Justice

Because hey, we all know there was oil in Kosovo and Bosnia and Somalia and all those other places we've been to. Oh, and allow me to laugh my ass off when you say that Bosnia was handled well by the UN. We had to bail them out there, plain and simple.

What the fuck.

Cool. You do that, and we'll continue to rattle off facts that completely debunk your argument.

Can you explain a little more clearly what you mean? Are you suggesting that I am a criminal? Do you think that crime will go down if the UK allowed citizens to be armed with a gun or two? What is your point?! FBI statistics show that places that have more legally owned guns tend to have less crime all around. Anti-Gun advocates just HATE that report.

They are handcuffed (behind their backs), feet tied together and forced to wear masks. No doubt the US media didn't show the awful photographs of the suspects. Of course, any CONVICTED terrorist deserves to be punished..the point here is that these are merely suspects! Many of them been there for TWO YEARS without charge. Point in case, the suspects were caught FIGHTING AGAINST THE US FORCES WITH ASSAULT RIFLES. Uh, who is a suspect now?

That's moronic! They aren't there because of HATE, they are there because THEY ARE TERRORISTS. The jews didn't attack the Nazis and try to plot their downfall. These people DID. Funny thing about the appalling conditions, because most of them have actually GAINED weight during their stay there (Got that from the New Yorker). This isn't at all appalling conditions, you just have to put down your propaganda papers and actually look at the facts. We aren't taking your Concentration Camp reference right? We took it exactly right, and you are still dumb to make it.

Yes, that's the just of it. They do not have to recognize marriages or unions between same-sex individuals.

We have evidence that he was behind it. We got enough evidence to hang him a dozen times over - and don't forget, he was behind the bombings of the U.S.S. Cole and other acts of terrorism against us. Add the bombing of the US Embassy in Tanzania to that.

First off, don't speak about the plight of the working class family as if none of us have ever experienced that lifestyle or anything. I seriously doubt that many people on this board were born with silver spoons in their mouths and have been able to go their entire lives without ever feeling a financial pinch. Anyway, what is your solution to this problem? You want to stop taking ANY taxes out of people's paychecks? How do you fund Social Security, then? Medicare? Drop funding for those programs and you'd REALLY be fucking the poor/older people. What about those precious unemployment taxes? You want to stop those? What will happen when someone is laid off and then has nothing to fall back on because there is no unemployment money to be had? Do you propose some asinine plan of taking taxes only from those that you deem to be "wealthy" and thus able to afford it? What is your alternative? Why should the people most likely to take advantage of the services those payroll taxes pay for NOT actually pay anything into the fund? Where's the fairness in that? As for income taxes, the amount someone has taken out of each of their "precious" paychecks is easily controlled. Changing the number of exemptions on a W-4 form will take care of that, so that they can take home more money each month, while still paying their fair share of income taxes. Also, it's been my own personal experience that most families in "dire" financial straits have their financial priorities out of whack. Cutting out cable TV or not buying so many stupid DVD's or not paying $110 for some goddamn LeBron James tennis shoes their kids endlessly begged to have, as just a few simple examples, can go a long way to paying for a "trip to the grocery store." Wow...yep, you really understand the situation duder. More like your just being an arrogent ass who can't refute the argument so you'll just leave a pithy quote and a smiley at the end so you can try and think that you've somehow salvaged a victory here.

Funny thing is, these are all big cornerstones of the Democratic party.

You know, the REALLY funny thing is if they had gone down to the district level to hand out electoral college votes, Bush STILL would have won. Gore won less than 200 Congressional districts in that election, and he also won less states. If you had done it that way then Gore would have lost even BIGGER.

"I'm a uniter, not a divider." It's not him who is dividing the country, it's the opposition party because they want to win back the White House. He's have to push Universal Healthcare to get any love from Dems right now...

He got that because he was forced to cut all connections with them: He wasn't allowed to keep his stock in them (Because of Conflict of Interest and all that), so they had to give him a going-away package. It's not all that surprising. What would you expect him to do: Sell all his stock and leave without a cent? What's the point of leaving then? I mean, seriously, you expect him to give up all his investments in a company for nothing? And, to be frank, "The Daily Show", while fucking hilarious, isn't exactly a great source to find material from. This means absolute shit. There's no proof at all that he had any hand in this or any involvement at all outside of his prior affliation with the company. If they only got the job because of Cheney, how did they get it in 1990 during the FIRST Gulf War? Could have been because they could do the job? And couldn't that have influenced the military's decision to give them the job here? ... Do you have ANY material that proves ANY of this? If we are paying for this with Iraqi Oil money, why is it still showing up on our fucking budget? Moron...

... Uh, did I miss this or something or did the posts get deleted?

BUT, if there is nothing anybody can point to that Haliburton got unfairly --- how is there a conflict of interest because the VP used to work for them? -=Mike The sitting Vice President of a country should never be involved in any way with a company that got an oil contract for a recently conquered country. If this situation happened anywhere else in the world, what would your opinion of the situation be? Or what if, say, Kosovo had oil fields and Bill Clinton had conquered/occupied that country. Say Al Gore had ties to Five Star Oil er something that got a large contract for that country. What would your opinion be of that situation? HE NEVER DECIDED FOR THEM! God, it is that easy to say. He had no power in the fucking contractual process with the military. He didn't secure it for Haliburton; the fact that the company had dealt with the massive oil fires and problems during the FIRST Gulf War was probably the biggest reccommendation they could get. Cheney didn't have anything to do with this.

