Tired_Old_Man

There are two types of Defeat: One type of Defeat (I'll call it type one) is when a country invades your country and takes over your country. That is a defeat that is hard to live with because you will have to change your whole life-style to comply with the rules set forth by the victorious invaders. The other type of Defeat (I'll call it type two) is when your country invades a country but is unable to subdue it and force its rules on to the other country. In that case you come home and admit defeat, but there are few consequences except being embarrassed and having to admit you were wrong. George W. BuSh can not see the difference between type one and type two and he tries to blur the distinction between them by saying that if we lose in Iraq (type two defeat) we will be fighting them in the streets of the USA. Neither the insurgents, nor the Shiite death squads, nor the Sunni death squads, nor Al-Qaida have aircraft carriers to launch attacks from or troop carrying ships to bring an army to the shores of the USA. They do not have missiles that can reach our shores. George W. BuSh did not read his father's book (“A World Transformed” coauthored by Brent Scowcroft) which predicted what would happen if the US Military took out Saddam Hussein. George W. BuSh claims he listened to the “Iraqi Study Group's” report in which BuSh's father's advisors and other bipartisan members gave advice on how to proceed in Iraq. George W. BuSh will not talk to Iran and Syria as the “Iraqi Study Group” suggested, but instead threatens war against them as a way of solving the Iraq debacle. George W. BuSh said he would listen to everyone, but when the generals in Iraq said "no more troops" he replaced them. Why did George W. BuSh replace a Army General in Iraq with a Navy Admiral, William J. Fallon to fight a ground war in Iraq? Is it because he knew he was going to bomb Iran with planes from US Navy aircraft carriers and that Admiral Fallon started his carrier as a Navy fighter pilot? We must oppose this escalation of the war in Iraq. It will soon become a war with Iran and Syria and could escalate into WW3. The main agenda in this country at the present is to make the wealthy people wealthier, make the poor people poorer and more subordinate, and to destroy the middle class by driving it into the class of poor people. War is a means of keeping the poor people in line and a means by which Big Business reaps the harvest while raping the poor. Last night I took part in a demonstration against the Iraq war (and its escalation) at the South end of the Roosevelt Bridge in Stuart, Florida. We had about 7 or 8 members from my Church group; Reverend Gregory Wilson's "Liberal Universalist Fellowship of Port Saint Lucie", 4 or 5 from the "DCPSL" and most importantly about 50 people total. I guesstimate that for every negative response we received (people signaling President BuSh's IQ with a hand gesture), we had 30 or more positive responses (thumbs up or horn honking). A man even came out of a local restaurant to serve us Snacks. I am sorry many people are missing the chance for comradery and positive political activism. I hope we will have more chances to act in a similar measure and most of all that these demonstrations will result in ending the carnage and stopping its spread to other countries in the Middle-East.

I like to shoot my 350 magnum. I am an America too so I just shoot it off where and when I want. I am a free man. The difference between abuse of foods and shooting off a gun or smoking a cigarette is that abusing food only hurts the abuser. Shooting a gun only hurts the people around the shooter, but cigarettes hurt both the user and the people around him. It is a much more valid analogy to compare smoking in a crowd and shooting a gun in a crowd, than to compare smoking with poor eating habits.

The warning labels on cigarettes, alcohol and food are to stop you from doing something by warning you of the consequences. The warning labels on clothes tells you that it is already too late to do anything.:faint:

I knew they were lowering the standards for recruitment, but that is really pushing it.:help::faint:

A long time friend of mine (from the early 1960's) keeps trying to get me to move to Pueblo.

But if all the fat people sat in first-class, wouldn't the plane be nose-heavy and likely to dive into the ground? :faint:

You are correct, BUT How do you stop someone from walking up next to you in a park and blowing smoke in your face? Do you pass a 3 foot law or 5 feet or 10 feet? How do you enforce that? Require every non-smoker to carry a tape measure? I remember when they passed a law about no smoking in office buildings and other businesses. To enter a building you had to run through a gambit of smokers and a cloud of smoke. There is no smoking on NYC buses. So smokers used to stand on the bus stop and wait for the driver to threaten to close the door before boarding. The smoker would take in one huge drag just before he boarding the bus and exhale it after he sat down. If 5 smokers got on the bus at a stop, the bus reeked of tobacco smoke. It is actions like that which caused the further crackdowns which you see as unreasonable. If smokers hadn't abused the laws, the laws would not have needed to be strengthened.

