Edited title: Liberal talking points, reasons to hate Bush from the left.

[Hog Fever]

I think you are looking for a debate where there isn't one. If you take a look at my post again you will see that it is a statement of fact about current conservative thinking on issues and not a blind defense of the Bush administeration as you seem to have taken it. We get it....you don't like Bush. You are entitled to your opinion. More power to you. I don't like everything he's done either but that's beside the point. I also think your definition of a conservative differs greatly from what the current definition of the political term is.

I honestly didn't see how some of your responses had anything to do with what I wrote. Yes, some responses had facts but others were just rants. I can't argue out of your opinion and wouldn't try to. If the sky is purple in your world that's cool with me.

[Ghost of]

Has anyone else noticed our influx of white screennamed(as opposed to yellow or blue) plainly named, non-capitalized, non-formatting, endless ranters?

I'm not sure, but I wonder about that. Lots of people with similar styles and similar ways of "debating," by which I mean not. lol

[thew]

Ghost of Nibbs McPimpin

Your views on the UN and education are clearly in conflict with conservatism

Bunk. Conflict with Wolfowitz you mean. He's a first class grade A moron. James Baker used the UN to put together a coalition to remove Sadam from Kuwait. It was perhaps the greatest example of American leadership since the Korean war. The fact that Russia and China were with us for the first gulf war makes it possible the greatest example of world leadership. That would not have been possible without the UN.

Eisenhower, Reagan, Kissinger, and Shultz are amongh the conservatives who have used the UN to meet America's security goals. You think they wanted/want it dispanded? Since when did Wolfowitz think for the American right?

Hell the UN would not have been possible without superior American leadership. It was an American Idea and an American funded project after WWII. Neo Conservatives who think that merely being the strongest country in the world will keep us safe are idiots. Being the leader of the world who is trusted and respected amongst the great nations of the world is our heritage. That is what keeps the world safe. Our grand army, if you haven't notices is just to freaking expensive to use to slap down every tin plated dictator who gets a bug up his ass.

How do you think the freaking UN got based in New York? You think they purchased that realistate?

True conservatives do not view education as a federal issue, rather as a states issue. One of the themes(early on) of contract with America was to disband the department of education. Most conservatives favor privatization.

"True Conservatives" then have never been in power in America. Also your True Conservatives must not be able to read because the Feds have been involved in funding the States ever since the civil war. The Federal Government over taxes the populace for more than a century and kicked money back to states for just as long. This allows the Federal government to withhold funding to states who don't toe the line. It's one thing that makes the American Federal government more powerful than any individual State government.

As for the department of education I don't particularly care for it. It's been pretty useless. But that's a far cry from unilaterally with holding funds from the states so they all have budgets in the red.

[Fred Jones]

Ghost,

I am not exactly sure what you mean. Do you mean that one person is using different posters to get across their message? Also, I changed to red. I didn't really notice I could do that until you pointed it out. Thanks.

[thew]

Hog Fever

I honestly didn't see how some of your responses had anything to do with what I wrote. Yes, some responses had facts but others were just rants. I can't argue out of your opinion and wouldn't try to. If the sky is purple in your world that's cool with me.

The sky is blue in my world there bunky. Always was always will be. If you don't have any valid points to refute my facts that's cool with me.. Just go away.. Stop wasting the electrons on your lame excuses...

Ghost of Nibbs McPimpin

Has anyone else noticed our influx of white screen named(as opposed to yellow or blue) plainly named, non-capitalized, non-formatting, endless ranters?

Is that an argument? You think I'm actually more than one poster? This is possible your most lame post. Even less intellectual than when you called me "scum bag"...

You can still eat me... Come with the facts or just stay home...

[Ghost of]

Originally posted by thew

Bunk. Conflict with Wolfowitz you mean. He's a first class grade A moron. James Baker used the UN to put together a coalition to remove Sadam from Kuwait. It was perhaps the greatest example of American leadership since the Korean war. The fact that Russia and China were with us for the first gulf war makes it possible the greatest example of world leadership. That would not have been possible without the UN.

Eisenhower, Reagan, Kissinger, and Shultz are amongh the conservatives who have used the UN to meet America's security goals. You think they wanted/want it dispanded? Since when did Wolfowitz think for the American right?

Hell the UN would not have been possible without superior American leadership. It was an American Idea and an American funded project after WWII. Neo Conservatives who think that merely being the strongest country in the world will keep us safe are idiots. Being the leader of the world who is trusted and respected amongst the great nations of the world is our heritage. That is what keeps the world safe. Our grand army, if you haven't notices is just to freaking expensive to use to slap down every tin plated dictator who gets a bug up his ass.

How do you think the freaking UN got based in New York? You think they purchased that realistate?

"True Conservatives" then have never been in power in America. Also your True Conservatives must not be able to read because the Feds have been involved in funding the States ever since the civil war. The Federal Government over taxes the populace for more than a century and kicked money back to states for just as long. This allows the Federal government to withhold funding to states who don't toe the line. It's one thing that makes the American Federal government more powerful than any individual State government.

