FOX news guy slags off Chris Martin...

[colduser]

Well I am Jewish and we don't have a hell :P :lol:

 

yeah but your idea of heaven is studying beside God for eternity. :rolleyes: :P

 

Thanks for the reminder Kyle :lol:

[Matter-Eater Lad]

i didnt know you were jewish. i heard the other day that most jews vote democrat in america. does anyone know if thats true?

[colduser]

Nick, I appreciate your response. It was a satire. It is just funny and I think a bit too honest for some folks. However, this war we are fighting against terrorism is in no way comparable to WW2 and the only reason why there has not been a true rising of the people here against the gov. is because of the lack of a draft. Bush and Co. know that a draft would tear apart the country, therefor, they will do everything in their power to prevent it. We need to stop starting unilateral wars or else we will need a draft. I just like how Bill Maher is calling out the gross hypocrisy shown by the gung ho war people who would never have enough balls to fight in the war.

[colduser]

i didnt know you were jewish. i heard the other day that most jews vote democrat in america. does anyone know if thats true?

 

As a voting block, Jews tend to vote democratic. I am more of a socialist though.

[Matter-Eater Lad]

but i will point out just because your for the war does NOT mean you should fight, may people are simply not cut out to fight. you dont seem to understand this. just because you support it does not mean you should go and fight in it.

[colduser]

Nick, I understand you well. I don't think you should fight the war because you support it. Bill was kidding just to point out the hypocrisy that some show by being all for war yet not wanting to fight in it.

[Matter-Eater Lad]

we should make the ones that dont want to fight, fight! jk. but ok, now i see what your saying.

[Egghead]

 

Thanks for the reminder Kyle :lol:

 

Dating a jewish girl is educational ;)

[colduser]

As I can see :lol:

[colduser]

poor bush :lol:

 

Updated: 3:22 p.m. ET Aug. 14, 2005

WASHINGTON - President Bush’s standing with an American public anxious about Iraq and the nation’s direction is lower than that of the last two men who won re-election to the White House — Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton — at this point in their second terms.

 

But solid backing from his base supporters has kept Bush from sinking to the depths reached by former presidents Harry Truman, Richard Nixon, Jimmy Carter and Bush’s father. Truman decided not to run for re-election. Nixon resigned. Carter and the first President Bush were defeated in re-election campaigns.

 

“This president should be glad he’s not running for re-election,” said Karlyn Bowman, a public opinion analyst from the American Enterprise Institute. “But the president is clearly holding his base. It’s very important for him to keep the base support in terms of getting things done.”

 

Indeed, Republicans in Congress already are starting to fret about the 2006 election. If Bush’s approval ratings sink lower, more of them may be unwilling to go along with his major initiatives for fear it could cause backlash for them with voters.

 

Bush’s job approval in recent polls ranges from the low- to mid-40s. It was 42 percent in the latest AP-Ipsos poll. His ratings on everything from handling Iraq to the economy to Social Security and other domestic issues are at their lowest levels so far.

 

Stark partisan divide

Reagan was at 57 percent at this stage of his presidency and Clinton was at 61 percent, according to Gallup polling at the time.

 

The partisan divide for Bush is stark — 80 percent of Democrats disapprove of his overall performance while nearly 90 percent of Republicans approve.

 

Charles Black, a veteran GOP strategist and close Bush ally, said Republicans are sticking with Bush for two reasons: personal affection and loyalty.

 

“I haven’t seen anything like it since Reagan,” he said. “Bush follows through on issues that are largely popular with the base, even when it’s not popular with the general public to do so.”

 

Bush may have a hard time pushing up his numbers because issues like the violence in Iraq and gas prices are largely out of his control.

 

But Bush’s efforts to put conservatives on the Supreme Court and overhaul the federal tax code are likely to please his conservative base.

 

Other presidents have seen their political bases dissolve, in Gallup poll figures:

 

Truman’s approval dipped to 24 percent in the late spring of 1951 after he removed popular Gen. Douglas MacArthur from command in Korea.

