600 mile range Federal law needed

I do know that those who claim to be christians are worse than Muslims.
Those who profess christ as lord, go around pushing their religion on
everyone else starting wars all over this planet. Remember your bush boy
even called his war against the Muslims "The Crusades" until he was reminded
of what that meant many years ago and it would not look good using that term
now.

I also know that christians are the biggest bunch of hypocrites on the
planet. If half of them would even read the bible (if even half of those
could read) they would learn that jesus said "render unto Caesar that which
is Caesars." That doesn't only mean to pay your taxes (which too many
so-called christians fail to do) but to follow the laws of the land which
way to many of you fail to do.

When asked by the King of Jordan why he was attacking Iraq, bush said;
"Because god told me to." Well, there was a woman down in Texas (imagine
that) who bashed in her kids skulls for the same reason.

The whole idea of an invisible cloud being is too outrageous for me. I
believe in facts. Not the fallacies of raving lunatics.

 

Your bush boy isn't liked by too many of you anymore.

Better get wise and jump ship before you're the only fool left.

====================================
President's Approval Rating Dips Below 40
By Will Lester
The Associated Press
Saturday 10 September 2005

President Bush's job approval has dipped below 40 percent for the first
time in the AP-Ipsos poll, reflecting widespread doubts about his handling
of gasoline prices and the response to Hurricane Katrina.

Nearly four years after Bush's job approval soared into the 80s after
the terrorist attacks on Sept. 11, 2001, Bush was at 39 percent job approval
in an AP-Ipsos poll taken this week. That's the lowest since the the poll
was started in December 2003.

The public's view of the nation's direction has grown increasingly
negative as well, with nearly two-thirds now saying the country is heading
down the wrong track.

 

Where Is Osama bin Laden?

It's the fourth anniversary of September 11 - and Osama bin Laden is still
at large.

Your fool in the White House has had 1,461 days and still no sign of Osama.

I wonder why that is?

Because your boy stupid is too busy with his illegal oil grab in the wrong
place?

 

Just a reminder of what you support by supporting that mindless wonder you
keep praising.

FEMA won't accept Amtrak's help in evacuations
FEMA turns back Wal-Mart supply trucks
FEMA prevents Coast Guard from delivering diesel fuel
FEMA won't let Red Cross deliver food
FEMA fails to utilize Navy ship with 600-bed hospital on board
FEMA to Chicago: Send just one truck
FEMA turns away generators
FEMA: "First Responders Urged Not To Respond"

And take a good look at that last one. That is straight from the FEMA
website.

By supporting bush, you support a disaster.

 

Sorry, the links didn't make it. Here they are.

 

We're not talking about inventorying boxes of cracker jacks here.

You need to read up on the law of the conservation of mass. Here's a
word problem: If he had x amount of WMD's at some point, and he used y,
then, by the law of the conservation of mass, he should have or be
able to account for x-y. Like I said, it's not boxes of cracker jacks
that are relatively unimportant, we're talking about WMD's.

Take a look at: http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/wmdquotes.asp and
http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/b/bushlied.htm

See above re: the law of the conservation of mass, and snopes.com and
truthorfiction.com links about what the Dems, including what both
Clintons, Kerry, and Robert "Sheets" Byrd were saying - not only after
Clinton, but during Clinton's admin. Kind of hard for Bush to gen up
false intel during the Clinton admin,. dontcha think?

Uh - whatever.

Yes - the French and Russians were trying to conceal their cashing in on
the Oil for Food programs. They didn't want to mess up the good thing
they had going with Saddam.

Ummm - by inventory records. The UN as well as Dems in Congress sure
seemed to think he should have been able to. At the very best, he was a
victim of his own sloppy record keeping.

From the snopes page - a quote of H. Clinton: ""In the four years since
the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has
worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile
delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid,
comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is
clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to
increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will
keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

The Al Qaida connection has been re-proven since our intel flaws have
been brought to light.

Also - read a book called "The Third Terrorist" by Jayna Davis.
Documents thoroughly Sadam's conection to the OK City bombing.

Bill Putney
(To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with the letter 'x')

 

Bill, give it a rest.

The US Army has been all over Iraq looking for WMD. You know damn well
that the Republicans have been praying daily to God asking for the army to
find bombs because if no WMD's are discovered by 2008 that fact will be
hammered over and over and they are going to take a pretty serious political
loss for it.

The army found Saddam, and his 2 psychotic sons, and it's a lot easier to
hid a person, who can easily move from place to place, than a bomb which
can be found by a Geiger counter.