As for the department of education I don't particularly care for it. It's been pretty useless. But that's a far cry from unilaterally with holding funds from the states so they all have budgets in the red.

First of all, when you quote someone, make sure you're quoting the right person. Lucky is the one you quoted but you attributed it to me. Edit that.

Secondly, your views on education don't remind me of many paleocons I ever heard of.

Thirdly, why the obsession with Wolfowitz, eh? Just come out and say JEW.

Fourth, only a complete idiot thinks that the UN today resembles what the UN was when it went to war in Korea. The entire COMPLEXION OF THE WORLD Changed as more countries embraced Communism, Third Worldism as the Cold War went on. When the US failed to preserve South Vietnam or Lon Nol's Cambodia, it suffered a massive prestige hit which corresponded to a loss of power and influence at the UN.

How the hell can you alienate countries that have been voting and screaming against you for decades?

As for NATO--NATO lost credibility with Kosovo. That was not a Bush operation.

I don't see you opening your mouth about that though. Care to make any comments?

You show very little understanding of the right, and even less of historical context of the UN.

[luckydevil]

Secondly, your views on education don't remind me of many paleocons I ever heard of.

Right....................I was wrong

[Ghost of]

Originally posted by Fred Jones

Ghost,

I not exactly sure what you mean. Do you mean that one person is using different posters to get across their message? Also, I changed to red. I didn't really notice I could do that until you pointed it out. Thanks.

No, not so much that it's one person, but that perhaps much like FedEx suffered from an influx of new people who rushed to register(Thus no creativity in their handles) and who basically were there to troll or disrupt or throw out a mountain of ranting for us to sift through.

[Ghost of]

Originally posted by thew

The sky is blue in my world there bunky. Always was always will be. If you don't have any valid points to refute my facts that's cool with me.. Just go away.. Stop wasting the electrons on your lame excuses...

Is that an argument? You think I'm actually more than one poster? This is possible your most lame post. Even less intellectual than when you called me "scum bag"...

You can still eat me... Come with the facts or just stay home...

What facts? Let me say that, it's not that I think you aren't using ANY facts. I'll give you credit there.

It's that your list was pretty much NOT a conservative's list, except for perhaps 2 items. Even though more might make it onto a larger list for the right, those 10? That was lame buddy.

Again, a real paleo type would be talking about immigraiton. A real paleo or libertarian would NOT be talking about the UN or NATO. True conservatives are always concerned about national sovereignty.

You also lack a knowledge of history to be discussing the UN as it was in 1950, as if it's the same today. The world is changed, get new parts for your head.

And a paleo who's for an overpowering, overreacing federal government, even down to the levels of education?

:laugh:

I'm not buying your act. I'm also not implying that you are the ones responsible for all the new posts. I'm saying you and the others have a similar MO, which makes me wonder if you aren't disruptors or didn't take advantage of some gap you feel existed here on this site.

The more I think of it, I wonder how the site turned around so quickly with people with similar styles.

Chomerics, you, Hooper, LS...and a few others. I don't know. Chomerics is not even a damn Redskin fan and he's not honest enough to be up front about his beliefs or why he changed from rooting for the Skins to rooting for the Patriots.

Come to think of it, chomerics and you both claim to be conservative yet talk a LOT about very left wing concerns like international credibility, the UN, israel-Palestine(Ok some paleos talk about that, but not in terms of us mediating the conflict), etc.

Sorry, your dogs won't hunt fellas.

I'm calling BS on your alleged paleo beliefs.

[Hog Fever]

Originally posted by thew

The sky is blue in my world there bunky. Always was always will be. If you don't have any valid points to refute my facts that's cool with me.. Just go away.. Stop wasting the electrons on your lame excuses...

You can still eat me... Come with the facts or just stay home...

Listen Sparky, I don't argue with fanatics or fools. "Eat me?" Grow up and show a little class.

All of my original points were valid and I stand by them. I couldn't respond to your rants beacuse they were just that, rants. Responding to them lends credibility to them and they don't deserve that. None of them spoke to my points at all. I'm still not sure what you were talking about in some of the responses or how they related to what I wote. I'm not wasting any more time on your posts or you.

You have been beaten down by several other posters who have used some of the same facts I did to shoot you down. There is no need for me to do the same, they did a great job. I'll stop wasting your electrons now

[thew]

Ghost of Nibbs McPimpin

Thirdly, why the obsession with Wolfowitz, eh? Just come out and say JEW.

Idiot... A true example of having nothing to add to the conversation... I just finished eating passover diner and some moron is calling me an anti-Semite.... You must be a very deep thinker.. Next time you can't defend yourself intellectually don't compound the embarassment by opening your mouth and displaying your personal failure.

Ghost of Nibbs McPimpin

Secondly, your views on education don't remind me of many paleocons I ever heard of.

I don't care how the dinosaurs vote..

