left available. Certainly you aren't suggesting that inspections are working? If you are suggesting that, then perhaps you would like to buy this bridge I have for sale in Brooklyn.

Just to educate you, the conservative outlets you mention pale in numbers when compared to the free network T.V. outlets, newspapers, magazines, and most importantly schools (from kindergarten thru college) that promote leftist propaganda while stifling all forms of conservatism.

You take this gentleman's thanks for the military service you provided. Care to elaborate what your MOS was, when it was, and the circumstances that led to that service? What branch? What rank? What unit? And any other pertinent information you would like to share with us concerning your military duties, because I, quite frankly, doubt your veracity.

You state that we are not at war with either Kuwait or Saudi Arabia, but you fail to state that neither are we at war with Iraq. While we are poised for war we are still not at war. Saddam had the power to stop this war and he chose not to take the necessary steps to do so. Instead he tried his best to prove that we are nothing more than "paper tigers". He obviously thinks Bush is just like his predecessor, Clinton. Saddam's piddling concessions now are too little too late, but most of all they are too insincere. They are a feint to try and buy him more time, because time is the only real possibility for Saddam to retain power. Unfortunately for Saddam, he misread the fact that Bush feels, and rightly so, that he has all of the U.N. authority necessary to commit force against Saddam for non-compliance of numerous resolutions but most importantly 1441. Beyond the U.N. though he has the authority from Congress which I hold in higher authority than the U.N. when it comes to national security. While you neither agreed or disagreed that this is war for oil, perhaps you could explain why Bush didn't merely tell the U.N. that Saddam is in compliance and have the U.N. remove the sanctions imposed? That would be far less costly than going to war to seize the oil fields and it would be the easier avenue to travel down. Though Clinton has said the very same things about Saddam in 1998 that Bush is saying now, Clinton refused to act because he chose that easier avenue.

If we truly became a more self-sufficient oil-consuming nation the Middle East would then have even less to offer the world and would only condemn larger numbers of their people to exist in extreme poverty. Oh, but that is far more desirable then going to war and ridding the world of a tyrant who left to his own means would at a later date provide the world with the same problems the world now faces with a nuclearized North Korea. Another Clinton foreign policy mistake. The possibly, after Saddam has been removed, of also offering some Arabs the opportunity to taste at least some of the freedoms we enjoy is not worth the price of war. Have I got that about right?

Why do I get the feeling that your screen name is sooooo accurate?