Nixon’s approval dropped to 31 percent in August 1973 as the war dragged on in Vietnam and revelations of administration misdeeds kept spilling out of the Senate Watergate hearings.

Carter’s approval plunged to 29 percent in the early summer of 1979 amid economic troubles and news of increasing problems with new Iranian leader Ayatollah Khomeini.

The first Bush’s approval sank to 32 percent in July 1992 as his presidential rivals Clinton and Ross Perot gained momentum in the campaign and the jobless rate rose.

For the current president to fall to those levels, Republicans and Republican-leaning independents would have to abandon him in large numbers. So far there’s no indication that is happening, though there are some rumblings of discontent.

 

“I voted for Bush,” said Jerry Fleming a GOP-leaning independent from Athens, Ala. “I feel like he’s pretty much a straight-shooter as far as his religious background. I respect that part of him.

 

“But if the situation in Iraq keeps dragging out for a long period of time with no hope for peace, I would eventually get fed up with it,” Fleming said.

 

‘A true leader’

For Trisha McAllister, a Republican from Grenada, Miss., Bush’s willingness to ignore public opinion wins her over.

 

“I may not approve of every single thing he does,” McAllister said, “but he’s a true leader because he’s not leading by the polls.”

 

Presidential scholar Charles Jones cautioned against reading too much into low poll ratings for a president at a given point of his term.

 

“Truman got some of the lowest poll numbers any president ever got,” said Jones, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution. “Now when we look back on Truman, he’s the highest ranked of the post-World War II presidents.”

 

© 2005 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

[Egghead]

yep. ignoring the public is what people want in a president. :cool:

[berrywoman]

:lol: :lol:

[colduser]

Iraq is what will sink this president. Americans get wrestless quickly when we get in a quagmire.

Bush is and will always remain a fool.

[TimJordan]

I second that!

[Matter-Eater Lad]

Iraq is what will sink this president. Americans get wrestless quickly when we get in a quagmire.

Bush is and will always remain a fool.

 

americans get wrestless when we dont even get in a quagmire. its the way politics work. the democrats are doing a good job promoting this as quagmire when it is not one, not even close. but the average american is taken in by the crap they see on the liberal news and they fall for it. just talk to soldiers from iraq, most will tell you be careful what you watch on the news, alot of its taken out of context and spun to make it seem different the what it really is. i just talked another person who got back from iraq. as many say its not as bad as the news would like you to believe.

[Matter-Eater Lad]

U.S. National Security (1 of 3): Imminent Threats

 

Mark Alexander

From Patriot No. 05-28 Published 7/15/2005 | Print | Email

 

"National defense is one of the cardinal duties of a statesman." --John Adams

 

Since the dawn of the American Republic, perilous national-security threats were symmetric, emanating from clearly defined nation-states with unambiguous political, economic and geographical interests.

 

Such symmetric threats are tangible, which is to say that American political leaders have been able to define them sufficiently so that the American people could generally grasp what constituted "the enemy." World Wars I and II involved symmetric threats and well-defined adversaries. Military campaigns in Korea and Vietnam, on the other hand, lost public support because the purpose of those campaigns (and "the enemy" in the case of Vietnam) was not clearly defined, and thus, American casualties in those conflicts were not tolerated.

 

Regarding Vietnam, not only did Kennedy and Johnson err grievously in their arguments for escalating our involvement in that "police action," but they, and Nixon after them, had to contend with a new arbiter of presidential messages -- TV news networks, and their political agendas which were, and still are (with one exception), overwhelmingly left of center. The Leftmedia can completely undermine a President's call to rally public support against a national security adversary, unless that call is clear and concise.

 

Having learned hard lessons from Korea and Vietnam, George Bush(41) did a far better job of both defining the enemy and defining American objectives when it came time to engage Saddam Hussein's million-strong army in Desert Storm. The result was overwhelming public support. But defining the enemy and our objectives in the second round with Iraq has been much more difficult for Bush(43), because the enemy and our objective was, and remains much larger than just "containing Saddam."

