Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Jawmoke, you can go back to your Ron Paul board
where your ears can be tickled with nonsensical, illogical garbage.
I'm out of here for a while. Thanks for banning me. I wear that medal with pride.
I would expect a coward to blather about an individual that can't refute it due to being banned. LOL!
they've taken a knife to a gun fight...
A knife to defend what? Their intolerant religion that will kill you if you don't convert?
I don't believe you think they are really barbarians. I believe the jury is still out in your mind whether the USA or the terrorists are the barbarians.
I will try to explain it to you... put your thinking cap on and consider it for a second before you answer.... think man
There is no excuse under the sun for suicide attacks, it's barbaric. Got it?
What I meant by they don't have a military is this;
their options for revenge are quite limited.
they've taken a knife to a gun fight...
I assume that you blame America for every innocent killed in Iraq, correct?
Do the terrorists use smart bombs or do they blow themselves up in a crowded market place full of innocents. Is America responsible for this over the last 20-40 years?
I don't condone abortion.
>>But..they don't have a military<<<
What is that? An excuse for their mentality of suicide bombing? You use that statement as to blame America for suicide bombing. That is a sign of a mental disorder.
I guess you should expect the terrorists to follow the Geneva Convention too? Why aren't you demanding that? LOL!
so, you are saying that you condone barbaric acts?
Again.. that is so false as to be absurd.. I do NOT exhonerate barbaric actions by anyone... can you read this...
Have I not now answered this question for all time?
So, you say the USA is the barbarian??
Straight from your keyboard! You put the USA on the same level as the terrorists. Do us all a favor, MOVE TO ARABIA and enjoy your forced conversion to Islam! You activists aren't playing with a full deck.
Do you have any problems with abortionists?
Barbaric acts are murder of innocent people... and whoever does that is a barbarian... right now that looks like everyone
Then why do you seek to exhonerate the actions
of the terrorists by excusing them because they don't have a damned military? You're FOS and couldn't think in a straight line if your Driver's license depended on it.
That's a ridiculous question.. of course I a NOT on the side of terrorists... I stand with my countrymen... the honorable ones at least
That is not true what you are saying about Ron Paul
WHO THE HELL IS THE BARBARIANS, JAWMOKE? US or THEM?
You don't want to employ civility as a factor in this conversation because you can't relate this war into its 21st century context. Peace doesn't come free.
Now go sputter your garbage on your Ron Paul board and blame America!
how about this then.. if you are under fire... it doesn't appear that the enemy is going to stop till you are dead...
will you shoot back then?
ARE YOU ON THE SIDE OF TERRORISTS
or the land in which you are free to go to the church of your choice?
WHICH IS IT, JAWMOKE? It's quite apparent since you and your leader (Ron Paul) tend to blame America and side with the barbarians.
every time I try to ask you a simple question, you come back with a lot baloney and proceed to tell me what I believe which is btw invariably wrong...
I mean it's so far out in left field that I can't even bring myself to respond... far from what I think..
again...
if you are being shot at will you shoot back?
It's not a yes or no question..
Again why aren't we engaging in suicide bombs? Apparently, you don't believe in that principle, do you? If I held up a bank and I acted like a barbarian, would it be likely that I would be shot at? YES. Would I shoot back? Yes, if I were a barbarian.
If I was being civil and I was being shot at, would I shoot back? YES.
So, my questions to you are, WHO THE HELL IS BEING CIVIL and WHO THE HELL IS THE BARBARIANS?
ARE YOU ON THE SIDE OF THE TERRORISTS OR THE LAND OF THE FREE?
No consequence for the terrorists, huh, Jawmoke...
If they suicide bomb, they're given a free pass because they don't have a military. What a crock of LEFTIST POO... Let's just give the intolerant people a nuke to settle the score? It's amazing how you activist nutjobs cater to the barbarians.
I have plenty of logic while you live a life in your posterior.