Ghost of Nibbs McPimpin

When the US failed to preserve South Vietnam or Lon Nol's Cambodia, it suffered a massive prestige hit which corresponded to a loss of power and influence at the UN.

And yet all that happenned prior to Jim Baker using the UN to focus world opinion on forcing Sadam out of Iraq. The UN has been a cornerstone of American foreign policy for 50 years. It is certainly the center stage of world opinion. And it's located in New York. How does it help us to belittle the institutions where we are the major founders? Bush isn't a smart man. Wolfowitz is worse.

Ghost of Nibbs McPimpin

As for NATO--NATO lost credibility with Kosovo.

NATO represents the most successful democracies in the world other than America. They are also some of the strongest nations in the world other than America. Who exactly do you think is a valuable ally? Peru?

Ghost of Nibbs McPimpin

You show very little understanding of the right,

Not your Right..

and even less of historical context of the UN.

Peru?

[thew]

Ghost of Nibbs McPimpin

Chomerics is not even a damn Redskin fan and he's not honest enough to be up front about his beliefs or why he changed from rooting for the Skins to rooting for the Patriots.

Now your really being insulting!

[SKINtil8tin]

Originally posted by thew

Is that an argument? You think I'm actually more than one poster? This is possible your most lame post. Even less intellectual than when you called me "scum bag"...

You can still eat me... Come with the facts or just stay home...

:rotflmao: :rotflmao: :applause:

[chomerics]

Originally posted by Ghost of Nibbs McPimpin

What facts? Let me say that, it's not that I think you aren't using ANY facts. I'll give you credit there.

It's that your list was pretty much NOT a conservative's list, except for perhaps 2 items. Even though more might make it onto a larger list for the right, those 10? That was lame buddy.

Again, a real paleo type would be talking about immigraiton. A real paleo or libertarian would NOT be talking about the UN or NATO. True conservatives are always concerned about national sovereignty.

You also lack a knowledge of history to be discussing the UN as it was in 1950, as if it's the same today. The world is changed, get new parts for your head.

And a paleo who's for an overpowering, overreacing federal government, even down to the levels of education?

:laugh:

I'm not buying your act. I'm also not implying that you are the ones responsible for all the new posts. I'm saying you and the others have a similar MO, which makes me wonder if you aren't disruptors or didn't take advantage of some gap you feel existed here on this site.

The more I think of it, I wonder how the site turned around so quickly with people with similar styles.

Chomerics, you, Hooper, LS...and a few others. I don't know. Chomerics is not even a damn Redskin fan and he's not honest enough to be up front about his beliefs or why he changed from rooting for the Skins to rooting for the Patriots.

Come to think of it, chomerics and you both claim to be conservative yet talk a LOT about very left wing concerns like international credibility, the UN, israel-Palestine(Ok some paleos talk about that, but not in terms of us mediating the conflict), etc.

Sorry, your dogs won't hunt fellas.

I'm calling BS on your alleged paleo beliefs.

You've posted this on almost every thread, so I'm not going to explain myself to you any more, it's too tiresome. Take a look at my views above and tell me why/how that's not a conservative adgenda.

As for the Skins, until Snyder leaves, I won't root for them. I've been a Pats AND a Skins fan since 81', and I jumped ship when Snyder took over. I've never claimed anything else.

[Art]

Thew,

It's abundantly clear you don't know what a conservative or a Republican is at this point. After your embarrassing discussion with me in the thread about unemployment, I attempted to give you a break in this thread, supposing you might take the lesson learned that no matter what you think you know, I know a bit more, and you should try to copy me to be better here.

You've fallen well short of that.

I'm going to hold you to a standard of actual understanding of a topic from this point forward, however. In time, I've no doubt we can lift your level of learning as we did in the previous thread we spoke in.

[thew]

chomerics

As for the Skins, until Snyder leaves, I won't root for them.

What did Snyder do to leave you so cold. I know he's made a lot of mistakes, but he sure tries hard. Also he's sure spending a lot of money on his mistakes... I mean doesn't that tell you that his heart is in the right place?

Wouldn't you rather have a Dan Snyder who is trying hard, spending lots of money, and making mistakes rather than a Henry Ford or a McCaskey who don't spend anything on their teams rather they just sit back and collect the checks as the fans suffer... At least Snyder is entertaining in the offseason!!

Frankly I wouldn't say you don't like Snyder on this thread. I just said I didn't like Wolfowitz and somebody called me an anti semite.

[Art]

The educational process begins, Thew.

Originally posted by thew

Hateful is a strong word. I feel it's accurate though. I hate that conservatism will be linked in history with Bush who is not conservate. He's set us back decades.

I have issues with Bush's brand of conservatism. Reagan largely believed if the federal government was involved in something, then something was being done less well than if run by the private sector. Other than making war, Reagan didn't find a lot of use for the federal government. Bush, on the other hand, believes the federal government has a role. That goes against the grain of legitimate Republican or conservative belief. But, he's hardly set anything back decades.