The BuSh administration and the Republican controlled 109th congress took credit for helping the elderly with this abortion of a Prescription drug plan. It actually only benefited the Drug companies and the insurance companies. The US Government's Medicare department is not allowed to negotiate Rx prices with the Drug companies and the insurance companies get to run the program. Both of those provisions cost the US taxpayer dearly and they do not benefit the Medicare Rx participant. I will have to pay much more for Rx drugs when I go on Medicare than I do now with my retirement Rx plan. Another provision gave employers the right to drop Rx coverage when retirees join Medicare even if it was a guaranteed retirement benefit. Maybe a Democrat in the White House and a Democrat controlled 111th Congress can make things better in 2009. think about that when you vote in 2008.

I agree with just about your whole post. In regards to what I quoted, I recommend the Academy Award Winning Movie "Crash" for all those that have not seen it. Its theme is that people who are in groups which are discriminated against are no less likely to discriminate against other groups.

Bring your SCUBA gear.

I have one son (39 years old) and he has one daughter (6 years old). I am very glad that I have them both. However, I would not have want anymore than two, nor would I have wanted my children to have any more that two (each). My son is married to a women who has three children by a prior marriage. If I had my choice, I have to admit that I would have been selfish and wanted my own blood grandchild, although I have 3 people besides my biological granddaughter that call me "Grandpa". My son has been married for 7 years, so the 14 year old grandson feels like he is blood. The 21 year old boy and the 19 year old girl, may call me Grandpa and I may buy them Christmas and birthday gifts, but they don't feel like the real thing. A friend of mine who became a Mormon and is a advocate of the Christian Right Political Movement and who thinks that George BuSh is too Liberal says that we must continue having as many children as possible. He claims that the world has limitless resources and that God will give us what we need until God decides to stop (Judgement Day?). I see wars coming about very soon over failing resources. I see the oceans rising and the useful land being cut by 50% in the next 50 years or less. There is a way to stop my predictions from coming true. Population control. Conservation. Renewable energy sources. Conservatives should be for these things. Some are, but the people who call themselves Conservatives, but who really are Neo-Cons, and the Christian Right Political Movement and the MultiNational Conglomerates will not stand for it. They will hang on to their profit making ideas until they sink below the rising tide.

Just wait until I'm President!! :faint:

I was hoping for more comments on this issue. Even negative ones would have been interesting.

Me Four!!!!

You will notice that Mr. Clinton was never convicted of perjury, even though he lied on the stand. Why, you ask? Because to be perjury, the lie has to be substantive to the case. Clinton was being sued by Paula Jones for sexual harassment. Clinton's affair with Monica was not substantive to the case. As an analogy, if I was on the stand as a defendant in a robbery and asked my name, address and age, and I said that I was 59 (although I am really 61), that would not be substantive to whether or not I robbed the victim and therefore would not be perjury. Whether Clinton had sexual relations with Monica, oral sex with Monica or used Monica as a humidor, had no bearing on what happened in Governor Clinton's hotel room on the night he was alleged to have harassed Paula Jones. And yes, I wish he had never done it.

Is it true what they say about George W. BuSh and Condoleezza Rice?

Sorry. It is too late. You have been debating it for quite a while. There is no harm in it. I will not call you any nasty names nor will I mock or condemn your religion. I am curious. Why does a fetus conceived through rape not deserve the same protection as one produced by a loving husband and wife who have the church's permission to have a child? Why is it not a murder to abort a fetus conceived through rape but a murder to abort a fetus conceived by a loving husband and wife who have the church's permission to have a child? Seems like the fetus is being blamed for the actions of a rapist. I know that Roman Catholics believe the word of the Pope is divine, but where is that in the Bible? I wonder if the President of the Mormon Church's word being divine is spelled out in the "Book of Mormon"?

Two whales, Bill and Monica, were swimming off the coast of California. A whaling trawler suddenly appeared. Bill said to Monica, "Let's capsize that whaler". Monica protested, but bill explained how his parents had been killed by that very same whaler. Monica reluctantly agreed. "But how?" she queried. We'll dive below the ship and we will both give a strong blast of air from our blow-holes. So Bill and Monica, each took deep breaths and went below the whaler. They both blew as hard as they could and the ship capsized. The sailors all tried to swim to shore. Bill said, "Let's eat the sailors before they get to shore". Monica said, "No way, I didn't mind the Blow-Job, but I am not going to swallow the Seamen".:faint:

Bill Clinton Destroyed some Cigars. George W. BuSh has destroyed the lives of 3000 young Americans and countless Iraqi civilians. That's about equal, I guess.

