These are the results of a poll taken on AOL.

Do celebrity activists affect your political opinions?

93% No
7% Yes
Total votes: 301,812

Should President Bush pay more attention to anti-war protesters?

71% No
29% Yes
Total votes: 302,160

Do you think peace demonstrations embolden Saddam?

72% Yes
28% No
Total votes: 298,558

jwhop

Heres some things probably those SAME people havent considered...

~the millions of people predicted to die (some of which will be members of THEIR families!)

~the cost of war...as mentioned by CNN just today...low estimate approx. 90 Billion...high estimate, 1.9 TRILLION dollars, and thats not factoring in any "unforeseen circumstances".

Heres a blurb from the site today, with Bush asking congress for the lower figure...
http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/02/26/sprj.irq.war.cost/index.html

Most people voting on these kinds of things also havent studied enough to know and understand the famines,etc which will also follow. Nor do they understand about Nuclear Winters. I also doubt they understand about karma or brotherly love (IMO of course)

I suppose most American citizens wouldn't balk at spending 100 billion or so to free the Iraqis and remove Saddam and his chemical and biological weapons so they can't be used against us or his neighbors. Money well spent, they would say, and are saying. The 90 billion to over 1 trillion dollar number has been all over the news here and the latest polls show about 66% of Americans are with the President. But it's OK Aries, none of the cost for freeing Iraq will be taxed to you.

Let's just say I mistrust your millions of dead to free Iraq Aries. Exaggeration doesn't help your cause.

It's interesting to note that the last war with Iraq cost 67 Billion...and 60 billion of that was payed for by our Allies.

AND we broke promises of money/aid to countries that agreed to let us use their space and land.

This bill would be all on us....and as Jane Common Taxpayer...I am here to say...we cannot afford this war.

Our state government is having their pay raises from last year revolked.....virtually every assistance is cut...all fine arts.....medical....A lot of people here have lost their jobs in the last 2 years....and our last governor apparently goofed in his math....

We can't afford this war.

And as to whether or not Aries would have to be 'taxed for it herself'...well maybe not directly...but with the help of NAFTA she sure as hell will feel the pinch!

Our government often does not show respect for our Canadian brothers and sisters....but the recent policies of this administration have hurt the Canadian economy badly....not all because of us...but we sure as hell helped.

So will she pay for the war?.....oh baby...we ALL will.

and Peace!

Dani

Thanks for seeing the forest past the trees Dani
Actually, Nafta has affected "us" in Canada in a severe way already. And its exactly as you say Dani...so imagine what it will be like with a few hundred billion dollar deficit.
Its one reason I can relate to what this war will do to us ALL economically. And thats only the beginning.

Aries,

It was just one generation ago that my Mothers family migrated from the Saskatoon/Regina/ Cabri (where my Mom was born) area.

We left relatives behind there too...along with more in Vancouver.

It's not My homeland...but it's my Mothers...and my dear wonderful grandmothers.

Her grandfather ( or was it great grandfather?...hhhhmmmm) settled there in the late 1700's......I've got a lot of Canadian blood in me!

The tax our government layed on the lumber industry has already had a trickle down effect here....thru increased building costs.....but no one has put 2 + 2 together.....
and now we are clear cutting like we never have before...and, I think that the recent fires...will have a dampening effect on people fighting the forests being cut down....

Jon Stewart once said we won't notice Canada until we are out of trees...then we will come knocking and say "Hey Canada...ummmm...we're out of wood. Get out."

That was from one of his stand up acts before he went national....not really funny when you think about it.


and Peace!

Dani

Jwhop since Pres. Bush has stated that he doesn't form his polices based on what selective groups have to say, this poll by AOL doesn't mean anything. It concerns me that 71% of these people would suggest that the government not listen to the voice of the people guaranteed under the Constitution. Applying their logic, the government shouldn't listen to their voice either.

I agree with Dani and Aries that we are going to be paying for this war for a LONG time to come. As Dani pointed out, our allies in the Gulf War paid a large part of the bill. This time the American taxpayers are picking up the tab alone. In an already weak and depressed economy it is going to hurt us big time. And yes, Aries, it will affect Canadian and the world economy. The saying is, as the U.S. goes, so goes the rest of the world.

I agree with jwhop though that if it frees the Iraqi people from the tyranny of Hussein and removes him so that he is not a threat to the rest of the world, the cost of the war may be worth it. I am still real nervous about this war and still not convinced that the Bush administration is not just wagging the dog. " Why does a dog wag it's tail? Because the dog is smarter than the tail. If the tail was smarter than the dog, the tail would wag the dog." Here is an article concerning that:

While the Bush Administration has (for now) given up on its attempts to link Saddam Hussein to September 11 or to terrorism, and has offered scant new evidence of a security threat from Iraq, there are other reasons for war. The economy is sputtering, and a number of scandals threaten to ruin this Presidency. The President himself profited from accounting scams very similar to those that brought down Enron, while he was a director of Harken Energy Corporation. Cheney is under even more suspicion for his chairmanship at Halliburton, which includes -- among other things -- accounting irregularities and his own $18.5 million profit from selling stock not long before bad news about the company became public. Then there is the most massive intelligence failure in American history -- the ignored or unnoticed warning signals of September 11.

Add in various corporate accountability scandals (including Enron) and voters' anger and disgust, and any of the likely domestic issues in the November elections -- for example, Medicare and prescription drugs, Social Security -- and it is easy to see why this administration is eager to embrace war. Without even a single shot being fired, the Bush Administration has managed to shove aside almost all the issues that could hurt them politically, and focus the media's attention on Iraq...