 

There is an imminent national-security threat, which defies all the elements and definable characteristics of symmetric threats. Thus it is difficult to sustain public support in defense against this threat -- particularly when some American political leaders and their Leftmedia minions attempt to deny the threat in a brazen effort to undermine public support for the current administration. This political folly is tantamount to treason as there is, today, a clear and present danger of a catastrophic WMD attack against U.S. citizens on U.S. soil.

 

Islamist terrorism is an asymmetric form of warfare, one that emerged in the late 1960s when Islamists inflicted terror first against Israel and Western military targets in the Middle East, and then, given rapid growth in the number of Jihadi adherents over two decades, striking targets in Europe. This threat congealed at the end of the Cold War, and in 1993 our homeland became a front line in this escalating conflict with Islamists.

 

On 26 February, 1993, Pakistani native Ramzi Ahmed Yousef and his al-Qa'ida terrorist brethren (who had entered the United States on Iraqi passports under the control of Iraqi intelligence) bombed the north tower of the World Trade Center in an effort to topple that tower into the south tower and inflict mass civilian casualties. Fortunately, due to Ramzi's lack of engineering knowledge, his crude truck-bomb didn't cause the collapse of the building, though it created a six-story crater in the parking garage.

 

Although Ramzi escaped, several other terrorists were captured and tried. Ramzi himself was finally arrested in 1995, as he was formulating plans to bomb simultaneously a number of U.S. international flights. After 1995, al-Qa'ida Jihadis focused on American targets abroad -- the Khobar Towers in 1996, U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998, and the U.S.S. Cole in 2000 -- all without reprisal from the Clinton administration.

 

In 2001, Ramzi's uncle, Khalid Shaikh Mohammed (the number-three thug in the al-Qa'ida organization), and Ramzi's mentor, Jihadi sheik Osama bin Laden himself, revised Ramzi's plan. Rather than bombing civilian aircraft, they planned to hijack civilian aircraft simultaneously and use them as missiles. On 11 September of that year, one of al-Qa'ida's U.S. terrorist cells finished the business that Ramzi started almost a decade earlier, bringing down the twin towers of the World Trade Center and targeting the Pentagon and Capitol Building.

 

The intent of this Jihadi sleeper cell was not just to bring down the WTC towers, but also the U.S. economy, thus breaking the will of the American people in their effort to hold the line against Jihadi expansionism around the world.

 

On that Tuesday morning, the American people were awakened to an imminent threat to our homeland, and before noon that day, our collective sense of invincibility had all but vanished.

 

In reality, Western democracies, particularly those seen as the true beacons of liberty, have been at war with Jihadistan, that borderless nation of Islamic extremists that constitute al-Qa'ida and other Muslim terrorist groups, for at least a decade.

 

A borderless nation? Indeed. The "Islamic World" of the Quran recognizes no political borders. Though orthodox Muslims (those who subscribe to the teachings of the "pre-Medina" Quran) do not support acts of terrorism or mass murder, very large sects within the Islamic world subscribe to the "post-Mecca" Quran and Hadiths (Mohammed's teachings). It is this latter group of death-worshipping sects that calls for jihad, or "holy war," against "all the enemies of Allah." They thus constitute an enemy without borders -- a nation of "holy" warriors we at The Patriot call Jihadistan, in an effort to make this enemy more tangible.

 

Just who are these "enemies of Allah"? In the wake of the most recent Jihadi attacks, the murder of more than 50 civilians in London, a Muslim "scholar," Hani Al-Siba'I, leader of the Al-Maqreze Centre for Historical Studies in London, made clear just who these Islamist Jihadis consider to be their enemies.

