Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - Howling Dog

Pages: 1 2 [3]
101
Politics & Religion / Re: Iraq
« on: July 25, 2007, 12:15:42 PM »
Woof Doug, If you want to hold on to the WMD thingy I also got a hand full of air for you...with about as much substance. Proof is in the pudding,so they say....as for the ties to terrorism.......don't suppose you could name any for instances could you? I mean actual for instances...not just accusational or theory ones.
Anyway for the record I voted for Bush twice and also was a supporter on the removal of Sadaam Hussein from power and the installation of a free and demcratic government in Iraq.......you know the one that was going to be a model for all the mideast? Seems that has gotten quite skewed over the last several years. :|
The thing that got me going here on Iraq was GM putting out that popular catch phrase "the global war on terror" and Jihad as if it somehow applied to Iraq.
The onely Jihad in Iraq is the one we started, or at the very least drew into Iraq by our presence there.
We may have removed Sadaam Husien from power , but we also raised up people like Zarqawi and Sadr.
Our installation of a free and democratic Iraq has dwindled to instilling enough peace with whoever maybe in control to get our troops out of Iraq and save enough face to not make our military look like a loser.
Thats pretty much why were resolved to negotiate with our old buddies in Iran wouldn't you say? and by so doing we may very well be giving over Iraq to someone who will be a puppet to Iran, like our good friend Sadr.
So in the end what has happend? WE have gained nothing in Iraq but f'd up a country and killed, maimed and wounded a lot of people, and the leadership may very well be worse than it was under Sadaam Husien. Certainly no friends of ours.

Back to the post at hand.....Are you saying that the CIA Is wrong with their view on the whos who and players in Iraq.....or did the MN Daily merly lie about the story?
The reason why I'am looking for who the fighters are in Iraq is because it all ties back in my opinon to the struggle for power in Iraq and its leadership.......I simply refuse to beleive that all these so called jihadis merly came on their own, unorganized and do their damage and thats it.
I feel there is a heiarchy of power and if you can interupt that leadership the mindless soldiers will flouder around and be of no effect.
I also beleive that we know who they are but are unwilling to go after them, thus making this global war on terror and the war in Iraq a huge mess/joke that is acomplishing nothing more than killing people and costing the U.S.  a lot of money.
One of those players is obviously Sadr yet we allow him to do his thing and hes been doing it for quite some time....why?
If you rememeber back a couple of years we had him cornered and supposidly wounded.
We allowed him to live and escape and invited him into the political arena....this has continued to come back to bite us in the ass and yet we continually allow him to do this......How can one say the are serious about the Iraq war and the global war on terror when these kind of things are going on right in front of our very eyes.

You may poo-poo the hunt for Bin Laden but I must assert his capture/death would be encouragement to the American people and a detriment to those who may follow in his footsteps........by not capturing and killing him just the opposite is occuring IMHO.
Sorry to ramble.........                                                        TG
By the way.....we know where the real terrorists are but refuse to go after them......that being Pakistan

102
Politics & Religion / Re: Iraq
« on: July 25, 2007, 10:17:52 AM »
Woof, Since the WMD thingy is no longer a viable reason for our "regime change" in Iraq. I have often heard said that Iraq/Sadaam Hussien was a state sponsor of terror. How much more can this claim be made to IRAN.
Besides that how much cooperation has Iran given regrading their nuke program?
This sounds an aweful lot like What Sadaam did.........
OH yea can you say " :wink:Wipe Israel off the map" other than that yea I guess we could also make the claim we are negotiating with "governments" Or are they sending troops...insurgents or foriegn fighters and weapons into Iraq? :roll:.........Nope just a friendly gov. we should be negotiating with concering Iraq. :|

Doug..... Can you tell me who is heading up your so called insurgency? Thats all I was looking for when I came upon the article.
It woould be nice to know WHO we are fighting in Iraq......care to name a name?
                                                                       TG

103
Politics & Religion / Re: Iraq
« on: July 25, 2007, 09:22:31 AM »
Woof, I thought that, we don't negotiate with terrorists. :-D
                                                                   TG

104
Politics & Religion / Re: Afghanistan-Pakistan
« on: July 25, 2007, 07:03:03 AM »
Woof, These kind of storys help keep me depressed in our efforts to effectivly fight a "global war" on terror.
My interpretation of the Stratfor report: Mehsud killed himself because he was tipped off that the Pakistani Gov. was comming for him, because of pressure from the U.S. to do more, we do this periodacly to justify the Bazzilions that we give thier Gov. for no apparent good reason.
The tipped off Target(mehsud) was more of a threat to the Pakistani Gov. than he was to us.(So big deal)
Anyone with an ounce of common sense knows this is a joke and just another successful application of making the U.S. out to be the fool that our Gov. so williningly plays to be. (by the Paki. gov) Maybe we will send them another gazillion in support for this great feat.
Weve been doing this for YEARS now with no real success.
How about we for a change we thumb our noses at the Paki GOV. send our troops across the border and start to do some real operations, and seriously start to fight this golbal war on terror.
I will give you one good reason that most won't care to admit to.........because It will be a real war and a bloody one and most likley a good number of American troops will be hurt/killed, but thats when and where we will find a real sucess to fighting this war.
Of course our Gov. won't do this because of how badly they've messed up the "Global war" on terror in Iraq, and they know the American people will no longer tolerate a large number of casualtys even if they are for good reason.
We have missed this window of oppertunity, due to a poor war effort by our Gov.
Soon Bush will be out of office and most likely a peace loving Dem will be elected........and essentially the war will be lost.
I'am no defeatist but I try to be a realist......and we never fought this to win.....nor are we making any direction change to win and so we most likely won't......
                                                                                TG