Your kind did not exist pre 1960s and the hippie era. We would all be speaking German or going to the Church of England if it were up to your kind.
once again.. a simple question...
if you are shot at... will you shoot back?
yes or no?
no way there is ANY logic to your words... you are trying to say there are no consequences for actions... you won't answer a simple question.. a very very simple question... you just come back with off the wall bs.....
be a man why don't you
No way would I vote for Ron Paul
Check out the comments from the Ron Paul CULT
http://www.investorshub.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=20461232
Since the terrorists don't have nukes, maybe we should just give them nukes, eh activist nuts? LOL.. I got banned on the activist troll Ron Paul board. They didn't want to hear sound reasoning. They seem to just want to blame America and exhonerate the terrorists. "But..but..they don't have a military...."
No way in hell would I be in this cult that feeds on bumpersticker slogans, much like liberals.
I know what the plan is.
I know why they do it.
How about you?
It just proves my point at how
low that you activists go in a quest to promote your loon-goon, blame-America first, Dishonorable Ron Paul.
Bombarding internet polls isn't enough, is it?
So, you didn't read.
You get confused with facts, don't you? If it's not CFR, it's skull and bones, and masonry.
Any truth to this?
#msg-20418707
All I need to know is he's a card carrying CFR member.
That pretty much tells me ALL I need to know about him.
He'd sell you out, friend.
Did you read the story? I didn't think so...
Random thoughts
By Thomas Sowell
Tuesday, May 1, 2007
Random thoughts on the passing scene:
Sometimes it seems as if everybody is trying to rip off his own little piece of America, until we are all torn apart.
A reader writes: "Liberals hold us individually responsible for nothing but collectively responsible for everything."
The last time I saw a Republican express outrage was 1991, when Clarence Thomas told the Senators what he thought of the smear tactics used against him. Before that, it was Ronald Reagan saying, "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!" Before that, it was probably Teddy Roosevelt.
Too many people in positions of responsibility act as if these are just positions of opportunity -- for themselves. The ones who simply steal money probably do less harm than teachers who propagandize their students, media who slant the news or politicians who sell out their country's interests in order to get re-elected.
A reader wrote: "Have you ever noticed that opinion polls ask the opinions of people who have no expertise in the subject on which they are being polled and publish these opinions as if they were gospel truth instead of group ignorance?"
Judging by the polls, Republican voters' memories do not seem to be as short as Senator John McCain may have thought. Judging by press coverage, the media's memory does not seem to have been as long as he may have thought when he played to that gallery.
A sign of the times: A full-page ad for an Alaska cruise in the left-wing New York Review of Books says, "See Alaska's Glaciers Before They're Gone!" Shipmates listed include Ralph Nader and the editor of The Nation magazine.
The people who are scariest to me are the people who don't even know enough to realize how little they know.
A reader sent the following message, quoting his nephew: "Calling an illegal alien an 'undocumented worker' is like calling a drug dealer an 'unlicensed pharmacist.'"
Some of the biggest cases of mistaken identity are among intellectuals who have trouble remembering that they are not God.
Our education system, our media, and our intelligentsia have all been unrelentingly undermining the values, the traditions, and the unity of this country for generations and, at the same time, portraying as "understandable" all kinds of deviance, from prostitution to drugs to riots.
The home run records that made Babe Ruth famous have been broken but one of his records will probably never be broken -- pitching the longest shutout in World Series history, 14 innings. Few pitchers go even 9 innings these days.
"Global warming" seems to be joining "diversity," "gun control," "open space" and a growing list of other subjects where rational discussion has become impossible -- and where you are considered a bad person even for wanting to discuss it rationally.
Is your employer poorer by the amount of money he pays you? Probably not, or you would never have been hired. Why then should we assume that a corporation or its customers are poorer by the amount paid to its chief executive officer?
A review of one of the many environmentalist books says that even if you can't do all you would like toward "living green," you can at least "congratulate yourself on taking small steps to improve the planet." That is what environmentalism -- and much else on the political left's agenda -- is really all about, self congratulation.
Just watching Suze Orman for a few moments while channel surfing is enough to make me feel exhausted.
When I see the worsening degeneracy in our politicians, our media, our educators, and our intelligentsia, I can't help wondering if the day may yet come when the only thing that can save this country is a military coup.
