I whole heartedly agree with this, and have hammer this view in a number of time when people tell me I have no right to complain... I respond, "if there was anyone worth voting for I would". It's really that simple. After all democracy is supposed to be about choice, so if I chose not to vote, then that's my choice.

In this imperfect world, don't we have to choose the least evil sometimes?

I couldn't agree more!

I despise these inuendo's.

Ken V.

"The wicked flee when no man pursues."

TO SAY THAT WE LOOK PAST DOMESTIC ISSUES IS REDICULOUS. WE SEE THEM BUT WE THINK THAT MISSLES BEING POINTED AT US IS MORE IMPORTANT. WHY? BECAUSE THEY WILL BLOW OUR COUNTRY UP. BUT, WE DON'T IGNORE DOMESTIC ISSUES. BUSH IS BEING ATTACKED ABOUT THE WAR IN IRAQ AND HE ISN'T BEING ATTACKED FOR HIS DOMESTIC ISSUES. SO, WHEN HE ISN'T OUT DEFENDING HIMSELF DAILEY ABOUT HIS DOMESTIC ISSUES, IT SOUNDS THAT HE HAS NONE. BUT WHEN THE DEMOCRATS FIND TIME TO SHOOT DOWN EVERYTHING THAT HE SAYS, AND WHEN THEY FILIBUSTER, DON'T COME CRYING TO US. I CAN ASK A SIMILAR QUESTION. WHY DO DEMOCRATS SEEM NOT TO CARE ABOUT FOREIGN AFFAIRS. WHEN DIPLOMACY HAS PROVEN UNEFFECTIVE TIME AND TIME AGAIN, WHY CONTINUE TO TRY IT?

AFRICA AND CHINA (CURRENTLY) AREN'T AGGRESSORS TOWARDS US. CHINA IS A SCARY TOPIC BUT IT HAS BEEN BROUGHT UP BEFORE. I READ A LITTLE ABOUT THEM IN SOME TERRORISTS OF THE WORLD BOOK BUT IT THOUGHT THAT NORTH KOREA WAS THE WORRY IN ASIA. WOULD YOU NOT AGREE THAT IL AND HUSSIEN ARE/WERE BIGGER THREATS TO THE AMERICAN LIFE THEN AFRICA AND CHINA? I BELIEVE THAT IS WHAT WE ARE LOOKING AT.



I THOUGHT I POINTED OUT THAT YOU TOLD ME YOU WERE A ANTI-POLITICIAN, OR SOMETHING ALONG THOSE LINES (Jim probably just doesn't trust our government.). I KNOW YOU DON'T LIKE EITHER SIDE TOO WELL, I WAS TESTING YOU. BUT, TO AGREE WITH IT WHEN ONE PERSON SAYS IT, YET DISAGREE WITH IT WHEN ANOTHER SAYS IT, IS BEING A HYPOCRIT. I CAN'T CALL YOU A HYPOCRIT...YET (JOKE).

As far as Haliburton, how can we know that Haliburton was the best for the job? We can't. They may have been, but we will never know for sure. The fact is Cheney had (quite possibly has) a vested interest in how well Haliburton did. I would be willing to bet that he still has close contacts there. What about all the price gouging that has been documented regarding Haliburton? Why does Cheney still refuse to make available the information from the meetings on energy policy?

I CAN'T GIVE AN ANSWER ABOUT THE ENERGY POLICY MEETINGS. YOU ARE THE FIRST TO TELL ME. BUT I WOULD SAY THAT THEY WERE BEST QUALIFIED BECAUSE THEY ARE THE ONLY COMPANY THAT COULD ASSEMBLE IN THAT QUICKILY.

PLEASE EXPLAIN THESE PRICE GOUGINGS BECAUSE I'VE HEARD THE TERM THROWN AROUND BUT COULDN'T TELL YOU ONE THING ABOUT IT.

NO DOUBT HE STILL HAS CLOSE CONTACTS, BUT HE ISN'T MAKING ANY MONEY OFF OF IT. BEYOND THAT, ITS ALL SPECULATION.

**Please stop shouting (turn your caps lock off). It only lends an air of antagonism to the argument.**

Diplomacy does not always fail (example England, Japan, China, etc) and war does not always work (example Viet Nam). War is only a solution for peace and overpopulation.

One of the reasons for going to war was liberation of an oppressed people. I mentioned China and Africa and Saudi Arabia only as examples of human rights violation. It has nothing to do with their political alliances. It only helps to invalidate the argument (not totally) of liberation as a reason for invading Iraq. And I'm glad you mentioned Il. I had forgotten. There is a man who flaunted his desire to attack the US, who threw down the gauntlet and basically dared us to attack him. Yet we pursued diplomacy with him. You say diplomacy doesn't work.

Cheney still receives between $180,000 - $1,000,000 per year apparently in deferred compensation. I don't know why, how much, or what is involved. Price gouging is pretty standard when it comes to military contracts, but that does not excuse it in any way. I have heard that some of the Halliburton gouging is greater than normal, though I have no references at this point. Price gouging is, for example, paying $185 for a hammer and $300 for a toilet seat. Basically companies charge the government high prices and the gov't pays them carte blanche.

"The wicked flee when no man pursues."

Who's fleeing?! I'm still here waiting for an answer as to whom you were referring. I believe Ken is also. You're the one evading the question. Why? Stand behind your accusation or else retract it.

What do you want to do that the evil guv'ment is stopping you from, Ken? I'm really curious about that.

I'd like to be able to check out library books without the gov't being able to snoop around and track what I'm reading. And this is just a guess, but I'd think that Ken might like to be able to "fly the friendly skies" if he wanted to.