But even if he can pull it off, Americans will still lose. Aside from increasing hatred in the rest of the world, there is a domestic cost to these foreign adventures that pushes us toward the back of the pack among developed nations in so many areas that really matter: health insurance, poverty rates, education, infant mortality. We lose because we allow corrupt politicians to divert us from the real issues here at home, simply by pointing a finger overseas at the enemy-of-the-month. (Who is usually a former friend and ally, as Saddam was when he actually used his chemical weapons against Iran, and Washington provided satellite and intelligence data to help him).

And jwhop, this is for you and the people in that AOL poll, this is what Pres. Bush thinks about all of us:

Last year George W. Bush joked that "you can fool some of the people, all of the time -- and those are the ones you have to concentrate on." It remains to be seen if he can fool enough people to get this war going.

http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0912-09.htm

Love, Connie

Hello moonflower

President Bush was elected to lead. You shouldn't confuse him with Bill Clinton who based his decisions on polls.
It's presumed and I assert it's true that the President, (any President) is privy to sensitive intelligence information that should not be made public lest the source be tracked and shut down.

The Constitution does not require the government to listen to groups. Contrary to popular opinion, the United States is a Republic and NOT a Democracy. We elect members of the House every 2 years, the President every 4 years and 1/3 of the Senate every 2 years. Your voice is heard by electing those aligned with your positions on issues you have strong opinions about or writing your Representatives, Senators and/or the President. The Constitution guarantees to every state a Republican form of government.

I'm not getting your drift with your wag the tail comment. If anything, the President and Congress ARE the dog (no pun intended) and the antiwar protesters are the tail. Don't expect a small group of people to wag this President.

On the other hand, I find the President perfectly transparent in that he addresses issues, states his policy decisions, then carries them out. The fact is that no matter what decision the President makes about any issue, he would be criticized by one group or the other. Part of the job.

I take exception to you accusation the President selling shares of Harken Energy was a scam. The entire matter was investigated by the SEC and found to be groundless. In truth, he did commit a technical violation in that he didn't notify the SEC of the sale for about 8 months. I haven't heard of any Corporate Executives who do their own filings on stock or option sales. It's just as possible that someone else was supposed to do it for him, lawyer or accountant, which doesn't excuse him from the obligation but puts the matter in a wholly different light.

You should also know that the President sold those shares of Harken to an institutional investor after Harken had drilled 2 dry wells in what they thought was a promising tract of land in the Middle East. Now you may find that objectionable but the President is/was an investor and the purpose of investing is to make money on your investments. He took that money and bought into the Texas Rangers baseball team.

As for Enron, they were spreading money all over the political spectrum for years. Don't forget, Enron arose during the 90's, the so called "Decade of Greed", during the Clinton administration and it was also unraveling while Clinton was still President. Clinton's Sec of Treasury was Robert Rubin, a Wall Street insider. When Enron wanted the government to bail them out, they sent Rubin to the White House to press their case---President Bush stiffed them and let all the dirty laundry hang out.

The President's Administration has since gone after Enron executives, indicting Fastow and Justice Dept. investigations are still underway that will probably result in indictments of Ken Lay, Skilling and other Enron executives. Some have already pleaded guilty to an array of charges and are being flipped by the Justice Dept. to get evidence against the top executives. When the US Attorney goes into court with criminal charges, it takes more than a conviction in the court of public opinion to get a criminal conviction.

Enron isn't the only corporation to face the wrath of the Bush Administration. Imclone, WorldCom, Arthur Andersen, Xerox, Tyco and Global Crossing to name a few. Some of their executives have been arrested and charged. Additionally, Some of the largest Wall Street Investment firms have been fined Billions and new rules implemented requiring corporate CEOs to personally sign and certify their earnings statements.

So, I think your accusations are unfounded. Rather than coexist with the Wall Street bankers and corporate corruption as Clinton did, the President tackled it head on to clean it up.

The President's initiatives for prescription drugs and other social improvements are being obstructed by the Senate Democrats. You should direct your concerns to Tom Daschele, the Minority Leader.

Thanks for posting the President's comment about fooling people, taken out of context no doubt. But you did bring up an important point I had intended to address on another thread.

Yes, you can fool some of the people all the time and in view of the fact some here have signed petitions for and supported so called peace marches, I'm going to show you whom is fooling whom.

International A.N.S.W.E.R. is a communist front organization for the Workers World Party. Read about that here:
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/1/20/180651.shtml

The Workers World Party is a communist organization dedicated to the overthrow of the American system of government, our Constitution and our economic system. Here's some of this organizations own comments:

"Sam Marcy was the leader of a group of communists who formed Workers World Party in 1959-------"

"WWP sees the class struggle between the workers and the capitalists as irreconcilable-------"

"The party studies the great revolutionary experiences in Russia, China, Cuba, and elsewhere
------" They forgot North Korea!!

You can read it for yourself here:

http://www.workers.org/marcy/cd/wwwdesc.htm

You can read about Ramsey Clark, another bright lite in the antiwar movement and the generator of a petition to impeach President Bush here:

http://shadow.autono.net/sin001/clark.htm

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/1999/06/21/clark/

Ramsey Clark calls Jesus a terrorist.
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/1/13/113824.shtml

If you live in this country, you are free to join whatever organizations you wish, you're free to march with any groups you wish and if their objectives are to overthrow our system and give us the Soviet, Cuban, North Korean or Communist Chinese systems, you're still free to do it. But you wouldn't be free to protest anything if these people got their way. You can also support the terrorists Jihad, Hammas and the communist drug lords, FARC who are also speakers at peace marches in the US. Just don't kid yourselves or try to kid me that any of these people have peaceful intentions. These people organizing, sponsoring and directing peace marches are as close to blasphemy as it gets.

