<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr>
It's not my rights I'm concerned about. Perhaps you've heard of the previously unlawful detainment of suspected terrorists?
<hr></blockquote>
I've heard about the detainment of people assumed to be a serious threat. I've heard about the detainment of people in perfectly livable environments with special attention to religious needs and meals. I'd like to put away people that want to blow us up, thank you. This is hardly a revisit of the Japanese internment camps in our history.
<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr>
The Bush administration is not fascist, but the Patriot Act is something one would expect from such a government. Based on that information, it's a matter of opinion as to whether you'd call my statement an exaggeration.
<hr></blockquote>
Have you read it? It's a very misunderstood piece of legislation that primarily advocates better communication for those who protect us.
<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr>
I think that he was very blind to other points of view on the issue, so I do think he did it blindly, but that's something I certainly don't expect you to agree with.
<hr></blockquote>
You go vote for a president that reads opinion polls, I'll vote for a president that wants to protect this country because we elected him to lead.
<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr>
You're right, I can't respond to pure opinion. All you said was that you thought the nations were cowardly and the resolutions empty. There were no supporting facts or even any kind of logical reasoning. What am I supposed to say? True, but sanctions are repurcussions. Based on what we're seeing in Iraq, it seems that they were very effective.
<hr></blockquote>
We already had sanctions in place, and they didn't stop Saddam from torturing, maiming and murdering his own people. Remember, it was the UN sanctions in 1990 after the invasion of Kuwait that lead to the UN's corrupted "Oil for Food" program and STILL didn't help the people. None of the resolutions would result in force, cowardly and empty.
> No, I think John Kerry wants to help America, I think most
> liberals want to help protect America-- but he would go
> about it the wrong way, and the results of these mistakes
> would be detrimental.
<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr>
There, that's a good direction. Now explain why you think that.
<hr></blockquote>
Because while I doubt he wants to harm America, his intentions are purely political and he stands on no foundation. He's a people-pleaser, he'll adopt the most popular opinion while he holds one foot on either side of the fence and tries to have it both ways. How do you honestly expect him to really lead us against this threat? Let me give you a quote of his from back in 2002--- "Let me be clear: the vote that I will give to the president is for one reason and one reason only, to disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction if we cannot accomplish that objective through new, tough weapons inspections in joint conference with our allies." A year later he said it was for a new reason, "to give the president a legitimate threat of force to go to the United Nations and form a coalition.", and later, this time to "protect the security of the country in a way that defended America’s values, that defended the troops." What will it be after this when asked the same question about his vote? He shrugs it off, saying "“the President didn’t need our authorization in the first place." Now he harps on international support and the approval of the UN, which, is obvious a weakness that will only hinder our progression. Liberals have made the word "unilateral" something negative, when it really isn't. Allow me to quote;
"As we’ll see, the Democrats’ big idea is to cultivate an image of sophistication in foreign policy, by advocating that we work more closely with other nations to combat international terrorism. If only we would work through the United Nations, they claim, we could have the cooperation of the entire world, and everything would work out fine. Never mind that America has itsown national security to worry about. Never mind that nations like France and Germany were courted tirelessly by the Bush administration, even when their demands flew in the face of America’s interests. Never mind that our supposedly “unilateral†action in Iraq was actually mounted by a coalition of willing nations.
The Democrats hope to get to the White House by calling George Bush a “unilateralist.†Well, I’ve got two problems with that idea. First of all, the fact that a few other recalcitrant nations won’t agree to join your cause doesn’t make you a unilateralist—even if those nations are longtime allies. But here’s the much more important point:Unilateralism is no crime, if it means acting in our own national interest regardless of the stance of other nations. It is our right—no, it is ourduty —to protect our own interests, regardless of whether other nations are willing to help us. We have never agreed to mortgage away our military to the U.N., or to delegate our national security interests to other nations or international bodies. And no matter what the Democrats might prefer, wemust never do so—not if America is to remain an independent nation." - Sean Hannity
> Oh come on, everything is "appalling", horrible horrible
> close-minded Dan just wants to force his viewpoint on the
> fragile minds of ZD liberals :P.
<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr>
Your response reminds me of a girlfriend I once had. Every time you criticized her for something, she would play victim and try to get everyone to feel sorry for her. It was sadly effective.
<hr></blockquote>
Right, except I'm not playing the victim-- I'm noting how absurd your responses to my viewpoints are.
<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr>
The word is entirely irrelevant and this is where your post falls into line with what JadussD was complaining about. What's important is what was meant, not exactly what was said.
<hr></blockquote>
Uh huh, and as he meant appealing to international support to make this a more sensitive war, every one of my statements is unaffected. I read and listened to all of his words, and I assure you the terrorists will not be effected by our sensitivity-- and certainly not by a sensitive appeal to nations that have already showed disgust and cowardice in the face of our cause.
<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr>
If your every conversation was taped, I assure you that some seemingly inappropriate words, phrases, or intonations would come out from time to time. This kind of reactionism is extremely unhealthy for our country.
<hr></blockquote>
You need to stop with this direction because I've replied to the intentions behind his word more than once.
<P ID="signature">http://www.spazticplastic.com/bannerbaby.gif (http://www.spazticplastic.com)</P>