Clearly conservative means different things to different folks. Some folks believe conservative means anti abortion. I am not one of those folks. Conservatives to me means fisscally responsible government, sound economic policies, protection of civil rights and strong on defense.

First, while being conservative can span any number of beliefs, and very few line up perfectly point by point with the Republican Party platform, no one is so wildly confused by what conservativism is that they'd pay any attention whatsoever to your list here that has almost no basis in any conservative thought.

Now, your view that fiscally responsible government, practicing sound economic policies while offering up protection of civil rights united with a strong defense has three of four parts largely correct. Civil rights has never been a legitimate conservative rallying point. It's generally a liberal issue, and fortunately the battle for civil rights for all races and all sexes was won by members of the left and those ideals have been adopted by members of the right.

You must absolutely adore how strong Bush is on defense and his wonderfully strong economic policies of giving individuals back more of their money. He is a little light on a fiscally responsible government though.

When Pat Buchannan stood up at the 1992 GOP convention and gave 10 reasons we are Republicans I only agreed with one. I'm not a homophobe what can I say. I also believe we need more rights not fewer rights..... I felt Pat's small tent politics were a disaster at the time. Ronald Reagan who addressed the crowd right After Pat said it best.. "Enough with the negatism we want to be the big tent party"..

I'm not a homophobe either. Yet, I support marriage as a legal union between a man and a woman, which I'm joined in believing by the vast majority of Americans, be they conservative or not. But, if you appreciate being the big-tent party, you must love Bush, who has passed more bipartisan legislation than any President in memory, and who has expanded government to include more of those in need. I don't like that as much.

Why would any American wish to disregard the Geneva convention? The American army declaired opennly they advocated adherance to it because they believed it put the presidence in place for American captives to likewise be given the status. They also believed not adhering to it would likewise have implications.....

You think abusing prisoners and the government holding folks outside the law is a conservative value?

How many of those folks have died? Conservatives like free press. We like the Constitution and the laws of the land. Only Radicals don't.

After you cite several passages of the Geneva Convention, I have to ask you, can you please cite the passage that defines what a Prisoner of War is. You seem to have avoided that passage. We don't have a single Prisoner of War of the sort you described in your initial post. We do have a number of battlefield combatants that are being held in accordance with treatment specified under the Geneva Convention. But they are not POWs.

We also have POWs caught in uniform in Iraq -- with Saddam among them -- who are being treated in accordance with the Geneva Convention. What you were asked to provide is the definition the Geneva Convention provides for POWs. Was that so hard?

Fortunately we are not abusing prisoners or holding a single person outside our law or any international law. But, please cite specific legal references to make this claim if you would.

[chomerics]

Originally posted by thew

What did Snyder do to leave you so cold. I know he's made a lot of mistakes, but he sure tries hard. Also he's sure spending a lot of money on his mistakes... I mean doesn't that tell you that his heart is in the right place?

Wouldn't you rather have a Dan Snyder who is trying hard, spending lots of money, and making mistakes rather than a Henry Ford or a McCaskey who don't spend anything on their teams rather they just sit back and collect the checks as the fans suffer... At least Snyder is entertaining in the offseason!!

Frankly I wouldn't say you don't like Snyder on this thread. I just said I didn't like Wolfowitz and somebody called me an anti semite.

Yea, I know I'll get bashed for not liking Snyder, but I think this guy is a goon.

A post on KFFL by me about Snyder. .

I agree, but he's (Snyder) made some of the most bonheaded moves the NFL has ever seen. They're in cap hell over the next 2 years, because of his "wanting to win." He's had 5 coaches and 8 starting QB's since 2000. He benched Brad Johnson for Jeff George. He forced Schottenheimer out after a "successful" 8-8 season to bring in Dopey. The contracts to Sanders, Wilkenson, B. Smith, Samuels, Arrington and others were all mistakes. They're loosing Bailey and next will be Samuels because of his poor management.

Didn't it take two years with $30mil of dead money on the books to get rid signings like Deion? I figured he'd learn his lesson, but he's gone out and done it again.

Snyder has also screwed his fans over by charging them to watch the Skins at training camp. He uses the fact that he has a huge fanbase in DC/Maryland/No. Va. so he charges and does whatever he wants. He has also been accused of tampering three times in the past year, as well a screwing Arrington by turning in a different contract to the NFL.

Snyder is the GM, yet he doesn't have any football experience, so until he surrounds himself with great football minds, he will continue to struggle in the quagmire of mediocraty. Gibbs was a good start, but Joe will get fed up with his antics before long too, espically when he starts telling Gibbs who to play at QB.

Oh, and BTW, it is causing me the utmost turmoil not to root for Joe, he's by far my favorite coach, even over Belichick.

Originally posted by thew

Frankly I wouldn't say you don't like Snyder on this thread. I just said I didn't like Wolfowitz and somebody called me an anti semite.