Just don't then speak of how much you love America and revere our Constitution. That's one of those inconsistencies I spoke of on another thread.

Love, jwhop

Hi jwhop,

As a teenager I was always warned, "Just because everyone else is doing it doesn't make it right blah blah blah."

Going along with the majority doesn't always work. Just look at the leisure suits of the late 70's as an example of what can happen.

I don't put much weight in polls--no real way to tell who's being polled. The newspaper accounts I've read say the majority of Americans and others around the world do not want war with Iraq unless there is UN backing.

It is interesting that people who found this spiritual website are so divided on this war. We seem to be on opposite sides. It makes me believe there is a middle ground we could agree on, a balanced solution. Couldn't Saddam be effectively stopped from using WMD without our bombing Iraq? I think most people in the world including the UN would agree with this, and it would be a solution much more likely to promote world peace. Also, why could there not be a world tribunal to try him for war crimes? Can't he just be arrested????!!!!

Love,

Hello Piscesdreamer

God, weren't those leisure suits dreadful?
But how did you find out about them? Must have seen some old movies I guess

I'm not much of a joiner PD. I don't go along to get along You must know that from reading this forum.

The AOL poll is not a scientific poll. People see it and vote but the last scientific poll I saw indicated something over 52% of Americans were in favor of going after Saddam---even if we had to do it all by ourselves. The numbers were higher if other nations joined us. At this point, there are between 15 and 30 other countries ready to go with us depending on which way the wind is blowing any particular day

Hey jwhop,

I was editing my stupid first post (because I lost a longer and better one) and you answered before I added to it.

Too funny you are about how did I know about leisure suits!!! My friends and I teased each other about the prom, "Bet your date shows up in a leisure suit!"

Love,

So PD, did your date show up for the prom in a leisure suit and platform shoes?

The biggest problem in containing Saddam Hussein isn't confining him to Iraq. It's confining his chemical and biological weapons to Iraq. One drop of VX nerve agent on the skin is fatal. One (1) one millionth of a gram of inhalation anthrax is fatal in 5-7 days. Enough of these weapons could be smuggled out of Iraq in a suitcase to kill thousands if properly dispersed. We know there were several thousand tons of unaccounted for chemical and biological agents and the stocks to make much more when the inspectors left Iraq in 1998. He's had 4 years to make more and hide it. Iraq is about the size of California. 10,000 inspectors on the ground couldn't search Iraq if given years. This site has some pretty good information on Saddam's weapons systems.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/iraq/2002/Iraq_Oct_2002.htm

I guess we could have Hans Blix snap the cuffs on Saddam next time Hans goes to Baghdad Or we could fax Saddam an order to show up at The International War Crimes Tribunal for trial.

Love,
jwhop

OK you guys have had now.
My Leisure suit was every bit as tasteful as my disco suit.
And both were a far cry about those druggie baggie black rags worn today.
And there is a big difference between turquoise and BLACK.

The question seems to be to war or not to war, not about Saddum or the Capitalist pig leaders.

So this is for El, and follows jwhop and PD comments.

From the CIA World Facts

Iraqi Literacy:
definition: age 15 and over can read and write
total population: 58%
male: 70.7%
female: 45%

Population:

24,001,816 (July 2002 est.)

Age:

0-14 years: 41.1% (male 5,003,755; female 4,849,238)
15-64 years: 55.9% (male 6,794,265; female 6,624,662)
65 years and over: 3% (male 341,520; female 388,376) (2002 est.)

Fit for Military service:

males age 15-49: 3,430,819 (2002 est.)

Dear El,

This is for you and others can think about.

As the facts above show who and what the US wants to "Go To War" with is all the more reason not to go to war. They are ignorant kids with nothing.

I can certainly see why you would be full of fear living next to the main scene but let me settle your fear and put it into a more realistic since and make the monster disappear, so to speak.

The American forces surround Kuwait. Out in the ocean there are aircraft carries and other ships with jet planes and cruse missiles. Over to your left (facing North) is Saudi Arabia where the US has had troops for many years. Jets patrol the southern region of Iraq hourly.
They have destroyed many radar and gun or rocket sites over the last few years as they appear.

If and when the war starts (after initial bombing raids.), thousands of troops will flow into the Southern Iraq area and head north. There will be little resistance in the south. Kuwait is in no great danger.
I would guess you have US forces visible by now?

Iraq supposedly has a few scud missiles unaccounted for, if they work after 10 year and if they were even launched, the target would probably not be Kuwait. And once launched, they have no control so the probability of the rocket hitting anything but sand is very small.
As far as boi or chemical warheads being affixed to these rockets is minuscule. It could happen but so could an earthquake or tidal wave, it's just not likely. That's the math.

Within 72 hours the US forces will be approaching Baghdad, give or take 48 hrs depending on how the command second guesses itself as all battle seem to be freaky in nature.

So where is the great and powerful Iraqi army. Most of the Republican Guard supposedly started south from the Turkey Boarder to set up camp around Tirkrt (I think) because that's Saddam's hometown. He is probably somewhere between there and Baghdad as he is a Taurus, so between home and his stuff.

The bombs will cream the Republican Guard in hours. The main armies will engage in an arch a little southwest of Baghdad.

If boi or chemical weapons are used that cause the US army to falter, the jets and missiles would unleash a hellish barrage on anything that moved in their direction. (War would really kick in and end quickly.)

So the battle as we see wouldn't be much but as an example of how to settle disputes it would only create another generation waiting for the next war.

