*Whispers to BigAmigo* If GW was so concerned about our safety, why did he wait 2 months before invading Afghanistan. Watch Fahrenheit 9/11 for me.

... if thats the only place that you are getting your info from.. even if you are right... I will not even listen to you .. *smiles* Biast!

*gives everone a cookie to make them all happy*

It isn't. *eats cookie*

Mog, Jodocus and others, its no use trying to present evidence or facts to BA and his likes. The only answer youŽll ever get is that its leftist propaganda. It must be nice to have a "good" argument like that to fall back on when you run out of real arguments.

Well this has actually stimulated me to reply...

BA: "Dont work. Fact is that we have not had a terrorist attack since 9/11. 9/11 was caused because a Democratic President allowed our intelligence and military forces to degrade for 8 years.

GW has taken the fight to the enemy and we are dealing with Al-Queda on THEIR lands now. We are safer now than wehave been over the last 10 years. Thank God that Gore was not allowed to steal the election away from the voters."



BA please explain to me how most of this is not a just-so argument, and show me your "proof."

Simply because the USA has not been attacked since does not mean the country is safer, it may indeed BE safer, however simply stating we haven't been attacked since in no way supports this (seriously, it doesn't).

If I got mugged last year, but haven't been mugged since is the city in which I reside safer than it was a year ago? Not necessarily, it may be, but there is NO WAY to determine that simply by whether or not I have been mugged again.
[I was not actually mugged, this is an example to illustrate my point]

Also, how would having Al Gore as president create a situation where he would have stolen an election from the voters?

Al Gore (Democrat)
50,999,897 votes
48.38%

George W. Bush (Republican)
50,456,002 votes
47.87%

All others
3,949,201 votes
3.75%

(taken from the public record
www.fec.gov/pubrec/fe2000/tcontents.htm
so that ISN'T a "liberal, leftist, commie" site)

Last time I checked neither had even a MAJORITY (i.e. 51%) of the vote, let alone ALL of it (to thus prompt a statement implying that all of the voters would be "short-changed").



PS: Agnostics wouldn't necessarily thank a God as they can neither support nor refute the existence of a higher power, which is slightly different than what you had stated.

I'd also like to point out that Agnostics have heard from religions and don't think they are right.

BA, you go ahead and refute my assertion, don't just say it's biased. You have no evidence I'm wrong, do you?

www.mpogd.com
Steal the vote! Vote wol.

GB - "If I got mugged last year, but haven't been mugged since is the city in which I reside safer than it was a year ago? Not necessarily, it may be, but there is NO WAY to determine that simply by whether or not I have been mugged again."

Your point is valid if nobody else in your city has been mugged in a year, then indeed it is safer. Nobody living in the USA has suffered from a terrorist attack since then. So indeed we ARE safer.

What is invalid is that you use slanted, and I don't mean slightly, web sites as the truth.

I've finally figured out why you're talking like a pirate: you're a Republican. After all, isn't that what Republican's do? Run around shouting nonsense and clanging their swords together, but in the end all they really do is steal other people's money!


For example:
"Nobody living in the USA has suffered from a terrorist attack since then." Utter nonsense. Tell that to the 1500+ dead Americans who were alive 9/11. Since ~3000 died 9/11, I guess we've reduced the casualty rate 50%? I suppose that definition of victory isn't quite as crass and cynical as Bush's definition of "Mission Accomplished", but I may be wrong.

Close sam...you seem to have the Republicans confused with the Democrats on the "stealing other people's money" part. But they think they have a good excuse...they think all the money really belongs to the government (them) and they generously allow us "slaves", oops, I mean "citizens" to keep a bit of it that they don't need to spend to buy votes or favors.

The real casualty reduction equation is:
on one (1) day: 9/11/01 there were about 3000 killed
on the >1600 days since then, our armed forces have suffered 1500+ dead...less than 1 per day

thus, a 99.999999999% drop in American fatalities resulting from terrorists. And a remarkable 100% drop on our home soil.

Cheers,
H.

Well, Sam,

Spoken like a true Democrat, - tell the truth, half the truth, or none of the truth, what ever so helps me, god.


If you look at the original post you will see that I said IN the United States.

The definition of victory is different to each of us. For me, its keeping the bad guys away from my family. For you, Sam, it may be helping terrorist kill us. It may not, but I cant tell by your post.