In his book "Income and Wealth," economist Alan Reynolds says that people often form "strong opinions" based on "weak statistics." Unfortunately, that is also true of a wide range of other issues, from "global warming" to "gender bias."
I am so old that I can remember a Democrat, at his inauguration as President, say of our enemies: "We dare not tempt them with weakness."
Thomas Sowell is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institute and author of Basic Economics: A Citizen's Guide to the Economy.
http://www.townhall.com/Common/Print.aspx
you could say the same for the kennedy's
Prescott Bush Awards dinner?
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Bald sind Sie sprechen Deutsches außerdem, mein sozialistisches wenig.
OHHHH MMMYYYY GODDDDD!!!!
Well your "friend" is all for letting them stay.
I got that right from the horse's mouth.
Now what?
My "fit" over Bush was his criticism
of the conservative base, which wants action not another bill.
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=3213875
Maybe you should research Fred Thompson's stance on securing the border before you spout tripe, as usual. :)) We have money for the fence, and nothing is being done! Bush's credibility is poor on illegal immigration. He has done virtually nothing! "W" doesn't need another bill! He needs to enforce the law and secure the border, not reward bad behavior!
You may have him. Ask about Freddie's views on Immigration...
That may give you a clue as to his CFR status.
What I will now do is counter you point by point.
I have taken up the cause.
I don't have a problem with many of Freddie's positions per se, but...
Freddy wants to sell you out on the Mexican issue.
Didn't you just have a caniption fit over Bush about that last week?
This coming from an owner of surrender?
Ron Paul is an isolationist and would take America back to the stone age. He has no clue in his little activist world. Ron Paul's foreign relations, as it would appear, would be zilch. I'll take Thompson.
you and me both!
There is a hidden story one becomes privy to at some point and at some level.
High level government officials know exactly what is coming.
I happen to be on the opposite side of them.
Ron Paul none that I have found... hidden either . other than is is a dr. fred CFR into a bunch of cover ups... just what we need another actor as prezzzzzz.
SURE CHANGED HIS TUNE SINCE WATERGATE DAYS...
thats what happens when they join those elite clubs
In July of 1973, Fred Thompson, then a Republican attorney for the Senate Watergate committee, (and now a Republican senator from Tennessee), called on a surprise witness, Alexander Butterfield. Butterfield was a former aide to White House chief of staff H.R. Haldeman.
The exchange:
Thompson: "Mr. Butterfield, are you aware of the installation of any listening devices in the Oval Office of the President?"
Butterfield: "I was aware of listening devices, yes sir."
http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/01/21/watergate.tapes/index.html
Who, darlin?
Freddy's a bona fide CFR member.
as far as my research he is not a member of any secret organization that wants to take down the USA and take us into the NAU and world government.
Razor ol pal! Looks like your boy would act to dissolve the United States of America.
He's a member of the CFR, a organization that seeks to eliminate national borders and create world government united under a set of laws that BESTOW right on it's citizenry and can also take them away on a whim, whether you like it, or not.
You are a closet Socialist and don't even know it.
Fred Thompson Vs. Ron Paul
Friday, June 01, 2007 - FreeMarketNews.com
Is it true that Fred Dalton Thompson, former republican senator from Tennessee and current actor is seen by GOP leaders as a “Ron Paul” vote killer? If so, the rhetoric may not match the facts, political observers say.
Thompson has indicated he will likely join the race for the GOP nomination for president in June. And in doing so, he will bring a perspective that he and his followers describe as “small government conservative and federalist” – much like Ron Paul’s.
Ron Paul (R-Tex), congressman and republican candidate for president has been seen by Internet observers as doing well both in debates and in terms of public sentiment. His message is one of minimalist government, low taxes and a non-aggressive military policy.
But Thompson’s record gives rise to questions about his small government and “federalist” credentials. Leaving aside the argument as to whether “federalist” is a “synonym” for small government, Thompson’s credentials as such still seem questionable, according to some observers of both campaigns. Because Thompson has spent much of his life as a public figure, his voting record is easily available at Wikepedia.com and from other ‘Net sources.