:laugh:

[Art]

Chomerics,

Forbid this become a football thread or anything, but you don't have your facts precisely correct. Snyder is the owner, he never benched any QB, much less Johnson for George. He never forced Schottenheimer out. He requested front office changes to allow more input in to the decision making process, but was going to allow Marty to keep full control. Now, he WOULD have forced Marty out had Marty not said no then and there on the grounds of Jimmy Raye, but it never got that far.

And, as an initial Marty supporter, I knew he was done after Week 5. Snyder didn't give any contract to Wilkinson, that was Cooke. Snyder did give a contract to Samuels and Arrington who were slotted and forced to make so much money. No way around that.

Bruce Smith played four years here and hardly was a contractual mistake. Sanders, of course, was. Deion's total signing bonus was $8 million. That's the total amount that counted as dead money if we cut him before he played a down. He played one year. His total dead money was something under $7 million.

Snyder did charge fans at camp, because he HAD to. The county didn't want camp there so they told Snyder he had to limit the people using the road and attending camp. The county forced Snyder to pay for possible road damage for holding camp. Charging a nominal admission to camp was a way to keep track of who was coming in and get the country the money it extorted.

And, let's not forget, the charge was far less expensive than actually attending camp in Frostburg where it cost a couple tanks of gas and hotel rooms. Snyder did mess up by making that camp a marketing point. A fact he cleared up.

Snyder has never been proven to tamper, but, even if he did, good. We want him tampering to help the team if the league can't stick him. This is a positive trait. Remember when Marcus Washington signed and he said the Skins called him at 11:45. Gibbs broke in laughing, "No, no, it was 12:01." Tamper away.

Just keep getting the guys we want.

Snyder's prices are middle of the road for general admission. And Snyder has put in tens of millions worth of stadium, road and parking improvements so I'm surprised he doesn't charge more, especially with all the money he puts into the team.

Snyder is the owner and has never been the GM. Snyder makes no personal decisions that aren't asked of him when his football people in the front office and coaching staff can't agree. Exactly the same foundation Jack Kent Cooke worked under. EXACTLY.

Much like your politics, you seem to have come to a conclusion based on fiction rather than reason. Hope having a little reality thrown in helps you out.

[panel]

My Point of Veiw

1. Failed to address the country’s failing public education system.

I graduated from a public school in 2002, didn't know it was failing, schools seem ok to me, unless you want them to be a good as privet schools, but that can't happen.

2. Failed to reform, restructure and cut the American Military which spends more than the next 17 greatest military powers combined most of whom are our allies. Bush increased their budget.

We are in a war, this is war time, we better be spending some $ for the troups to have some stuff

3. Personally decided to grow the federal budget by hundreds of billions of dollars to fight an old man who lives in a cave and who attacked us on a budget of less than 20k.

Why down play Saddam, he was the second most dangorous person in the world. I'm glad he is out. That wasn't a waste. That was smart, bush gets slammed for not acting pre-attack on information about 9/11, and gets slammed for acting pre-attack in Iraq, some people just want to slam him.

4. Will be the first President since Herbert Hoover to complete his first term in office with a net lose of jobs.. ( currently down millions of jobs with 5 months to go ).

It isn't always the Presidents fault if companies fire people, it is part of the business cycle, if compainies have to fire guys because of government pressure from bad pollicies then you can blam the Prez, that may be the case, I don't know, but business cycle make more sence from what I have seen.

5. Has grown the federal government by hundreds of thousands of bureaucratic jobs.

Yep, that sucks

6. Alienated and devalued the two standing cornerstones of America’s foreign policy for the last five decades. The United Nations (which we founded) and NATO.

Who cares if we allianate them, they are spinless groups that fold under pressure, and do what is politically what is in there favor, not what is right.

7. Failed to make any meaningful contribution to the Israeli Palestinian conflict. It’s exploded with thousands of deaths per year under President Bush. Last year without any deaths due to terrorism was 1999 the year before Bush took office. Now both sides loose folks every weekend… Direct result of Bush’s hands off policy all the while he is arming Israel.

Lets be honest, that crap has always been going on, and it couldn't be fixed by ANY U.S. president. No one can control that crap, blaming some one for not stopping that juck is very un-fair.

8. Hurt the governments credibility domestically by deliberately blurring the line between 911 an the invasion of Iraq.

Not a big deal at all. It isn't like Saddam cried for us, or like he cared that Alqada was in his country, if fact he incuraged that crap, and any trash against americans

9. Advocated the loss of civil liberties (Patriot Act, Patriot Act II) and now even the first amendment to fight terrorism even though none of these powers or sacrifices by the American people would have stopped 911.

Yep, this sucks, freedom is more immportant than saftey, if it wasn't, people wouldn't be willing to die for this country.

10. Spent and is advocating spending a trillion dollars on an already out of date Star Wars defense plan which only encourages our enemies to build bigger faster weapons.

The $ seem way over the top, but it collapsed the USSR, and it is a DEFENSE system, why sould other countys care if we can shoot down their nukes if they shoot at us? If they are going to get mad at us for that, then screw em!