105
Politics & Religion / Re: Iraq
« on: July 24, 2007, 06:21:52 PM »
July 18, 2007

Who is the enemy?
Who exactly the United States is fighting in Iraq and why it matters.

By Jason Stahl


everal interesting reports came out this week regarding the nature of exactly who the United States is currently fighting in Iraq. We learned first that CIA director Michael Hayden classified the "main sources of violence in this order: the insurgency, sectarian strife, criminality, general anarchy and, lastly, al-Qaida." In the first of these two groups, the Mahdi Army (a homegrown Shiite Muslim group, which is seeking to end the U.S. occupation and cleanse Iraq of rival Sunni Muslims) is, according to another report, "Enemy No. 1" and the primary source of "brazen attacks" against U.S. troops.
As for foreign fighters, they are active in Iraq, but make up a small portion of what is largely a homegrown insurgency. According to a recent Los Angeles Times report, only "an estimated 60 to 80 foreign fighters cross into Iraq each month." Not an insignificant number, but still small compared to the overall size of those committing violence. The same report also details that "about 45 percent of all foreign militants targeting U.S. troops and Iraqi civilians and security forces are from Saudi Arabia; 15 percent are from Syria and Lebanon; and 10 percent are from North Africa" and that "nearly half of the 135 foreigners in U.S. detention facilities in Iraq are Saudis." Fully 50 percent of these Saudis come to Iraq to commit suicide bombings.

Why do I present such a lengthy recitation of these facts? Many would argue that the makeup of the violence in Iraq does not matter - all that matters is that violence is occurring. I would argue, however, that the makeup of the violence does matter in the context of two debates now occurring: whether the U.S. should withdraw from Iraq and whether the "War on Terror" should be widened to a third front in Iran.

Those who want the United States to stay in Iraq indefinitely and those who want to widen the war into Iran (usually the same people) clearly understand this, which is why they constantly are trying to obscure the nature of the violence in Iraq. Foremost among this crew of charlatans is President George W. Bush who (along with members of his administration) runs around telling the American public that the United States is primarily fighting al-Qaida, or, as Bush put it in a recent press conference, "the same folks that are bombing innocent people in Iraq were the ones who attacked us in America on September the 11th." This is an absurd statement for multiple reasons: It ignores the true nature of the violence (as I just described), it implies that Iraq attacked the U.S. on 9-11 (it didn't) and it implies that al-Qaida was in Iraq before the U.S. invasion (it wasn't). Nevertheless, it is used by war supporters to try and trump up support for staying in Iraq permanently.

But even more disturbing is those who are misleading about the nature of the foreign fighters in Iraq in order to widen the war into Iran (apparently one quagmire isn't enough). Senator Joseph Lieberman (I-CT) is the leader of this group who is doing all they can to squeeze one final war out of the Bush crew by implying massive Iranian involvement in Iraq - evidence be damned. Recently Lieberman said, "I think we have to be prepared to take aggressive military action against the Iranians to stop them from killing Americans in Iraq."

Simply put, in order to stop a widening of the war and in order to extract ourselves from Iraq, we must insist that Lieberman, Bush and all their allies stop misleading about the nature of the violence in Iraq. Such misleading got us into this mess and we can't let it dig us deeper into it.
http://www.mndaily.com/articles/2007/07/18/72084

 



106
Politics & Religion / Re: Iraq
« on: July 24, 2007, 04:27:57 PM »
Woof, Who was  Zarqawi before we invaded Iraq? Who was Sadr before we invaded Iraq? Bush has no substance to his argument.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070724/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush

Bush warns anew of terror threat By BEN FELLER, Associated Press Writer
1 hour, 37 minutes ago
CHARLESTON, S.C. - President Bush, trying to justify the Iraq war, cited intelligence reports Tuesday he said showed a link between al-Qaida's operation in Iraq and the terror group that attacked the United States on Sept. 11, 2001. Democrats dismissed Bush's argument.
 
"The merger between al-Qaida and its Iraqi affiliate is an alliance of killers and that is why the finest military in the world is on their trail," Bush said at Charleston Air Force Base, a launching point for cargo and military personnel headed to Iraq.

Citing security details he declassified for his speech, Bush described al-Qaida's burgeoning operation in Iraq as a direct threat to the United States. Bush accused critics in Congress of misleading the American public by suggesting otherwise.

"That's like watching a man walk into a bank with a mask and a gun and saying, 'He's probably just there to cash a check,'" Bush told troops at Charleston Air Force Base.