While in congress, Thompson, reportedly a good friend of Senator John McCain, (R-AZ) supported two obviously anti-free market bills: the McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform act and the Shays-Meehan bill restricting issue ads. He is also a member of Council on Foreign Relations, a main think-tank behind the idea of a North American Union that would eventually dissolve borders between Mexico, Canada and the United States to create one big super-nation. Thompson also seems to believe in a robust military presence worldwide and apparently advocates continued US military involvement in Iraq.
Ron Paul’s “small government” credentials extend beyond rhetoric, and even the many editorials and position papers he has authored. Ron Paul has consistently voted a “constitutionalist” line in congress, and thus his actions match his sentiments. He is neither a member of the Council on Foreign Relations, nor any other Washington think tank that advocates similar views.
YW... btw, I see a a couple of familiar names here.
Thanks for the links Abracky, I have used three of them for posts over on the NOLIB board.
In Gratitude,
Gary
For the Record:
http://www.insightmag.com/Media/MediaManager/wmd_0.htm
Iran's connection to the Taliban?
Guest: ABC News chief investigative correspondent Brian Ross
The Factor was next joined by ABC investigative journalist Brian Ross, who reported that Iran is shipping arms to Taliban terrorists in Afghanistan. "Two convoys from Iran," Ross asserted, "were caught crossing the border from Iran into Afghanistan. In both cases, there were grenade launchers, mortars, ammunition, and explosives. On top of that, they've discovered some deadly roadside bombs." The Factor questioned why the Bush administration isn't trumpeting this revelation. "Why isn't the government holding a massive press conference saying Iran is killing our people? I'm disappointed in the Bush administration because if you don't get the truth out to the American people that we have an enemy in Iran that is killing our soldiers, how are the American people going to make responsible voting decisions?"
News Link: Iran caught aiding Taliban
Libs trying to bury scientific studies on Capital Punishment
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070611/ap_on_re_us/death_penalty_deterrence_4;_ylt=AiZsLw0mSaU9sYaCymxe...
Poll: Thompson Shakes Up GOP Race
Jun 9 12:23 PM US/Eastern
By ALAN FRAM and TREVOR TOMPSON
Associated Press Writers
WASHINGTON (AP) - Fred Thompson's expected entry into the tight Republican presidential race is drawing crucial strength from conservatives and older men, vaulting him into the thick of the nomination fight, an Associated Press-Ipsos poll says.
The survey shows the top Democratic contender, Hillary Rodham Clinton, has twice the support from women as her nearest rival, Barack Obama, but dwindling strength among men. Her margin over the Illinois senator has eroded slightly since the last AP-Ipsos poll, in March.
Thompson, who has sandwiched an acting career around a largely anonymous eight years as Tennessee senator, has not formally entered the race. But he already has impressed many people. One in four of his supporters cites his strong character, more than any other GOP candidate.
"He can be kind of Reaganesque in his engaging with people," said Ronald Coppinger, 47, a carpenter from Indianapolis, describing a plainspoken style like the late President Reagan's. "I think that's important."
That has helped place Thompson firmly in the top tier among GOP contenders in the AP-Ipsos poll released Saturday. It shows former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani with 27 percent; Sen. John McCain, R- Ariz., at 19 percent; Thompson essentially even with McCain at 17 percent; and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney at 10 percent.
"It shows America wants somebody with Fred's style, Fred's leadership," said former Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., a Thompson adviser.
On the Democratic side, New York Sen. Clinton is drawing support from four in 10 women—a group that accounted for 54 percent of the vote in 2004's key Democratic primaries. One in three of her supporters cites her experience—the highest rate among Democrats.
"I think women relate more to the needs of people," said cashier Jadine Robinson, 52, of Magnolia, Miss.
Clinton had 33 percent in the poll; Obama 21 percent; former Vice President Al Gore, who so far is not a candidate, 20 percent; and former Sen. John Edwards, D-N.C., 12 percent.
Democratic analysts had no ready explanation why Clinton has lost support from men, especially younger men. Much of this support seems to have moved to Gore. Her chief strategist, Mark Penn, said that could change and noted that younger men do not vote with the frequency that women do.