Oh and Sam, it's the Dems that steal other peoples money. but they call it taxes.

So, no way to actually refute my claim, huh, BA? You dared me to point you to some evidence backing up my claim. I did so, and all you have is "of course your site is biased" instead of any proof to the contrary. I consider to have won that argument so far, then.

By the way, last I looked, we had a budget surplus under Clinton and we are far in debt because GW wanted a war for his pals to profit from. He lowered taxes for his rich pals a lot, the poor not at all after you count in all the state taxes that got raised after the Republicans allowed their rich pals to steal it all.

One of the amazing things about most repubs is that they are not rich, but want to be. Therefore, they want to pay no taxes and still get all the benefits of a society, like roads, schools, military, etc. How do you suppose that stuff gets paid for? Taxes.

Now, if you spend your money on arms and war, you get no return whatsoever except dead soldiers. If you make ecologically safe consumer goods, you get a huge return in jobs and environmental safety.

We have spent over 200 Billion US dollars fighting in Iraq, SO FAR. Estimates top a trillion dollars before we remove most of our troops. We could have spent that money on port and chemical plant security, airport, train station and public location safety. We have not. When the next terrorist attack occurs, will it be one of those chemical plants sending chlorine gas to your house? Gee, I hope not, but GW really doesn't care and don't even try to tell me he does, his actions speak loudly enough.

So debate the point, not use shallow jingoistic phrases to discount me, BA, that is what all tyrants do, shout down the opposition. Don't be like them, ARGH!

The question of how the US is safer today is rather how often did suicide bombers attack the US since it was founded and how many suicidebombattacks did you have during the Bush years? If you now divide the number of suicidebombattacks with the numbers of years without Bush and then the number of attacks with the number of Bushyears you will get two numbers to compare. I suspect the Bushyears will end up being the most hazzardous ever.

The oil producers have us "over a barrel".
Forty years ago it was said that eventually the cost of crude will make it worth while to tap other more costly but abundant sources. Well the cost of crude is up high enough now, except China will soon be an even bigger oil consumer than we are;
So the producers can afford to gouge us and as soon we make moves to develop other sources they drop prices enough to cause us to get cold feet about investing billions into alternative sources at the wrong time.

That's because we are dependent on free enterprize to pick up the tab but I think our govenment is going to have to become a producer and do all possible to control prices until alternative energy source free enterprize is able to compete.

PS:
Big
How do you pronounce that?
My shepherd used to go more like: aAURRRUURRRrrrrr

TR

I voted for "player of the month" the smelly scoundrel who started this thread. Why, I'm not sure. Go fish!

Remarkable to me that 1500 dead Americans are now a insignificant statistic. Trivializing death when it suits you, while at the same time claiming to love life: you are a Republican!

As far as taxes go, as Mog pointed out, Republicans have zero credibility. Democrats have at least stuck to their idealogy, just what is the Republican idealogy nowadays? Live for the moment, screw future generations? So much for love for life.

"Screw future generations?!" Currently...who's attempting to keep the Social Security System solvent? Who's trying to offer the public the opportunity to invest some of their tax dollars into individual accounts to provide more security at retirement? ....oh, right, the current Republican president and leadership....and of course, even though we don't have to ask, who's fighting against it? ....Democrats....

BA: "Your point is valid if nobody else in your city has been mugged in a year, then indeed it is safer. Nobody living in the USA has suffered from a terrorist attack since then. So indeed we ARE safer."

Amigo, how many attacks on US soil have been attempted post-9/11? For that matter how many were attempted pre-9/11? How many were thwarted during "planning" stages pre and post? Do you have any available statistics?

We may very well be safer, however lack of an attack since 9/11 is not sufficient evidence to demonstrate safety as it ignores many variables.


TR: "That's because we are dependent on free enterprize to pick up the tab but I think our govenment is going to have to become a producer and do all possible to control prices until alternative energy source free enterprize is able to compete."

It would be nice if we had more alternative energy sources available at the moment, but sadly this is not the case. However, along with your point, I wonder why fuel efficiency standards have not been imposed as of yet. In all reality, implementing a mandate requiring all newly manufactured vehicles to be more fuel efficient is not a radical change, but could help our current situation (I wonder why this isn't in place yet, perhaps it could have something to do with the automotive industry's lobbyists).