11. Cut taxes in every year of his administration even while running up record deficits and in time of war. First time taxes have ever been cut in a time of war. Ballooning the federal deficit and federal dept rolling back all the economic gains and fiscal restraint achieved during the 90’s. Cutting taxis is easy. Cutting spending is what makes you conservative.

Cutting taxes is good, but only half of the tax cuts helped incurage production. He could have formaated the tax cuts better, and I can understand spending more for THIS term concidering the crap that went down, but he STILL dropped to much $$, The overspending sucks.

12. Held more than 200 POW’s / enemy combatants incommunicado for years now with no charges, evidence, judicial oversite, or Geneva convention rights, including three boys ages 11, 12, 13 (when captured) who were recently released.

Held four Brits for two years without any evidence of wrong doing who were recently released and who will not and can not be charged in Britain because there is no evidence against them. At least one was a relief worker.

I don't know too much about this, being held with out evedance sucks, and is really un american, But he would hve been trashed if he let go of anyone who turned around and blew stuff up, so I can understand holding them for a little while, but he held them too long, you got to check up on these things fast if you are holding people.

[panel]

Originally posted by chomerics

You've posted this on almost every thread, so I'm not going to explain myself to you any more, it's too tiresome. Take a look at my views above and tell me why/how that's not a conservative adgenda.

As for the Skins, until Snyder leaves, I won't root for them. I've been a Pats AND a Skins fan since 81', and I jumped ship when Snyder took over. I've never claimed anything else.

Yea right, if the skins do good and make it to the playoffs, you'll be right back on the bangwagon and brag to all your friends how you have been a skins fan since 1981.

just like I'm sure you did when the Pats won.

You were probibly a Ravens fan for a year too.

[thew]

Art

The educational process begins, Thew.

Bring it!!

Bush, on the other hand, believes the federal government has a role. That goes against the grain of legitimate Republican or conservative belief. But, he's hardly set anything back decades.

What a ringing endorsement of Bush there Art. If you don't value our NATO allies and you don't care about America's place in the UN, and you don't mind America running a 500 billion dollar trade deficite, and you don't mind that he's lost 1 out of 7 manufacturing jobs in the country, and you overlook that he's lost 3 million jobs while Clinton created 11 million jobs in his first term in office. If you don't mind him turning a 200 billion dollar revenue surplus into a 200 billion dollar deficite. If you don't care that he hasn't addressed any of his stated goals entering office. If you don't mind that he's spent 200 billion dollars to answer an attack which at most cost about 15k. If you don't mind all these things then you have a very good point.

Civil rights has never been a legitimate conservative rallying point. It's generally a liberal issue,

Your brand of Republicanism perhaps art. I'll explain your views to Charlton Heston at my next NRA meeting about how Republican's care less about civil rights than Democrates. I'm sure he'll bring it up with Ronald Reagan who did more than any other president to strengthen our right to bare arms. I guess they'll have to rewrite that "smaller less obtrusive government" to larger more instrusive government to make it jib with your new Republican platform.

You must absolutely adore how strong Bush is on defense and his wonderfully strong economic policies of giving individuals back more of their money. He is a little light on a fiscally responsible government though.

I don't. Neither did Bush. Bush brought Rumsfeild back from moth balls to reform the pentigon. No way outspending the next 17 greatest world powers combined makes fiscal sense. Conservative Republicans hate waste. Pentigon is full of it. The attack dogs they brought in to reform the place went crazy and there was no strong arm like Jim Baker to put some sanity into the disussion.

wonderfully strong economic policies of giving individuals back more of their money.

Giving folks back there money is great. But not if you increase spending by hundreds of billions of dollars while doing it. Cuting taxes, increasing spending and going to war all at the same time is a good example of an administration with no values, no fiscal responsibility, and no self control..... How can any conservative defend it?

you must love Bush, who has passed more bipartisan legislation than any President in memory, and who has expanded government to include more of those in need.

Last time I checked the Republican's controlled both the house and senate. When he didn't directly control both of the chambers he was only off by a single vote.. And what does he do for his legacy.. Iraq, grow government, cut taxes, increase spending, loose jobs, and insult our allies. He allows his aids to opennly moch the UN and then he goes back to them and asks for dept forgiveness, troops, and services. He's horrible.

Bush has control that other Republicans could only dream of. And what does he do... Nothing I agree with.. Bi Partisan.. please...

can you please cite the passage that defines what a Prisoner of War is. You seem to have avoided that passage.

Go back and re-read what I quoted then. First I quoted who the geneva convention applies to and then I posted the definition of a POW. Britain is treating their prisoners as POW's because they signed the Geneva Convention. Only Bush and America isn't. It's horrable....

Once again here is the definition....

http://www.aiipowmia.com/legis/geneva1950.html

Article 4

A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:

1. Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.

2. Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:

What you were asked to provide is the definition the Geneva Convention provides for POWs. Was that so hard?