Clinton, Gore and Obama each draw about one-quarter of Democratic men. Said Democratic pollster Mark Mellman, who is not working for a candidate: "If she can hold close in the race among men and dominate among the women, that's the ballgame" and she will win the nomination.
The AP-Ipsos poll in March did not ask about Thompson. But with strong initial appeal to conservatives—among the GOP's most loyal and active primary voters—he seems poised to cause problems for his rivals.
In an AP interview last week, Romney said Thompson's strength in the poll said nothing about voters' views of the active GOP candidates.
"He's a terrific guy and he's been putting bad guys away every week on (the NBC show) `Law & Order,'" Romney said. "And he'll go through the same processes we all do, which is building an organization, raising money, being scrutinized thoroughly by everyone."
In a nod to Giuliani's response to the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, one- half of his supporters cite his leadership qualities, far more than any other candidate. McCain's supporters like his experience, while Romney's note his views generally.
Giuliani has lost some support since March—a period during which his abortion rights views have been a focus—notably from conservatives, white evangelicals, older voters and women.
Giuliani is still supported by one in four conservatives, slightly more than those backing McCain, Thompson or Romney.
Overall support for McCain and Romney has stayed about even.
Thompson also has shown strong support among older voters, especially men. Three in 10 male Republicans over age 44 said they would pick him.
While that is about the same as with Giuliani, Thompson seems to have gained support from that group at the expense of Giuliani and McCain.
Noting that McCain has been preparing to run since his failed 2000 presidential bid, unaffiliated Republican pollster Tony Fabrizio said the virtual tie between McCain and Thompson "tells you something about Thompson's potential and McCain's weaknesses."
John Weaver, McCain's chief strategist, said Thompson's impact is not yet measurable and that still is early in the campaign.
Among Democrats, voters most often cite Obama's freshness on the national scene' Gore's stance on issues, especially the environment; and Edwards' character.
For Obama, the challenge is arguing that "America needs a transformational leader even if that person lacks the experience of the other candidates," Democratic pollster Geoffrey Garin said.
Clinton still has a significant lead among nonwhites and lower-income voters, enjoying the support of half of both groups. She has been losing ground among whites, who are about evenly divided among the top four Democratic names.
The AP-Ipsos poll involved telephone interviews with 1,000 adults from Monday to Wednesday. It had an overall margin of sampling error of plus or minus 3 percentage points.
The margin of sampling error for the 541 Democrats or people leaning Democratic was plus or minus 4 percentage points. It was plus or minus 5 percentage points for the 356 Republicans or Republican leaners.
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8PLD8R80&show_article=1
Gingrich Forecasts GOP Losses in 2008
Jun 8, 11:17 PM (ET)
By BEN EVANS
(AP) Former Speaker of the house Newt Gingrich addresses the National Federation of Republican Women's...
WASHINGTON (AP) - Republican Newt Gingrich, in a jab at President Bush, warned on Friday that the GOP will lose the White House and Congress in 2008 if the nominee is perceived as a continuation of the Bush presidency.
Addressing a conservative organization, the former House Speaker never mentioned the president by name, but his political point was clear.
"If the Republicans run a stand-pat presidential candidate who ends up being on defense for all of September and October and who is seen by the country as representing four more years, the fact is that Republicans are not going to" win, Gingrich told the American Enterprise Institute.
Gingrich, a former Georgia congressman, is considering a White House run, with an announcement likely in the fall.
He has roundly criticized the Bush administration in recent interviews, describing the White House as dysfunctional and saying the president has driven the party into collapse. While he refrained from direct criticism Friday, he cited failures in Iraq, border security and the response to Hurricane Katrina as signs of a broken government.
His comments come just days after a Republican presidential debate in which GOP candidates criticized Bush over his handling of the Iraq war, his diplomatic style and his approach to immigration.
The biting words surprisingly have been uttered while the president is overseas attending an economic summit with other world leaders.
In the speech, Gingrich handicapped the current GOP field - and the prospect of Fred Thompson joining the race.
He praised Rudy Giuliani's handling of crime as New York City mayor, saying that experience and his response to the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks have propelled his candidacy. Gingrich contended that Giuliani's image on national security would offset his more liberal positions on social issues.