I have read part of the "Book of Mormon". My best friend became a Mormon and then he became a hateful person, dispicing Blacks, Jews and Catholics alike. I do not judge other Mormons based on him and that is why I bought the "Book of Mormon" to read. It is the same reason that I bought and read "The Holy Qur'an". You can put your faith into the book of Mormon and I hope you are happy and get the reward you seek, but where in the book of Mormon does it say abortion is murder? It also makes sense that a just and fair God would not send an aborted fetus to Hell or a 16 cell embryo in a petri dish to Hell either.

Too many people when they use the word "Christians" actually mean the Christian Right Political Movement and those that blindly (or knowingly) follow their agenda, or sometimes referred to sarcastically as "True Believers". I AM GUILTY OF THE ABOVE :faint: But let me say this clearly: I am a Christian and I know many Christians that are very nice people who try to follow the teachings of Christ, but who do not force their ideas onto other people. I have known Christians that love all people as if they were their brothers and sisters. I have known Christians that use the bible to prove that slavery first and then Jim Crow laws are Christian. I have read speeches of Adolph Hitler using Christianity as his excuse for what he did in Germany in the 1930's and 40's. I have seen neo-Nazis and White Power militias using Christianity as their excuse for what they do. I know Christians who profess to have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ and then violate all his precepts while they say, "I am a sinner. I am not perfect", but who never try to improve. We need to separate the Christians who use the name, but not the message of Christ to further their agenda nor to open up their small mindedness, from those that try to emulate Christ. My sarcastic nickname for the Christian Right Political Movement is the (Un)Christian (Never)Right Political Movement. I am sorry if I use the word Christian when I mean the (Un)Christian (Never)Right Political Movement and its followers.

So which scripture do you go by? Do you have an original edition? My Bible says, “And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.” If Adam became a living soul, then he wasn't one until that point. That is your unsubstantiated opinion. Neither the law nor the Bible (except maybe for your original edition) validate that concept.

I watched a couple of episodes of Jay Bakker's TV show on cable recently. He is talking about the Christian right political movement. Some people take Christianity to an extreme as shown in the documentary "Jesus Camp" where children are taught in Madrasah type surroundings and the women who runs the camp trains them to fight. Then there are some Christians like this group who make it difficult to say, "I am a Christian" even though I am. I am a Liberal Christian who goes to a church who's name starts off with the word "Liberal". We are the opposite of the (un)Christian (never)Right political Movement.

Interesting? drinks Show Your Personality Before you order a drink in public, you should read this! 7 New York City bartenders were asked if they could 'nail' a woman's personality based on what she drinks.Though interviewed separately, they concurred on almost all counts. The results: PART A: WOMEN-DRINKS, WHO THEY ARE, & YOU! Drink: Beer Personality: Causal, low-maintenance; down to earth. Your Approach: Challenge her to a game of pool. Drink: Blender Drinks Personality: Flaky, whiny, annoying; a pain in the ass. Your Approach: Avoid her, unless you want to be her cabana boy. Drink: Mixed Drinks Personality: Older, more refined, high maintenance, has very picky taste; knows EXACTLY what she wants. Your Approach: You won't have to approach her. If she's interested, she'll send YOU a drink. Drink: Wine (does not include White Zinfandel) Personality: Conservative and classy; sophisticated yet giggles. Your Approach: Tell her you love to travel and spend quiet evenings with friends. Drink: White Zinfandel Personality: Easy; thinks she is classy and sophisticated, actually, she has NO clue. Your Approach: Make her feel smarter than she is...this should be an easy target. Drink: Shots Personality: Likes to hang with frat-boy pals and looking to get totally drunk and naked. Your Approach: Easiest hit in the joint. You have been blessed. Nothing to do but wait. However, be careful not to make her mad! Drink: Tequila No explanations required - everyone just KNOWS what happens there. PART B: MAN-DRINKS & WHO THE MEN ARE! THEN, there is the MALE addendum -- The deal with guys is, as always, very simple and clear cut: Domestic Beer: He's poor and wants to get laid. Imported Beer: He likes good beer and wants to get laid . Wine: He is hoping that the wine will give him a sophisticated image to help him get laid. Whiskey: He doesn't give a damn about anything but getting laid. Tequila: He is thinking he has a chance with the toothless waitress. White Zinfandel: He's gay.

Many Europeans asked, "Why would you want to be president if you couldn't get a little...?"