I did it here I did it there.. you missed it.

See article 4 of the link..

Fortunately we are not abusing prisoners or holding a single person outside our law or any international law. But, please cite specific legal references to make this claim if you would.

Several of our "prisoners" have died due to their treatment. They weren't beaten that we know of but they are deprived of sleep and made to stand and sit in uncomfortable leading to the deaths due to DVT's....

Holding these folks without trial, lawyers or charges for years certainly is against American law. The administrations claim that they are not on American soil so they aren't subject to American law is a joke. They are directly under the control of the American country. If they are soldiers then they are POW's and if they aren't then they are criminals and subject to American law.

Why the hell do you think all the American's were taken out of Getmo?

Fortunately we are not abusing prisoners or holding a single person outside our law or any international law.

No press, no lawyers, no rights, no charges, no evidence, no limits.. How exactly could that ever be considered legal. Did you know they just released 13,14, and a 15 year old boy. They held them for two years so they were 11, 12, and 13 when we grabbed them. I thought only N Korea grabed little kids off the street and held them for years without trials or evidence without telling their parrents that they are alive or dead or even whether we have them or not... Didn't know that was a conservative value..

Art... I don't agree with you, but at least you've pointed out specific issues to discuss. The others blanket labels without any refference to anything don't add to the debate at all..

[chomerics]

Originally posted by panel

Yea right, if the skins do good and make it to the playoffs, you'll be right back on the bangwagon and brag to all your friends how you have been a skins fan since 1981.

just like I'm sure you did when the Pats won.

You were probibly a Ravens fan for a year too.

What part don't you understand, you can put your spin on it any way you want, I've told you this numerous times, yet you still make posts like this crap. I've been a Pats fan my whole life and a Skins fan because I LIVED in DC in the 80's when I grew up.

As for the Skins, I will not root for them as long as Snyder is there, what part of that do you not understand?

Come up with something else to attack me on, because this constant dribble is becoming quite boring :yawnee:

[thew]

didn't know it was failing, schools seem ok to me, unless you want them to be a good as privet schools, but that can't happen.

America's elementary and high schools are the worse in the industrial world. They don't even match up well against some third world countries. Our saving grace is that we have an excellent college system. Problem is you almost have to go to college to compete on the global market with the sorry state of our public schools...

We are in a war, this is war time, we better be spending some $ for the troups to have some stuff

We were spending more on our armed forces than the next 17 most powerful countries before we went to war. We have been doing so ever since the USSR died. It's a waste.

Why down play Saddam, he was the second most dangorous person in the world.

Sadam wasn't active in terrorim on the world stage for almost a decade before we attacked him. We spent hundreds of billions to defeet him and now hundreds of billions to rebuild the country which we destroyed and he didn't have dick to do with 911. It was just a big shell game.

Who cares if we allianate them, they are spinless groups that fold under pressure, and do what is politically what is in there favor, not what is right.

that's one way to look at it. Another is that they told bush he didn'thave any evidence that Iraq was building WMD and now the world knows they were right and Bush was wrong... And.. AAANNNDDd... We're paying for the entire fiasco, where as our allies picked up 80% of our expenses in the first gulf war..

Lets be honest, that crap has always been going on, and it couldn't be fixed by ANY U.S. president. No one can control that crap, blaming some one for not stopping that juck is very un-fair.

1999 the year before Bush took office was the last year when nobody was lost in Israel due to terrorism. Clinton's hands on strategy didn't give us a lasting peace but it gave us talks, hope for peace, and no killings. Bush's hands off policy has been a disaster.

Not a big deal at all. It isn't like Saddam cried for us, or like he cared that Alqada

The problem is when the government isn't truthful with the public the public doesn't support the government when needs arrise. It's very likely that we will need to go to war in the not to distant future for a real national interest. The government lieing to us about Iraq hurts it's credibility when the war will really be necessary... 30 dead americans in Iraq in the last two days.. holly crap!!

I don't know too much about this, being held with out evedance sucks, and is really un american, But he would hve been trashed if he let go of anyone who turned around and blew stuff up, so I can understand holding them for a little while, but he held them too long, you got to check up on these things fast if you are holding people.

Yeah but they ain't checking. They're releasing the folks who will become a political embarasment like the little kids (11, 12, 13 year old when captured) after two years and the Brits ( one relief worker ). The rest won't get out until we don't know when.. maybe never?

It's auful... that's not American and it's certainly not conservative...

[chomerics]

Originally posted by Art

Chomerics,

Forbid this become a football thread or anything, but you don't have your facts precisely correct. Snyder is the owner, he never benched any QB, much less Johnson for George. He never forced Schottenheimer out. He requested front office changes to allow more input in to the decision making process, but was going to allow Marty to keep full control. Now, he WOULD have forced Marty out had Marty not said no then and there on the grounds of Jimmy Raye, but it never got that far.