"In a world where a nuclear weapon could eliminate an American city in seconds, he has a very strong case," said Gingrich. "He has certainly done better so far than people would guess."
He said Sen. John McCain of Arizona has more to overcome, including explaining his positions on immigration and campaign finance regulation.
"If you were to handicap this race, he has the greatest challenge in a Republican primary," Gingrich said.
Thompson, the former Tennessee senator, is a "very formidable" candidate, while former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney is a "very serious person who is working very hard," Gingrich said.
Gingrich, who helped shut down government over spending fights with the Clinton administration in the 1990s, said Republicans must offer a more dramatic platform for remaking government that focuses on private-sector innovation.
In a glimpse of what his candidacy might look like, he said he would shut down public schools that aren't performing and offer a $20 billion reward for the first private company that successfully completes a Mars mission.
"Somebody would be there and back about 40 percent of the way into the NASA process," he said.
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20070609/D8PL1O7G3.html
Iran Wants War
They will have it whether we want it or not
By J. R. Dieckmann
Iran wants war. They are kidnapping visiting American citizens and holding them hostage in Iran. They are fighting a proxy war against the U.S. in Iraq. They are using their nuclear program to provoke the West into attacking them. They are thumbing their noses at U.N. sanctions and they are resisting all international demands designed to pressure them into compliance, just as Saddam Hussein did.
They know that any attack on their country by America would be limited only to certain targets while doing little damage to their country or infrastructure. But an attack by America would give the mullahs an excuse to attack Israel, Europe and American interests wherever Iran’s weapons could reach them. It's all part of the plan to usher in the 12th Imam, according to the Islamic prophecy. Ahmadinejad believes himself to be the one chosen to actualize the prophecy. He has stated that a sizeable loss of the Iranian civilian population would be acceptable and that the end would justify the means.
Almost every day we see news reports of al Qaeda bombing attacks in Iraq. So why do Democrats still keep calling it a "civil war"? Al Qaeda terrorists are not Iraqis fighting a "civil war.” It has been reported that Iran is responsible for 80% of American deaths in Iraq, either by Iranian fighters, or by Iranian weapons and bombs provided to insurgents and al Qaeda. Neither the American government nor the press is exploiting Iran’s responsibility for these deadly attacks, which are Iranian acts of war against America and must be considered as such. This alone should provide justification for an attack on Iran.
"We believe they pretty much have the knowledge about how to enrich. From now on, it is simply a question of perfecting that knowledge. People will not like to hear it, but that's a fact," says Mohammed El Baradei, head of the International Atomic Energy Agency who believes that Iran will soon have nukes.
The IAEA found traces of highly enriched uranium during their last inspections in Iran shortly before they were kicked out of the country. Iran has received nuclear technology from Russia, Germany and France, as well as from A. Q. Kahn of Pakistan. They have received long-range missile technology from North Korea. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and a number of Iranian mullahs have repeatedly called for the destruction of Israel and the United States. In spite of Ahmadinejad's insistence that his nuclear program is only for peaceful purposes, the evidence shows just the opposite.
But what if we're wrong? What if Iran is telling the truth when they say they only want to enrich uranium for electrical energy? The case was made that Saddam Hussein was a threat to the Western world but now many believe that it was all a mistake based on faulty intelligence. The last thing we need is a repeat of this in Iran. So far we have suspicion and some evidence, but no proof of their real intentions. We will need proof before many of the American people and Congress will support any action against Iran.
If we fail to act, there is little doubt that Iran will have nukes within the next few years. The Bush Administration has rightly stated, "This cannot be allowed to happen." Ahmadinejad will not back down and will have his way one way or the other. That is, he will force America and/or Israel to attack his country, or he will have his nukes and the will to use them with only the slightest provocation. He must have his war to fulfill his role in the prophecies as stage setter for the arrival of the 12th Imam.
It is clear that if we do nothing, a nuclear holocaust from Iran will eventually materialize. If we attack Iran's nuclear installations, the holocaust may be delayed for a few years but those years will be filled with world war as Iran retaliates with global terrorism. It seems we're damned if we do and we're damned if we don't, but there is a third option and the only one that will assure the survival of a peaceful West.