Additionally, let's stop painting the picture of the American political landscape as one where clearly one side is right and the other is wrong, as that's just foolish and short-sighted. There are plenty of idiots on BOTH sides of the party line...or perhaps they aren't idiots perse, but rather for sale and thus representing the interests of those with the deepest pockets and most influential lobbyists.

To quote Lewis Black: "The Republican Party is a party of bad ideas, and the Democratic Party is a party of no ideas. A Republican stands up in Congress and shouts 'I have a s***ty idea!' and a Demoncrat stands up and shouts 'and I can make it even s***tier!'"



--
if you vote at MPOGD (or even if you don't), then also remember to WELCOME all of those newbies so we can actually RETAIN some members from the publicity

sugarleo, please refer to Mog's last post. He explains it very well, apparently you all are unable to answer him.

posted by genghis:
"...let's stop painting the picture of the American political landscape as one where clearly one side is right and the other is wrong..."

where's the fun in that? Besides where've you been the last 11 years since the Rep's got control of the congress? They have had enormous success in painting the left as the root of all evil, I got to hand it to them. The biggest mistake Dems have made imo is working with and negotiating with these right-wing loonies when they so clearly have no desire to compromise or work with the Dems!

Not that anyone cares, I like to think I'm the last centrist in the country. Old conservative values of fiscal responsibility, strong defense are things I want very much. I also recognize the need for a social safety net for the poor and the need for all of us to protect the environment. I also want the government to stay out of what I watch, what I listen to, what I teach my kids, and what God I pray to. Republicans are for NONE of these things since Bush got here. So that leaves the Dems.

Screw the Republicans, they are screwing us!

Genghis my friend,
This same issue was mentioned before and I explained at that time where the alternative energy sources are. I do read and I do research and I do have an academic background of education and a pretty good memory yet.
However, I don't mean to embarass because I do respect your opinion but I don't want to have to provide links for everything I say that I know is factual.

There are "tar sand" deposits in Canada and there are heavy oil reserves in Venezuela that together represent I believe the figure was over 3 trillion barrels of oil. That's several times the total reserves of conventional oil and it doesn't include the "tar sands and oil shale" reserves in the USA or the rest of the world. Heavy oil has impurities and requires expensive refining. The tar sands and oil shales require expensive methods to extract them. Then there are the more recent bio-chemical developments getting fuel oil from soybeans and turkey scraps. The "turkey to oil" thing supposedly hit a snag in that turkey scraps became in demand for dog food and animal feed.

Anyway then of course there is the hydrogen but I sure would not like us getting too dependent on nuclear energy.
Three mile island is just on the other end of Pennsy from me and I got sick of thinking about two-headed chickens every time I see a double-yolked egg.
I'm not even mentioning the futuristic sources of energy like solar, wind, geothermal, wave and tidal or fusion power. Even coal can be refined in acceptable ways that are non-polluting but the processes are expensive and as long as big profits are to be had on the remaining conventional reserves, the oil producers aren't going to bother with alternative sources.

The government IMO is going to have to become a producer of alternative sources of energy at an acceptable cost and put tariffs on conventional fuel to protect the investment.

PS:
Folks we can't be informed if we don't stay up to date with current events. Contrary to some opinions that I'm a blabbering, brainless, idiot, it may be surprizing to find that I know something or two.

www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,155344,00.html

www.religionreview.com/

www.vaticanstar.com/

Whoops Wrong links.

The first time I read about "turkey scraps to fuel" it was being said it could be done for $8/barrel, but of course with conventional fuel at over $50/barrel, only a fool would produce it for 6x's less than conventional oil.

www.fortune.com/fortune/smallbusiness/articles/0,15114,1018747,00.html

Folks I'm not going to provide the links for the other facts I mentioned but they are facts. The Italians have recently bought up some of the Canadian tar sands but just intend to hold it for now.

aAURURRRrrrrr



TR

Oil is far to scarce and polluting to use for fuel, the ethanol alternative is now as cheap or cheaper to use, here in europe at least. Its fairly easy to convert gasoline engines to the use of it too. It will provide jobs for a lot of farmers as well. I think thats where we are going in the near future.