Now what if things go really wrong. The US and UN end up killing thousands of ignorant children while Syria, Saudi, Iran, Jordan, East Asia all watching (And many of those are ignorant kids) and only a hand full of fanatics will be needed to create another passionate wave of hate against the west. Another war with more kids.

The US Constitution is a living document. Like a forest. It doesn't define the use of paper or wood. It doesn't define fire or rain management. The courts define these cases one at a time, slowly, so ever slowly redefining the laws that keep our rights to be free and the ability to live in peace. A sudden change to the Constitution is what each small group would like but it is the worst possible action for the whole population. As much as I would like to see anyone using a Cell Phone in traffic shot on site, there is a small group of Cell Phone users that would insist that they have the right to stop traffic anytime they want and chat away. And a smaller group may be plotting to make all non Cell Phone users pay for all the accidents they cause while the non Cell Phone users are plotting to ban Cell Phones. One case at a time, did you use a Cell Phone that causes a problem in traffic that resulted in a negligent manner? True or False? If true, what does the law say is the punishment? What is the social impact? What is the cost? What is the compassion of the society? What is the mercy of the Judge? Each case is finely tuned to blind justice from the groups, but flavored by the overall significance of the wholes conscience.

There are many avenues remaining to deal with Saddam. He is not worth one dead kid.
And $1,000,000,000,000 can't buy back a dead kid but it could educate a million live ones.

War is not an opinion anymore; it is the refusal to accept law and peace, which is the best type of tolerance for a lot that hate each other by nature.
Retoric from any group, especially the ones governing us, is the monster of our conscious and it needs limits, each of us tugging on it with a rope like a big dog.
If released into the neighborhood, kids get bit.

My 2 cents,
Darwin

Hi jwhop,

The term wag the dog comes from the movie with the same name. It means that in order to take the public's mind off the real issues like a sagging economy, high unemployment rates etc., or some scandal, or both in this case, the government creates a crisis of some kind. In the movie the president had an affair which was made public by his mistress, so he decided to start a war with Algiera as a distraction. That term from the movie caught on and is used to describe any president or administration who is seemingly doing the same thing as was depicted in the movie.

So you say America is not a democracy but a Republic. Is that a Republican Republic? hee hee Last time I noticed the U.S. was a democracy so I disagree with you on that. Even the Republicans use the term democracy when talking about our form of government.

I won't argue party lines. I made it clear I am neither a Democrat nor a Republican. I vote for the person and his, and hopefully one of these days HER, record. I noticed how you always have excuses for the Republicans but condemn the Democrats for the same offenses. Both parties have been just as corrupt in the past years. It is true what you said about the critcism though. It's part of the job rather the president is a Democrat or a Republican. It's also true of anyone else, especially someone who is in a leadership role.

Proxy, I like your thinking.

Love, Connie

Hi again jwhop,

Fortunately, my date did not show up in a leisure suit, but a very proper tux--white jacket and white pants, a blue ruffled shirt and white bow tie, and no platform shoes, just white shoes. Cool, huh? Actually ladies' fashions in the 70's and early 80's were just as silly. I gave up after that era and just dropped out of trying to be in style. I mean, I'll probably look silly no matter what!

I know it sounds silly to expect SH to show up in court--however why is there no way he can just be brought to trial for war crimes? It doesn't seem like he could hide the way bin Laden does. So yes, maybe a coalition of soldiers from the UN countries could go in and handcuff him?

Those chemicals are scary. I have wondered though if Saddam might end up using them as a RESULT of our beginning bombing of Iraq to smithereens, as retaliation for the attack on him and his country! If he has had them for so long, why hasn't he used them yet? Why not some simultaneous grand terrorism to go along with the 9/ll planes? And, even if we bomb the whole area that is the size of California and go in with oodles of ground troops, we still might never find that suitcase! I think this is the reason some of the big UN allies are so reluctant to go along with Bush's plan. Maybe if SH has these WMD he has not used them because he knows there would be swift reprisals, however after he is attacked, he will not have the incentive of restraint.

I do think that if we carry out this war, it will set the world stage for a long, dismal future of warring like this, that the hatreds will never end.

Love,

Hey Proxy!

I didn't see your post before my last one. Nice to hear from you again! As well as to picture you in your haute couture finery in the disco days. (Weren't the shirts that went with leisure suits called huckapoo shirts?) Anyways, I wish we could be discussing the pros and cons of disco instead of the pros and cons of a looming war!

Proxy said:
There are many avenues remaining to deal with Saddam. He is not worth one dead kid.
And $1,000,000,000,000 can't buy back a dead kid but it could educate a million live ones.

Bravo!!!!

Hi Moonflower! I have never talked with you yet and haven't talked with Lisa in so long, as I don't get here as often as I'd like. It's so nice that Lisa introduced you here.
My views about Iraq click with yours, however I think jwhop was right when he said the US is not an actual democracy, that it is a Republic, for which we stand! , founded on democratic principles. It's a technical finepoint.
Love,

"There are many avenues remaining to deal with Saddam. He is not worth one dead kid.
And $1,000,000,000,000 can't buy back a dead kid but it could educate a million live ones."

QUITE!

Love,
Terri

PS - Hey P/D - Great minds obviously think alike

I dont know if anyone caught Mike Farrells (spelling??) ideas on how to handle this yesterday on CNN..it was RIGHT ON! Hes the person who helped organize the virtual protest on Washington . What a smart man! Too bad he aint the prez!

Maybe he should run according to this recent poll!

http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/02/27/bush.poll/index.html

Hi moonflower,

I like my thinking too.
Wish I could do more of it.
I've got you in my queue to talk to so don't go ape shit and run of to Reno.