We must attack Iran with everything we have. It should not be a limited attack on the nuclear installations alone, but an all out attack to destroy not only those installations but the Iranian military, theocracy and entire government of Iran. It all has to go all at once and without any warning that would give the ruling hierarchy time to hide themselves in safe locations. And the only way to do that is a planned strategic and timed furious attack on Tehran at a time when the major political players are all present and accounted for. The last thing America needs now is another endless and unnecessary ground war in Iran.
Yes, there will be collateral damage and civilian casualties, but that is exactly what we face here in our country if we fail to act. Better them than us. We have to stop worrying so much about civilian casualties and focus instead on the objective as the top priority. The objective is to stop Iran, not merely threaten them or try to scare them with empty rhetoric, political pandering, or limited attacks to spare civilians as we've done in Iraq. That is no way to fight a war. War is about massive death and destruction that leaves little doubt as to who has won. That is exactly what we did the last time we won a war in 1945 and that is what we must learn to do again if America is to survive this century.
Civilian casualties have always been a part of any successful war. We have tried to make war too clean by politically correct decisions on warfare. With that attitude, wars will continue forever and never be won or lost. Wars only end when one side is utterly defeated both militarily and psychologically. Simple spankings will not work with Islamists. We should not repeat the mistake that we made in Iraq by executing a limited war and expecting a defeated enemy suddenly to like us and become our friends. But have our leaders learned that lesson yet? I don't think so.
We must send a message to the rest of the Islamic world that Mecca and Medina are next if the terrorism doesn't stop now. The alternative is a long and dirty war that will last for decades. Is that what we want to live with when we have the ability to avoid it? Utter devastation worked with Japan and Germany. It will work with Islam. All we need is the courage and the will to stand up and again be the strong country that we once were. We didn't get to where we are today by bowing to the will of weak foreign powers and worrying about what they think of us.
The time has come to stand up, America!
The only thing Islam respects is brutality and overwhelming force. It's how they've lived for over a thousand years. That is why Saddam Hussein and other Islamic dictators were successful for so many years. Islamic despots know what it takes to bring Middle Eastern Islamists under control.
Islamists have no respect for, or understanding of, western diplomacy and a desire for peaceful solutions. Their religion forbids compromise with the West. For them, and now for us as well, it's either kill or be killed. If we don't start playing by their rules, we're going to lose big. We cannot win this war with Western morality as the overarching factor. The first priority must be winning. Everything else is secondary.
Furthermore, we need a better media propaganda program to expose all of Iran's terrorist activities in Iraq, Palestine, Lebanon and wherever they are involved around the world. We are not using the tool of propaganda properly in this war and we must start to do so. It is the very tool that the enemy is using to defeat us, and it's working on the ignorant and the gullible - in Europe, in our own country and in our Congress.
It's high time that we reestablish American strength and pride in our country. Our very survival as a nation depends on it. America will never be truly safe until the head of the global terrorist snake is completely severed.
http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/global.php?id=1042133
Gingrich Takes Bush White House to Task
Jun 3, 11:14 AM (ET)
WASHINGTON (AP) - Newt Gingrich described the Bush administration as dysfunctional and its unpopularity as hazardous to those in the Republican Party.
"The government is not functioning. It's not getting the job done," said the former House speaker, who is considering a run for the Republican presidential nomination. "Republicans need to confront this reality."
Gingrich said in a broadcast interview he believes Bush "means very, very well" but falls short when it comes to putting his goals in place and running the government.
"All you have to do is look at the examples I've given you today where the government simply fails," said Gingrich, citing the administration's handling of the war in Iraq, its immigration policies and response to Hurricane Katrina.
"We have to have very relentless, dramatic change in American government," he said.
Gingrich added, "The key question is: Is somebody prepared to stand up and say that the American people deserve fundamental change in Washington?"
Gingrich said two Republicans in the 2008 field, Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani, and one prospective GOP contender, Fred Thompson, are capable of "offering a very bold, dramatic vision" that could appeal to the party's conservative voters. "These are solid people," said Gingrich.