Saddam didn't have nukes by the time of the invasion, simple as that. About
the most you could possibly argue is he snuck them into Syria sometime
before the war, but very few are going to believe it.

And as for biological WMD's or nerve gas or some other scenario, those
simply aren't very good WMD's. Gas dissapates and if your enemy knows
your going to use it, they can easily take precautions. And other
biological
agents like germ warfare kill indiscriminitely and you could easily cause
a plague that would wipe out your own people too, they are very unstable
weapons. And frankly, none of those have the sheer phychological value
of a nuke - if gas or germ warfare was so good, why didn't we use them
on Hiroshima instead of a nuke?

Saddam was a great bluffer in his day, and most of the rumors of Iraq
having WMDs were undoubtedly plants designed to scare his neighbors.

Anyway, as I've observed over and over again, there were a lot of far
more valid reasons to invade Iraq than WMDs. Such as the government
there routinely using torture. Why are people so squeamish about
the US going in to a country and blowing away psychotic rulers? Do
Americans think it's a good thing to leave people like this up and in
operation? Do they really think any other countries are going to step
in and put a stop to it?

Considering that Al Qaida has a lot of people who are probably members of
other terrorist organizations, it would he extremely unusual if among all
the criminals that Saddam helped out, that none of them happened to be
part of Al Qaida. But that does not mean that there were any high-level
connections between Saddam's government and Al Quaida.

The problem with the Iraq war is that it should have been OVER a long time
ago. It was frankly disrespectful of the Republican-controlled congress to
not
issue a formal declaration of war against Iraq, and to allow Bush unlimited
time to deploy the Army in there. That is NOT what the US Constitution
says is allowable and I thought you conservatives were big supporters of
the Constitution. It is also disrespectful of Bush to make such an early
declaration of the end of hostilities there when soldiers are still getting
killed. If the war is over, then the US Army should LEAVE. And it is
a crime that there's been such a lack of basics like Kevlar boots, which
keep soldier's feet from being blown off by mines, and a lack of hardened
HumVees - there's only one company in the country that retrofits them and
they are way, way behind. When soldiers are welding scrap metal to
vehicles in Iraq because some bean counter in the Pentagon is too
busy playing politics, that person should be in the front lines not behind a
desk! And this business of pulling in National Guard - if Bush wants to
fight a war and there's not enough soldiers, then he should have activated
the draft - otherwise why the hell are we still to this day registering kids
for Selective Service. What a waste of money - they claim that they need
a S.S. bureau in case of a draft - but when there's a lack of soldiers they
don't turn on the draft!!!

Bush has run the Iraq war in the most half-assed way imaginable, just
like he's running FEMA and the rest of the bureaus in the Executive
branch. That is the problem.

Ted

 

I don't at all disagree with much (not all) of what you said. Some
things are black, some things are gray, some things are white. When
people say that something is one when it is the other, I may choose to
speak out. You really ought to read that book by Jayna Davis ("The
Third Terrorist") about the OK City bombing. It truly does document
that Sadam sent some of his Republican Guard boys over here to assist in
that operation (though the training that our lily whites got was in the
Philipines). It also clearly documents how screwed up our FBI was at
the time - clearly an intentional cover up from above of the facts that
would have blown the top off of that whole thing. Senator Spector was
part of the coverup.

Bill Putney
(To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with the letter 'x')

 

My my. You are delusional.

But of course you don't let what people do afffect your feelings about God.

That's fine. Each of us will see the consequences (good or bad) of our
beliefs. Isn't it great how a loving God gave us all freedom of will.
But you probably hold him in contempt even for that.

Can we cut it off here?

Bill Putney
(To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with the letter 'x')

 

It seems only in your convoluted way of determine facts from rumor and
distortion, is it a problem.



Bush has run the Iraq war in the most half-assed way imaginable, just

 

So, you only support front-runners?

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Retired Shop Rat: 14,647 days in a GM plant.
Now I can do what I enjoy: Large Format Photography

Web Site: www.destarr.com
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

 

Yep, I think that is a large part of what happened. Saddam wanted
people to think he had such weapons and managed to provide the
justification for invasion by doing so. His bluff got called.

IMO, the "problem" is that the modern US is not at all geared up for
playing the army of occupation role and is making a hash of it. Of
course if our country and military were programmed to be effective
conquerors and occupiers then there would be an even bigger set of problems!

John

 

Nice try. Neither Snopes nor www.truthorfiction.com document that -
that's the kind of thing they would if it were true. Please cite a
credible source (Randi Rhodes or Al Franken don't count).