Hi PD,

Wow! You sound so serious. Hehehe
Yep, I had really shirts.

Burn Baby, Burn!

Republican government is correct but I have gotten the feeling that some thingk that means the rich run it. The ideal of the Republic is it's consistency over a pure democratcy.
And as Woodie said, I think, a pure democratcy can lead to Real TV shows before you can find the remote. Meaning, it's a prelude to chaos.

So is that the new tread now, we find our soulmate and it turns out to be a job?



See yea at the water cooler,
Darwin

Is the world moving faster than it was last year?

Hi T & A,

Must be happy hour, everybody talkin' at once.

Find our soulmate? No, no..hes gonna find me in about 2-3 years!

Dar, theres a broadcast on now Im listening to about this recently discovered comet..2002 V1

http://www.live365.com/stations/earthchanges?site=earthchanges

Hey Prox

As a war, this is going to be a non event. On that, maybe we can agree. For the rest, your stuff makes more sense when I've had a fifth Martini. brb Yes, the world is spinning faster, grab a palm tree or be thrown off.

moonflower, the Constitution requires a Republican form of government, no Demoncrats allowed. That's my story and I'm sticking to it. Yes, yes, yes, I saw the movie "Wag the Dog" and remember the sequence of events leading up to it. Monica and a fine Cuban cigar, wasn't it??

Aries, all the alcohol in my cabinet can't get me to where you are on this issue----sorrrrrrrry

PD, OK send in some UN troops to arrest Saddam, preferably French troops. Agreement in the UN to take the action should only take a decade or two, followed by another decade of debate within the French government. Problem solved by that time Saddam will have expired of natural causes---unless one of his sons or generals offs him first.

Terri, what's a nice girl like you doing here?

Dani, I've been searchin, oh yeah searchin, searchin every whichaaaaa way. Where did I go wrong?

Love,
jwhop

Ahhh Jwhop - flattery will get you everywhere!!!!

Love,
terri

Hi Darwin!

Nice talking to you. I'm aware of all those facts you've mentioned about Iraq.

US is not going to war against Iraqi people, they are going to war to finally save them, to save all those poor, illiterate, hungry kids... why are they poor, illiterate, hungry, ignorant, etc.??? The answer is very obvious to me. Because of Saddam's regime.

I'm aware of the huge presence of US and UK troops in Kwt and in the whole region. It does make us feel safer a little bit.

The danger of being hit by chemical or biological weapons is not great you said, but "it could hapen...".

You see, "it could happen..." is very scary thought to all of us here.
We're in danger for the last 12 years, Kwt is paying a high price for its protection, but nobody is complaining about it. Kwt needs USA behind its back if it wants to survive as a country and as a nation.

What are those many avenues remaining to deal with Saddam?? I don't see any left at the moment. Saddam was making a fool of the whole world for the whole decade. Enough is enough.

Once again I do reapeat, deep in my heart I was and I am always a pacifist. But times and circumstances do change.

Saddam is not worth one dead kid. I agree.

But I also say that this war is worth Saddam's removal from power, to give all Iraqi kids a chance for a better future.

Peace and Light
El

Hi Everyone

El, I agree with you. Here in the U.S. everyone is buying duck tape ( we found yet another use for duck tape!! ) among other items to protect themselves from the threat of a chemical attack as a result of this war. That should give us all an idea of what it would be like living with that threat all the time as those in Kuwait and the rest of the Middle East have to deal with on a daily basis. Also as result of ousting Hussein, we can see that those kids, both male and female, have an education. It's a shame that a war is the only way of achieving that, and like Proxy, I hate to think of us killing 15 year old kids who have to fight in Saddam's army. But there just does not seem to be another way.

Jwhop, since you brought this up about this country being a Republic, not a democracy, it creates a whole new discussion. You, Proxy and Pisces are right about the U.S. "supposedly" being a Republic and Pisces was closer to the truth than you and Proxy were when she said, "it's a technical finepoint." I say that while the U.S. is suppose to be a Republic, it is governed like a democracy, which our forefathers who gave us the Constitution abhorred, calling a democracy "a tyranny of the majority." Jwhop, while you say this a Republic, you are very happy that "the people are speaking" and you say the President shouldn't listen to the minority when they speak, but instead the majority. To think like that means that you prefer a democracy over a Republic. I said the government should listen to all the people, including those who are at any given time, a minority, because as Aries or Pisces asked, what if the majority are wrong? Listening to all the voices of the people governed, especially the minority, is a Republic. Here is an article and since it didn't come from a Republican you will not accept it, however I post it for those who will.

http://www.badnarik.org/info/republic.html

Michael Badnarik
Libertarian Candidate for
Texas State Representative - District 47

Almost ALL of the social problems in this country are derived from the fact that Americans don't even know what kind of government they have! If you are like most people, you think that the united States is a democracy. If you do, then you are wrong!

Recite the pledge of allegiance. Notice that it says "...and to the republic for which it stands." Now open your copy of the constitution to Article IV, Section 4. (You do have a copy of the constitution, don't you?) It says, "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government..." If my campaign does nothing but make people aware of the fact that we live in a constitutional republic, then I will consider it a huge success.

So what? We live in a republic. What difference does it make?

It makes all the difference in the world. In a democracy the "majority rules" - and the minority loses. A hypothetical example can demonstrate the idea. Pretend that you're a land owner, and that I would like to buy some of your property. You don't want to sell this property because it's been in your family for several generations. In a democracy, I could gather a dozen other land owners together, proposing that we divide your land between us. We will allow you to vote on the proposition, because this IS a democracy after all -- and you will lose thirteen to one. That's a democracy!