He was interviewed on "Fox News Sunday."
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20070603/D8PHDMEO0.html
Why Fred Thompson?
by Robert Novak (More by this author)
Posted: 05/31/2007
Fred Thompson sat at the end of a long table in The Monocle restaurant on Capitol Hill Tuesday night for dinner with some 20 fellow conservatives, mostly journalists. He sent two signals. First, he sounded like a man who has decided to run for president. Second, his candidacy will be something different from other Republicans, in both substance and style.
This was one of the irregular sessions of the Saturday Evening Club, which is not a club and never meets on Saturday. The name was purloined from H.L. Mencken's Baltimore discussion club by R. Emmett Tyrrell Jr., editor-in-chief of The American Spectator.
Tyrrell arranges and presides over these events, always featuring a guest newsmaker -- usually a Republican presidential hopeful over the past two years. Former Sen. Thompson was the most intriguing of them because he has become a leading prospect for president even though he has not announced his candidacy and has no real campaign.
Thompson's performance Tuesday night, with his remarks off the record, helped show why many Republican insiders are ready to support him. Thompson is winning straw polls at Republican conferences and running well in polls mainly because of dissatisfaction, for varying reasons, with the three leading GOP candidates -- Rudy Giuliani, John McCain and Mitt Romney. But Thompson at the dinner table confirmed the widespread perception inside the party of his potential to be an extraordinary candidate.
Thompson disappointed in his first speech as a prospective candidate, addressing the Lincoln Club of Orange County, Calif., on May 4. Discarding a speech he had written himself, Thompson ad-libbed from handwritten notes, a performance that placed him in the usual run of Republican after-dinner speakers. This was not the second coming of Reagan that Californians envisioned. Was all the excitement about Thompson merely engendered by his television role as the formidable Manhattan district attorney on "Law and Order"?
He stuck to his prepared cards for his second speech, at a Republican state party function in Stamford, Conn., last week, and it was a considerable improvement. It sounded more like an off-the-record conversation he had with me in Orange County, Calif., before his speech there, and his Saturday Evening Club conversation.
The Connecticut Republicans, down to one seat in Congress after 2006 election losses, cheered when Thompson told them: "I think the biggest problem we have today is what I believe is the disconnect between Washington, D.C., and the people of the United States. People are looking around at the pork barrel spending and the petty politics, the backbiting. The fighting over all things, large or small, is creating a cynicism among our people." That cynicism, Thompson contends, mandates a different kind of campaign for 2008.
Thompson implied at Stamford that Republicans, along with Democrats, are responsible for making Americans cynical. While so far not spelling this out publicly, he deplores ethical abuses, profligate spending and incompetent management of the Iraq war. He becomes incandescent when considering abysmal CIA and Justice Department performance under the Bush administration. He is enraged by Justice's actions in decisions leading to Scooter Libby's prison sentence.
In his Senate voting record and his public utterances, Thompson is more conservative than Giuliani, McCain or Romney. He takes a hard line on the war against terror (referring in Connecticut to the danger of "suicidal maniacs" crossing open borders) and worries about immigration policy creating a permanent American underclass. His one deviation from the conservative line has been support for the McCain-Feingold campaign reform, much of which he now considers overtaken by current fundraising practices and perhaps irrelevant. Overall, his tone, in a soft Tennessee drawl, is less harsh than that of other Republican candidates -- a real-life version of the avuncular fictional D.A. he plays on TV.
Beyond ideology, Thompson envisions a 21st-century campaign, utilizing the Internet more and spending less money than his opponents. When speaking to a friendly audience or ruminating off the record, the 6-foot-7 actor-politician does not look or sound like the GOP's announced candidates for president. His challenge will be to convey that impression when he appears with opponents on the same stage in the immediate future.
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=20936
Followers
|
3
|
Posters
|
|
Posts (Today)
|
0
|
Posts (Total)
|
406
|
Created
|
05/03/07
|
Type
|
Premium
|
Moderators iamshazzam chunga1 |
Volume | |
Day Range: | |
Bid Price | |
Ask Price | |
Last Trade Time: |