And, as an initial Marty supporter, I knew he was done after Week 5. Snyder didn't give any contract to Wilkinson, that was Cooke. Snyder did give a contract to Samuels and Arrington who were slotted and forced to make so much money. No way around that.

Bruce Smith played four years here and hardly was a contractual mistake. Sanders, of course, was. Deion's total signing bonus was $8 million. That's the total amount that counted as dead money if we cut him before he played a down. He played one year. His total dead money was something under $7 million.

Snyder did charge fans at camp, because he HAD to. The county didn't want camp there so they told Snyder he had to limit the people using the road and attending camp. The county forced Snyder to pay for possible road damage for holding camp. Charging a nominal admission to camp was a way to keep track of who was coming in and get the country the money it extorted.

And, let's not forget, the charge was far less expensive than actually attending camp in Frostburg where it cost a couple tanks of gas and hotel rooms. Snyder did mess up by making that camp a marketing point. A fact he cleared up.

Snyder has never been proven to tamper, but, even if he did, good. We want him tampering to help the team if the league can't stick him. This is a positive trait. Remember when Marcus Washington signed and he said the Skins called him at 11:45. Gibbs broke in laughing, "No, no, it was 12:01." Tamper away.

Just keep getting the guys we want.

Snyder's prices are middle of the road for general admission. And Snyder has put in tens of millions worth of stadium, road and parking improvements so I'm surprised he doesn't charge more, especially with all the money he puts into the team.

Snyder is the owner and has never been the GM. Snyder makes no personal decisions that aren't asked of him when his football people in the front office and coaching staff can't agree. Exactly the same foundation Jack Kent Cooke worked under. EXACTLY.

Much like your politics, you seem to have come to a conclusion based on fiction rather than reason. Hope having a little reality thrown in helps you out.

Shottenheimer was taking over from the Turner/Robiskie regime when things went belly up. Snyder fired Norv, then hired Terry to take over a failed season.

As for Marty's first season, they started out 0-5 by getting pelted by double digit losses in their first four games. He took a 0-5 team and turned them into a .500 team in HIS FIRST YEAR!!! I thought it was a pretty good accomplishment, espically considering how they started the season. By the way, look at Gibbs' first season as a head coach.

So what does Snyder do? He forces Marty out because he doesn't want Marty to have GM powers. Meanwhile, Shottenheimer was working with $15 million less dollars because of the Deion cut and a few other cap charges. For him to finish 8-8 was quite remarkable.

You say he was done when he started 0-5??? Are you serious? So when was Spurrier done, when he lost his first or second game two years ago?

I also remember it being Snyder who wanted to make a big splash in his first year as an owner when he went out and signed all the old, overpriced talent.

When you say

"He never forced Schottenheimer out. He requested front office changes to allow more input in to the decision making process, but was going to allow Marty to keep full control. Now, he WOULD have forced Marty out had Marty not said no then and there on the grounds of Jimmy Raye, but it never got that far."

That infers to me GM duties, without the title. He was forcing Marty out, as you mention, but Marty just quit first.

My bad on Wilkinson, I thought he was signed under Snyder, but then again, I think he was signed the same year as Stubblefield.

As for the ticket prices, here's a link from 2003 in which the Skins had the SECOND HIGHEST ticket price in the NFL. I don't know where you got your stats from showing the Skins are middle of the road.

http://www.teammarketing.com/fci.cfm?page=fci_nfl_03.cfm

In fact, I do remember Snyder taking George over Johnson. Turner was pissed because Snyder was supposed to extend Johnson's contract, but instead he signed George. Well, there was a lot of flack betweenm Norv and Danny boy over that one, so Norv gets fired mid season with an 7-6 record. If you think the whole Johnson/George thing had nothing to do with it, you are naieve.

Snyder is the owner and has never been the GM. Snyder makes no personal decisions that aren't asked of him when his football people in the front office and coaching staff can't agree.

Much like your politics, you seem to have come to a conclusion based on fiction rather than reason. Hope having a little reality thrown in helps you out.

As far as Snyder making NO personell decisions, look at the Johnson/George debockle and tell me Snyder didn't have a say in his playing, starting and the subsequent release of Johnson and the firing of Turner.

Take a look at the Skins 2006 cap, something like $55mil with 10 players, and this is without any FA signings. Again, Snyder has mortgaged the future to try to win in the moment. I just hope Gibbs knows what he got himself into with this tool.

Again, I call them as see them. As far as my politics based on fiction, bring it out instead of insinuating I'm using fiction. I give plenty of sources. It's the typical neocon tactics. Call somebody a fraud long enough and they'll believe them. Meanwhile post fradulent statistics yourself.

Saddam Hussen, WMD, Osama Bin Laden, WMD Osama Bin Laden, Saddam Hussen, WMD, Bin Laden, Al Qaeda, noo kue lar weapons, uranium from Africa, Osamma Bin Laden, Saddam Hussen.

No, out president never insinuated there was a link between 9-11 and Saddam Hussen to go to war, he just used the words in the same sentence enough times to where the American public believed him.