Bill Putney
(To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with the letter 'x')

 

Yep - you were lying.

Bill Putney
(To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with the letter 'x')

 

Not so fast Bill.

That was reported in Ha'aretz back in June 2003. The Washington Post
subsequently
dug up the source of this. Bush didn't perhaps say these exact words but he
did
say something along these lines - the White House has never denied any of
this, see:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A37944-2003Jun26?language=printer

And this has been collaborated by a number of witnesses. While Bush maybe
didn't
say "God made me do it" he positively did intend to communicate that he felt
divinely
inspired to attack Iraq.

Now whether Bush actually believes this or he was just posturing to a bunch
of
governments who are basically institutionalized government-controlled
religion, that
is left to the reader to decide.

However Bush's State of the Union speech claiming the "Axis of Evil" well
that's
pretty close to religious terminology I think. If Bush isn't religious he
is skirting
it very closely. And Bush has made it clear that he is personally a
religious person.

Don't get me wrong I think that there's nothing wrong with a religious
person
running the government. There's plenty of religious people who are deeply
spiritual
or have a strong relationship with God, who are very clear on what the
separation
of Church and State is all about. In fact a religious person has far more
to lose if the
state gets involved in religion since in a twinkling a different religious
faction can grab
power and now you have persecutions and the Inquisition all over again.
However I
and many people are very concerned that Bush does not clearly understand
this.

Bush could be the strongest constitutional supporter there is, but if he
opens the
door to state-sponsored religion just a crack, such as was done with the
school
voucher program, and the government/church charity initative, there's a lot
more
rabid religious nutcases in the Republican party who are going to be around
long after
he's gone, and they will keep working away at that crack until one day they
will
have taken over. And God help us if that happens.

Ted

 

(1) Bush never said anything like that to the King of Jordan.
(2) The "quote" that is cited is not a *quote* at all. Whatever it was
he said was heresay that even if he said anything remotely like it went
thru two translations.

Bill Putney
(To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with the letter 'x')

 

Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:

You would probably disagree, but please tell me how school vouchers
equally available to public and secular, Christian, Jewish, etc. private
schools *establishes* (key word) a particular religion. Same about
faith-based initiatives. For something to vilate the Constitution, it
has to *actually* violate it - not just *appear* to violate it to
someone who takes a superficial glance and doesn't think it thru. In
the "early" days, states and local gov'ts were allowed to actually do
things in this regard that the Constitution forbid Congress from doing
(like establishing an official state religion. The question of whether
that was right or wise for states to do doesn't come into play if you're
looking at issues of Constitutionality. It stipulates what **Congress**
may or may not do - period. And beyond that, it says that Congress
can't pass laws on the subject. BTW - did you know that the Supreme
Court declared that secular humanism is a religion?

Bill Putney
(To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with the letter 'x')

 

Then there should have been no problem for the White House to simply tell
the Washington Post that it was garbled in translation and Bush meant it
differently.
End of story.

The fact that the Whitehouse simply ignored the question speaks volumes.

I don't know about you but if I'm paying someone to do work for me and I ask
that person a question and he ignores me, I fire him. And that is what the
American
people should have done with Bush back in 2004.

Ted

 

It doesen't establish religion, but it is a step towards it. The problem is
while you might be OK within the strictures of the Constitution to take a
lot of steps towards establishment of a state sponsored religion, once you
start heading down that path it becomes a lot more difficult to stop at the
line in the sand. And even if you can stop, a lot of your supporters don't
have the same self-control and cannot.

History is filled with governments who have done unspeakable things and
got their populate to do unspeakable things. After all it was considered
perfectly normal in ancient Rome for people to go to a stadium and watch
people being torn to bits by wild animals. They didn't get that way
overnight,
their culture grew that way. And they are still stoning people to death
today
in some parts of the world. None of these things happened because one day
someone in power decided it was a good thing to do. They happened because
over the years the people in power grew more and more favorable to these
things.

And establishing a state sponsored religion is NOT anywhere near unspeakable
to a surprisingly large percentage of the US populace.

Then you should have no problem when the State of Oregon decided to
legalize Assisted Suicide. And when the State of California decided to
legalize gay marriage (as they are getting ready to do) as well as when both
those states decided to legalize Marijuana. Those things aren't
covered by the US Constitution but the US Congress is doing everything it
can to make them illegal.

You might not have a problem with those 3 things but look around you and
look at the people your standing with - a quite lot of them do.

Ted