 

"The term 'civilians' does not exist in Islamic religious law," said Hani. "There is no such term as 'civilians' in the modern Western sense. People are either of Dar Al-Harb or not." Dar Al-Harb refers to the House of War -- anyone who is outside the House of Islam or the Muslim faith. In other words, if you are not Muslim, you are an infidel, the enemy of Allah. Even if you are Muslim, but advocate political and economic liberty for your brethren, you are a target. (Consider the number of Muslim citizens in Iraq murdered daily by Jihadis.)

 

How many members of the Muslim faith subscribe to the notion that non-adherents are infidels? Perhaps fewer than five percent of all Muslims take such a hard line. But to put this in perspective, if just one percent of Muslims worldwide inhabit the national brotherhood of Jihadistan, then there are ten times more Jihadis than there are uniformed American combat personnel in our military service branches.

 

There has been much hand-wringing this past week by those who just can't understand how four "British" citizens could have carried out the London bombings against their fellow citizens. But the attackers were not British citizens -- they were Jihadi warriors first and foremost. Until Western leaders can clearly articulate this distinction, such attacks will continue to be viewed as detached incidents of terrorism -- and not part of a uniform warfront with Jihadistan. Thus, rallying public support for that warfront will remain a daunting task.

 

Unfortunately, the Bush administration has yet to articulate this distinction in such a way that the American people, who tend to have a very short collective attention span when it comes to national-security issues, can grasp. Thanks to the 24-hour news cycle, millions of Americans can recite all the sordid details about a runaway bride, a celebrity child molestation case and a girl missing in Aruba. But these same Americans know almost nothing about an adversary, which is actively seeking to slaughter us by the tens of thousands.

 

Fortunately, the Bush administration understands our Jihadi adversary well. As President George Bush correctly noted in October of 2001, "Our war on terror begins with al-Qa'ida, but it does not end there. It will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped and defeated. ... This war will not be like the war against Iraq a decade ago, with a decisive liberation of territory and a swift conclusion."

 

Because Jihadistan lacks any central governing authority (other than the Islamist protagonist of the day -- currently Osama bin Laden) or any central funding mechanism (other than the Saudi government and Islamist support groups in the West), its methods are unconventional. That is to say, it will use the most devastating weapon in its arsenal to succeed in its objective of destroying "the infidels."

 

Indeed, given that objective, and past performance, what's to prevent surrogate terrorists from detonating a fissionable weapon in a U.S. urban center? The answer -- nothing short of a determined Doctrine of Preemption as outlined by the President Bush, and a good measure of fortune -- the continued grace of God.

 

(Part Two of this series, "The National Defense," will be published next week.)

 

Don't even think about ending your week without arming yourself with The Federalist Patriot's comprehensive, conservative digest of the week's most important news, policy and opinion. Requested by more Americans than any other e-journal, The Federalist Patriot is a concise, highly acclaimed (see endorsements) digest of anecdotal rebuttal to contemporary political, social and media Leftists -- now delivered FREE by E-MAIL directly to your inbox Friday morning. Compiled each week by a national editorial panel, The Federalist Patriot's highly condensed format is an informative and entertaining survey and analysis a wide spectrum of reliable information from reputable research, advocacy and media organizations. Don't leave home without it!

[berrywoman]

:stunned: jinkies.. thats too much to read for me at the mo!!

[Egghead]

psst, camille: i dont know why he posted it.

 

remember ronnie raygun? :stunned:

[Matter-Eater Lad]

because some people need to read some good stuff for once and stop listening to the lies of the liberal media....... they makes some damn good points in that article i posted. it could open someones eyes.

[Egghead]

i read half of that. if you think thats all the truth, then i feel sad for you.

[Matter-Eater Lad]

hey now, hey.....

[colduser]

Nick, that article is crap. Thanks for sharing ;)

[Kapone]

:lol: He does his best

[Matter-Eater Lad]

Nick' date=' that article is crap. Thanks for sharing ;)[/quote']

 

the truth can be crap... thats how life works.

[colduser]

But your crap article is not truth ;)