In a republic, nothing can outvote your individual rights! They are unalienable. If the land belongs to you it doesn't matter if I have a hundred friends, a thousand friends, or a hundred thousand friends! YOUR PROPERTY IS YOUR PROPERTY! It is the government's fiduciary responsibility to protect your rights. If you are in doubt, read your copy of the Declaration of Independence. Right after "...life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" it says, "That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed".

Hypothetical examples are fine for illustrating a concept, but real life examples are much better for driving the point home:

During the recent Million Mom March in Washington D.C. an angry speaker asked the crowd why government should pass additional gun control laws. The crowd responded "Because we SAID SO, that's why!" This is democracy in action. The idea that enough people can vote to take away your rights. What if you belonged to a very small church like the Branch Dividians? Could enough people vote to deprive you of your religion? Or do your individual rights outweigh the will of the majority?

Everybody hates taxes and the IRS. How did the IRS get started, anyway? In the early 1900's someone proposed a tax on the richest people in the United States. "Only the top two percent of the people" would be affected we were told. Since ninety-eight percent of the people weren't affected, they voted to screw their fellow citizens. This is democracy in action. It's obvious that the "taxpayer" category has been greatly expanded. Now everybody is affected..

Most of us agree that taking drugs is self-destructive. Should we, the majority, vote to prevent people from taking drugs that could potentially kill them? Don't we have a responsibility to protect people from themselves? The answer is an emphatic NO! Having the majority decide what is better for someone else is democracy in action. The War on Drugs has spawned a policy of "asset forfeiture". Police agencies deprive people of their property based on nothing more than an anonymous phone tip. The War on Drugs is an egregious assault on our rights to privacy and property, and it should be stopped immediately.

Every day more and more people go on welfare. The government gives them money which it has taken from you in taxes. Since a majority of people in this country already get some kind of aid from the government, do they have the right to vote for more of your paycheck? If so, how much can they take? Fifty percent? Seventy five percent? One hundred percent? This is democracy in action. At this point, wouldn't it be easier for people who were still working to just go on welfare? If everybody is on welfare, there wouldn't be anyone left to tax, and the system would collapse. This is exactly what happened in the Soviet Union.

These are just a few examples of the evils of democracy. Our founding fathers abhored a democracy, calling it a "tyranny of the majority". Sooner or later you will realize that you have no individual rights in a democracy! WAKE UP, AMERICA! Read the Declaration of Independence, and start studying the constitution. Abraham Lincoln said, "We the people are the rightful masters of Congress and the courts. Not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow men who pervert the Constitution."

I say the U.S., as it is governed now and has been for a long time, is a democracy. We need to start correcting that type of double speak from our representatives in government.AND THAT FORM OF GOVERNMENT WE NOW HAVE WHICH IS A DEMOCRACY!!!

These discussions have been just terrific. It is an education for sure. I like, most Americans, are not even aware of the double speak or the differences between a democracy and a Republic. Proxy, we have ignorant kids in this country too.

Love, Connie

Very well said Darwin!!!

Hello moonflower

Now you know why I usually vote Republican. It's the democrats who attempt to infringe on private property rights, issues of personal preference, placing more land under management of the government, who assume the people are so stupid they can't make good choices for themselves and generally think they can spend your money more wisely than you can.

Please don't misquote me. I never said the President should listen to anyone, majority or minority. I said the Constitution doesn't require the President to listen to (or take the advice of) groups. I also didn't post that AOL poll for the President to see. I posted it for others here to see who continue to insist there is a plurality of Americans against a war to remove Saddam Hussein. Let me make my thinking clear, the President was elected to be the Chief Executive Officer of the United States and should use his best judgment based on information available to him to formulate policy, domestic and foreign. Period

I find myself in agreement with Michael Badnarik on most issues. However, his take on the reason for laws against the use of drugs is flawed. While liberals may wish to stop people from injuring themselves by drug use, others wish to prevent them from injuring others as well as themselves while under the influence of controlled and mind altering substances. Which highlights another reason I avoid the Libertarians. They are a collection of single issue individuals, most focused on legalizing drugs.

Mr. Badnarik uses the analogy of the 16th Amendment to bolster his arguments but it's obvious he's never studied that issue or he would know that amendment didn't convey to the government any new powers to tax they didn't already have. A previous Income tax amendment was struck down by the Supreme Court in 1894 because among other things it attempted to tax the wages of American citizens. Today, on every tax pamphlet sent to "taxpayers" with the Great Seal of the United States prominently displayed, is the phrase, "our income tax system is based on self assessment and voluntary compliance". IRS Commissioners speak to Congressional committees in terms of finding ways to improve "voluntary compliance".
That which is "voluntary" cannot be "mandatory". The two terms are mutually exclusive.

This is a definition of "Republic": "A government in which supreme power resides in a body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and representatives responsible to them and governing according to law".

Now, please show me any other way laws, public policy, domestic policy, foreign policy et al. come into existence in the US that is outside this definition, to support your contention that the US is now a Democracy. That is, if these words and conclusions are yours and not those of Michael Badnarik. Because when I went to the site you linked, the following paragraph wasn't there.

"I say the U.S., as it is governed now and has been for a long time, is a democracy. We need to start correcting that type of double speak from our representatives in government.AND THAT FORM OF GOVERNMENT WE NOW HAVE WHICH IS A DEMOCRACY!!! "

By the way, what's "duck tape"?? I would hate to think someone has invented a special tape to tape their little bills closed to prevent that annoying quacking.