No, it isn't technically true. The analogy was flawed and any use of it is flawed. If I were to say "Mr. Kerry supporting public schools = support of teachers raping children", it'd be quite wrong, even if he supports public schools. -=Mike and surely you can do better than that analogy... especially considering your analogy has nothing to do with your point... James Byrd was killed because he was black, not because the guys that killed him just wanted to kill someone for the hell of it. A hate crime is by definition, a crime that is committed based on someones race, religion, sexual orientation etc. I think their are flaws with the idea, but my point is that your analogy is waaaay off when comparing it to the case of the Bush/NAACP incident What makes that any greater crime than killing a guy because he slept with my girlfriend or he owed me money? You are putting greater value on one person's life simply because of motive, which is wrong. What matters is someone is dead and someone has been convicted. It's all about fairness, which is precisely what Hate Crime laws tend to neglect.

For me it was that NAACP ad in 2000 saying Bush not supporting hate crime legislation = Mr. Byrd getting dragged to his death... Well it's technically true... but exploiting Byrd's death was disgusting and wrong... and there is no excuse for that Not... really. Actually, no. You think that adding a few years onto a murder that already holds the possibility of Capital Punishment would deter these freaks? In all honesty, if you are willing to kill someone because of their race there is little you can do through laws that can deter them.

you've GOT to be kidding... and what do you base calling John McCain a liberal on?? The fact that he actually ISNT a party stooge?? The fact that he votes his conscience and actually wants REFORM in the entire political system? Maybe it's because he tries his best to negotiate and work with the opposing party on getting things done... there's a reason the man is one of the most respected politicians on capitol hill by BOTH parties, so calling him a liberal leaning moderate because he criticizes Dubyah instead of kiss his ass like most party neocons do is absurd Bwuahahaha... someone believes the hype. McCain certainly isn't a liberal, but he isn't the savior of politics. Some people are WAY too easily fooled by PR hype. Not to say McCain isn't good, but he's pretty much a good Republican the way he votes. If you want true outriders, Lincoln Chaffee, Jim Jeffords, and Zell Miller are probably the people you want to look at, not McCain. For Christ's sake, the guy votes 76% of the time with his party!

Please, just... shut up. Christ, the British people on this board should slap the shit out of you for being such a dumbass. Please come back when you actually, you know, LEARN something about American Politics that isn't distributed from www.socialistfreedomfighter.com.

So they attack him on a legitmate topic like his foreign policy voting record and all of a sudden this is a smear campaign? Please. The guy has made some very stupid decisions in foreign policy, and this is in a whole different league than the "OMG BUSH DIDN'T SERVE" bullshit that is trying to get passed off as a real issue. He was pointing out that the Republicans HAVE started mentioning Kerry and his policies. Christ, is this really that hard? Gah, my bad. Jesus, I'm like rarely on the board anymore with my college shit. Plus I wrote out that message pretty quickly without really looking at what they were talking about. I thought Tyler was finding fault with it, so my mistake. I appologize.

So they attack him on a legitmate topic like his foreign policy voting record and all of a sudden this is a smear campaign? Please. The guy has made some very stupid decisions in foreign policy, and this is in a whole different league than the "OMG BUSH DIDN'T SERVE" bullshit that is trying to get passed off as a real issue.

"We do not need to divide America over who served and how." Who said that? John Kerry, defending Bill Clinton's apparent draft-dodging.

Well, not really. I mean, it would take tons of insight into the actual case to completely refute the facts here. It's pretty obvious that this case was not very big, and trying to dismiss outrageous claims like this. In all seriousness, why didn't these people ever inform of the Federal Government of this sort of injustice? For no action by ANY form of watchdog group or judicial branch official for something as heinous as that article describes is almost impossible; There would be a HUGE investigation into something like that, especially since the Death Penalty has always been a hot topic. So, to summarize: It's always easier to say meaningless, factless things and post them on the internet than actually do a ton of research and definitively debunk them. Remember, the current rules are from 1976. Anything beyond that would not be fair game. Not only this, but there have been numerous injunctions to stop people from going to death because of the advent of DNA testing. Many of the prisoners on Death Row have had their cases re-reviewed under DNA testing, and hell, since we have DNA testing today, is there any argument that we could say that someone who is innocent could get executed?

Question: Source, please? Anything that calls the Judicial System "The American System of Injustice" doesn't seem like they'd produce very unbiased material.

I don't think the Iraqi army was "the best" in the middle east outside of Israel and capable of anything - look at the little resistance they posed when they were invaded. They had outdated tanks in small numbers and showed no other weapons of strength - especially not those elusive Weapons of Mass Destruction. Uh, that doesn't mean that they couldn't utterly fuck up people like Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Iran. Just because they wilt against us doesn't mean they can't hurt or beat anyone else. Their equipment is probably some of the better stuff in the Middle East (Their tanks are THAT out of date. T-72s are still pretty formidable). They still had one of the larger armies in the world and that alone is pretty dangerous.