**Please stop shouting (turn your caps lock off). It only lends an air of antagonism to the argument.**

Diplomacy does not always fail (example England, Japan, China, etc) and war does not always work (example Viet Nam). War is only a solution for peace and overpopulation.

One of the reasons for going to war was liberation of an oppressed people. I mentioned China and Africa and Saudi Arabia only as examples of human rights violation. It has nothing to do with their political alliances. It only helps to invalidate the argument (not totally) of liberation as a reason for invading Iraq. And I'm glad you mentioned Il. I had forgotten. There is a man who flaunted his desire to attack the US, who threw down the gauntlet and basically dared us to attack him. Yet we pursued diplomacy with him. You say diplomacy doesn't work.

Cheney still receives between $180,000 - $1,000,000 per year apparently in deferred compensation. I don't know why, how much, or what is involved. Price gouging is pretty standard when it comes to military contracts, but that does not excuse it in any way. I have heard that some of the Halliburton gouging is greater than normal, though I have no references at this point. Price gouging is, for example, paying $185 for a hammer and $300 for a toilet seat. Basically companies charge the government high prices and the gov't pays them carte blanche.

I'm lazy. The "[quote blah blah]" has to be in CAPS, I think. I just don't feel like switching back and forth.

Major failures. Germany and WWII. North Korea. They basically stole money from us because we tried the diplomatic approach (that wasn't Bush). But, when it does work, it is a hell of a lot better then war. I won't disagree with you there.

We tried diplomacy during Clinton's eight years. It didn't work. Carter tried diplomacy in Iran. It didn't work. War has never been our first option. We always try to talk, but when it doesn't work, we go to war.

Was your "hammer" and "toilet seat" stolen from ID4? You little thief.

A couple comments on the Vietnam War. I thought the purpose of that war was to stop the spread of Communism. Isn't that correct? Did we not do that? Mission accomplished. But...this war is a very touchey subject and I don't think we should get into it. I would like to here what you have to say about that war though. I thought the purpose of the war was completed, but we suffered.

I'd like to be able to check out library books without the gov't being able to snoop around and track what I'm reading. And this is just a guess, but I'd think that Ken might like to be able to "fly the friendly skies" if he wanted to.

This is were we differ. I don't care if the Government knows what I'm checking out. For one thing, I'm not checking out anything weird. Next, they aren't going to come back and taunt me. What do I have to hide and why am I suffering? Is it that you just don't think its right even if some good comes out of it? Even though you receive a little protection? We get these terrorists that come in our country and learn how to attack us by these books. Would you perfer us to just get rid of those books? Or would you perfer that we ignore these books and the terrorists use them to attack again?

I'm sure there is more to it then this but I don't see it, yet.

This is were we differ. I don't care if the Government knows what I'm checking out. For one thing, I'm not checking out anything weird. Next, they aren't going to come back and taunt me. What do I have to hide and why am I suffering? Is it that you just don't think its right even if some good comes out of it? Even though you receive a little protection? We get these terrorists that come in our country and learn how to attack us by these books. Would you perfer us to just get rid of those books? Or would you perfer that we ignore these books and the terrorists use them to attack again?

I'm sure there is more to it then this but I don't see it, yet.

Its about privacy. They have no right or need to know what books I like to read. They can access anyone's records according to the USAPATRIOT ACT for NO REASON whatsoever. The library is also prohibited from informing anyone including the patron that their account has been accessed. Then the gov't can (if they so desire) label you an "unlawful enemy combatant" with absolutely no form of proof or probable cause other than "the President said so." I can only assume that I am on some sort of list for checking out "the Rise and Fall of the Third Reich." That is just more power than the government should have and, more to the point, more power than the Constitution allows. Where does it end? Next they'll want to track what food you buy at the store or where and for what you use your credit card or what websites you look at. If you think that sounds far-fetched, think again. These are things that the gov't has wanted and even tried to implement. It's not about what you have to hide, it's about the gov't's right to look.

Its about privacy. They have no right or need to know what books I like to read. They can access anyone's records according to the USAPATRIOT ACT for NO REASON whatsoever. The library is also prohibited from informing anyone including the patron that their account has been accessed. Then the gov't can (if they so desire) label you an "unlawful enemy combatant" with absolutely no form of proof or probable cause other than "the President said so." I can only assume that I am on some sort of list for checking out "the Rise and Fall of the Third Reich." That is just more power than the government should have and, more to the point, more power than the Constitution allows. Where does it end? Next they'll want to track what food you buy at the store or where and for what you use your credit card or what websites you look at. If you think that sounds far-fetched, think again. These are things that the gov't has wanted and even tried to implement. It's not about what you have to hide, it's about the gov't's right to look.

Well said Jim.

Ken V.

What do you want to do that the evil guv'ment is stopping you from, Ken? I'm really curious about that.

You didn't answer my question . . . but I will answer yours.

I don't like the fact that the government takes half of my income in taxes.
I don't like the fact that the government, on average, doubles the price of everything I buy through business taxes, and on average, doubles it again through business regulations.
I don't like the idea -- and fact -- that I must pay the government for permission to fix the roof on my house. Or that I must get some bureaucrat's permission to earn a living.
That I had to pay government for a "license" to get married.
That I can never truly own my house -- what is "property tax" but a rental fee you pay to the government. (They will evict you and sell the property if you don't pay them that annual fee for as long as you "own" the property.)
I don't like the fact that the government has ME under observation because of something that other people from the other side of the planet have done.
I don't like the idea of being presumed guilty until proven innocent.

Hows THAT for starters?

Ken V.