Love,
jwhop

Terri

That's good because there's some places I haven't been--yet

However, you shouldn't confuse undeniable truth with flattery

Love,
jwhop

Hi jwhop,

"Duck tape" is a typo. I meant duct tape. Don't make me get up and come over there, jwhop. And, the last part of that is me saying our government is run more like a democracy than a republic. The gentleman in that article seems to think so as well, his party affiliation aside.

I might also add, the tax system in this country is anything but "voluntary". If it were voluntary I would not be paying my taxes to support the funding of programs I am opposed to. We go to jail for not paying taxes in this country. So you are right, it is hardly voluntary. I would be very much in favor of anything that improves the tax system so that it isn't exclusively the rich and powerful who benefit from tax cuts. What the IRS will most likely do is change the wording on the form.

What you said about the government being able to decide both foreign and domestic policy on their own sounds more like a dictatorship. When they make those policies and decisions it is supposed to be for the good of the people and the country, not for the good of special interest groups and corporate America as it is now, both Democrat and Republican.

Our government sets it's policies based on special interest groups, corporations etc. That must their idea of a republic since special interest groups and lobbyists are the minority. However, those decisions, policies and laws effect us all. I hate to burst your bubble, jwhop, but the President of the United States is not God. I think if God voted he would be a Democrat because that party seems to be more concerned with the average working class, while the Republican party has a nice little caste system going in this country with the rich and powerful.

While you put that poll on to show that some folks from AOL (America Offline or Almost On Line) hold a certain opinion, the virtual march on Washington was a huge success. The Senators, Reps. and the White House recieved over a million calls opposing the war on Wed. That is hardly a minority of the population of the U.S. It was the people exercising the voice that the AOL folk don't they should have.

Love, Connie

Hello moonflower

Thanks for clearing up "duck tape" for me. I thought maybe I'd missed something important. Poor little duckies.

Hey, you're going to like the President's tax reduction plan. Estimates are that it will remove about 32,000,000 people from the tax rolls because they will have no tax liability whatsoever under his plan. Now who says the President's tax plan only gives tax breaks to the rich??

By the way, did you know the top 10% of earners in America pay over 90% of the taxes?

Good God, of course the government sets public policy and writes the laws in America, just like the Constitution requires. And here I thought you were in favor of a Constitutional Republic. Sounds more like you're advocating a direct democracy-----"the vilest form of government" according to the founders.

Say what you will moonflower but the President's Justice Dept is working hard to send some of those "rich and powerful" that you decry to jail.

Yeah, I'm sure God favored democrat Bill Clinton, who raped Juanita Brodrick, sexually assaulted Kathleen Willey in the oval office, committed adultery with Jennifer Flowers and showed a shocking lack of knowledge about cigar etiquette with Monica, committed what amounted to perjury and lost his license to practice law, bombed Iraq without UN authorization, bombed Serbia for 78 days without UN authorization and traded missile and nuclear technology to China for campaign contributions. All well documented and on the public record and yet you accuse President Bush without a shred of documentary evidence. You ever feel a little unbalanced politically?

Uhhhh, gee how to explain this to you. The population of the US is about 285,000,000. So you say 1 million called the White House (where did you get that figure by the way?) to protest the war that isn't. I would say that a ratio of 285 to 1 is a definite minority. I'd also like to see that call list. We know from election investigations that democrats vote early and often and also vote for the dead.
Most of those calls probably came from one staffer at the Workers World party with a computer dialer and a couple of different recorded outgoing messages.

Love,
jwhop

Hi jwhop

I must have had ducks on my mind when I referred to it as duck tape twice in that post. I like the duckies. I would never dream of taping their little bills shut.

You remind me of my friend who is a staunch Republican. I doubt God approved of Clinton, however I was talking about the Democrat Party on the whole, not one individual. If we are going to discuss individuals I always have Nixon to remind you about. At least a Democrat president never had to resign to avoid impeachment because his administration was so corrupt. Not, in recent times anyway. I am neither a Democrat nor a Republican because I don't vote for a party. They are interchangable anyway. I vote for who I believe to be the less of two evils. Only choice we really have in this country any more.

Regarding the proposed tax cuts of the Bush administration, rather it also grants the average working class any tax relief or not ( and I am skeptical about that) you don't truly think those tax cuts will come into existance after this war in Iraq do you? In a sagging economy, with high unemployment and a war? Who is going to pay for this war?
There are those in the business news that are questioning that. (http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/dec2002/nf20021213_2149.htm)

As for where I got the million figure regarding the virtual march on Washington last Wed., I got it from ABC news, though admittedly I have heard two figures now from ABC news. On the TV news they said a million calls, faxes and emails due to the virtual march, but on their web site it says 400,000. I am in favor of protest, Americans voicing their opinions regarding war or anything else. I am not in favor of what the protesters who are in Iraq are doing. To me, that seems treasonous. Along the same lines as what Jane Fonda did during the Viet Nam war. It is carrying protest a bit to far in my opinion. So you see, while I may seem liberal in certain views, I can be conservative in other views. I think it is that way with everyone. I am just looking for areas that you might be liberal in, jwhop.

Love, Connie

Hello moonflower

Quack, quack

Please permit me to remind you of some things you probably already know.
Woodrow Wilson, 1917 World War One--Democrat
Franklin D Roosevelt, 1941 World War two--Democrat
Harry S. Truman, Korean War, 1950--Democrat
John F. Kennedy, Vietnam War, 1961--Democrat
Lyndon B. Johnson, Vietnam War, 1964--Democrat

Facts are such pesky things.

Whoops, now you've really done it moonflower. Bringing up corruption, Republican Vs Democrat. History and historians have already spoken to that subject. Bill Clinton was the most corrupt President to ever sit in the White House---among the other things he did there. Read all about it here and see that Bill Clinton beat Richard Nixon out for the top honor of most corrupt:
http://www.americanpresidents.org/survey/historians/moral.asp

And in case you're wondering who those historians and Presidential watchers were who voted Clinton most corrupt, you can find that here:
http://www.americanpresidents.org/survey/participants.asp

We better have those tax cuts if we want to spur spending in the business community, increase job production and raise tax revenues to get rid of the budget deficits. That's what happens every time tax cuts go into effect. The tax rates go down and tax revenues to the Federal Government go up---dramatically. If you're interested in facts, you might check here for results of tax cuts to increase Federal Revenues. Of course if we then turn the Democrats loose with their pens ready to sign checks for every one of their crackpot schemes that do nothing but keep their constituents dependent on government handouts, then they will quickly spend all those additional revenues and more. That's what eventually happened to the increased revenues from the Kennedy and Reagan tax cuts.
http://www.mackinac.org/article.asp?ID=48

With all due respect to Business Week, some investors use their predictions to either enter the stock market or pull out. Whatever Business Week says, investors do just the opposite because Business Week seems to always get it wrong. I'm with the investors in that when it comes to economics, Business Week, Time et al. couldn't find their rears with both hands.

Glad to hear my refusal to watch ABC news vindicated. They can't seem to get it together either. I'm all for citizen protests on issues of importance to them. I'm just not in favor of lending my voice or support to those whose wish to overthrow our system of government, A.N.S.W.E.R., the Workers World Party and Ramsey Clark being the prime examples in the "so called" peace marches.

You want to see my liberal credentials? OK, how about this? I'm in favor of juries being permitted to award plaintiffs ANY amount in suits for malpractice or any other personal injury suit. I'm also in favor of limiting attorneys fees to a max of $200,000 plus provable expenses no matter how large the jury award for the plaintiff(s) may be.

I'm also in favor of repealing the 16th and 17th Amendment to the US Constitution and the Federal Reserve Act of 1913.

And limiting the value of stock options for corporate executives to no more than 20% of their annual salary and at the strike price of the company stock on the day the option is issued to the executive. For example, salary $1,000,000. Max value of stock options given, $200,000 on day of issue. Company stock selling at $100 per share= 20 options (each option is equal to 100 shares of stock) with a strike price of $100 per share. In order for executives to make money on their options, they would have to add some value to their companies, i.e., improve the earnings of the company, which raises the value of it's stock and also raises the value of their options.

Love,
jwhop

Hi jwhop,

I checked out the sites you gave me. Clinton might be on the bottom for personal morality but look where he is regarding economic management. Clinton is number five on the list. As for Democrats writing the checks for their causes in helping the underprivileged in this country and the world, I would say that is for a good cause. Also facts being pesky as they are, I remind you that Clinton balanced the budget while in office (giving Bush all kinds of spending money and he has run up a deficit already) and the Republicans couldn't balance the budget in all twelve years they were in office under Reagan and Bush Sr. Also homelessness never existed in this country until Reagan was elected for two terms.
http://www.americanpresidents.org/survey/historians/economic.asp


What I spoke about regarding the Democratic Party doing more for the working class people,in the category of Pursuing Justice for All, seven out of ten on the top of the list are Democrats.
http://www.americanpresidents.org/survey/historians/justice.asp

Now putting all that aside, we have had some good Democratic presidents and we have had some good Republican presidents. We have had some bad ones from both parties as well. Incidentally, I voted for Dole.

I like your liberal credentials. I think it was Shakespeare who coined the phrase "first kill all the lawyers." But if we did that we wouldn't have anyone in government.

Connie

ooooooo Connie!

Jane Fonda.....oh I remember that well......now THAT was treason.

Reagan also gave us e-coli! Thats a biggie.

Who had ever heard of it before the meat inspectors were tossed with the giblets?

Now you can't eat cookie dough anymore.....
I know it sounds pretty trivial in comparison...but you know,...it really pisses me off.

And since I am obviously too tired and emotionally drained to have anything more worthwhile that THAT petty little observation....I will bid you both Good Night.

It DOES piss me off tho'....My girls and I make a lot of cookies.....

and Peace! Dani

BTW....it might be easier math for the two of you to come up with a list of presidents who were both moraly upright, and financial wizards , along with being gracious diplomats.

It might save a lot of time...since THAT list is so short.

I've got Lincoln...after that....well I'm stumped.

Dani

I thoht making the dough was the easy part?
If you add just a little milk to Magix cereal in a blender it comes out like cookie dough.
I haven't baked any yet, though.

You can cross Lincoln off your list. The expert on Bill Moyer's Now program was saying how Abe used more executive overrides than Chevy has parts.

He wanted to (and did) arrest anyone that disagreed with him.
At one time he wanted to arrest the whole Senate of Maryland.

I wish I were President. I would move the Capital to British Columbia.
It's like a district. BC DC what's the difference?
I just know I could make better use of the Yacht.

I think if we made a list regarding the presidents with all the "right stuff" the list would be non-existent.

I eat the cookie dough, Dani. To me cookie dough is worth the risk.

Proxy, if I were president everyone else would move to British Columbia.

Love, Connie

BC's a pretty town..... what a view, eh?

Connie...I still eat the dough too.....but I won't let the girls eat it...which is incredibly mean...but if I poisoned them...I'd never forgive Reagan...and the guy is pretty sick.

Prozy...re: Honest Abe....


party pooper!

So who would you pick?

Jefferson's out......since he cheated on his wife too......

and Peace! Dani