Bush is up against highly skeptical audiences with 18 months left in office. The public has largely lost faith in the war, Congress is weighing ways to end it, and international partners have fading memories of the 2001 attacks against the U.S. Six years later, terrorist leader Osama bin Laden remains at large.

"The president's claim that the war in Iraq is protecting us from al-Qaida is as misguided and dangerous as the conclusions that drove us to Iraq in the first place," said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. "The fact is that our continued flawed strategy in Iraq is emboldening and unifying al-Qaida, both in that country and elsewhere."

Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., said Bush "is trying to scare the American people into believing that al-Qaida is the rationale for continuing the war in Iraq." But Kerry said Bush presented no new evidence to back that up, and added: "The president is picking the wrong rationale for this war. Al-Qaida is not the principal killer of American forces in Iraq."

In broad strokes, Bush linked the Iraq war to an event that Americans remember deeply — the Sept. 11 attacks, not the sectarian strife among Iraqis, which has caused some to question U.S. military involvement.

Al-Qaida, led by Osama bin Laden, orchestrated the terrorist strikes on the United States by turning hijacked airplanes into killing machines. Now a fresh intelligence estimate warns that the United States is in a heightened threat environment, mainly from al-Qaida. The terror group is seizing upon its affiliate, al-Qaida in Iraq, to recruit members and organize attacks, the report found.

"I've presented intelligence that clearly establishes this connection," Bush said after spelling out details of foreign ties and leadership of al-Qaida in Iraq.

Al-Qaida had no active cells in Iraq when the U.S. invaded in March 2003, and its operation there is much larger now than before the war, U.S. intelligence officers say. The war itself has turned into a valuable recruiting tool for al-Qaida, senior intelligence officials concede. Bush denied that the war triggered al-Qaida's operations in Iraq.

Bush cited intelligence that:

_Al-Qaida in Iraq was founded not by an Iraqi but by Jordanian-born Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, who had deep relations with al-Qaida leaders. The president said Zarqawi, who was killed by U.S. forces last year, set up operations with terrorist associates in Iraq long before U.S.-led forces arrived, and that in the violence and instability following Saddam Hussein's fall, was able to expand the "size, scope and lethality" of his operation. Zarqawi formally joined al-Qaida in 2004 and pledged allegiance to bin Laden, he said.

_The merger gave al-Qaida senior leadership "a foothold in Iraq to extend its geographic presence and to plot external operations and to tout the centrality of the jihad in Iraq to solicit direct monetary support elsewhere."


107
Politics & Religion / Re: Political Rants
« on: July 21, 2007, 10:15:19 AM »
Woof GM, I just wanted to clarify my position on the global war on terror.
I'am all for fighting it, though I think we need to be doing a much better/smarter job of fighting it.
I think it uunexcusable that six years later we still have not gotten Bin Laden esp since I'am sure we have a good idea where he's at.
Mushy has survived more than on attempt on his life and that for him, in my opinon is the nature of  his beast...esp since hes decided to play both sides.......mostley I think he just plays us.
We could kill as many low level mid level jihadis as we want......and it won't diminish the number of such named much.
My thought is that the "radical" Islam is more the main stream  than most people want to admit.
I thnk concentrated efforts on "radical" leaders and selective targeting is or would be much more effective and cost a heck of a lot less.
Looking back on Iraq....I'am at least willing to admit I made a mistake there, because I fully supported the invasion and take out of Sadaam....but looking back I feel we created more of a jihad than helped the situation, and its cost us dearly and will continue to do so....because now I feel we are obligated to see this thru till its fixed if ever it would or will be.

Going back to selective targeting Jihad, and including Iraq.......tell me why if were so serious about what were doing....why is Sadr still walking the earth?

Here is my view in a nutshell regarding the global war on terror.....We screwed that up when we went into Iraq.
Afghanastan is still quite ify...and my dollar says if and when we leave it.........it too falls back to the Taliban.(at least as it stands today)
What the "H" were we then thinking by trying to take on Iraq at the same time..... my opinon a personal vendetta by Bush.
                                                                             TG

108
Politics & Religion / Re: Media Issues
« on: July 20, 2007, 06:06:05 PM »
Woof GM, Sorry I missed your last post here. My bad. I would say thats a very lofty goal to shatter or reform the worlds largest religion.
Do you honestly think were up to the task.....esp. virtually by ourselves.......
I would say quality preventive messuares may best suit our purpose, as well as accurate selective targeting.
Esp high profile targets like Bin Laden
                                                                       TG
oK AGAIN MY BAD...........Move the thread. :-D

109
Politics & Religion / Re: Political Rants
« on: July 20, 2007, 05:38:51 PM »
Woof GM, So then are you saying we are NOT winning the war on global Jihad?
Surley your not advocating for your last post of nuking Mecca?
What is the goal of the global war on Jihad anyway? In other words......How is it won?
I personally feel that we are by no means serious about this "war on terror" When 6 years after 9/11 we still are not going after the number one terrorist in the world with serious intent. (Bin Laden)
All that smoke we are blowing about....not taking going into Pakistan "off the table" Is pure BS, and anyone with half a brain knows Musharrif(sp) is playing us like a cheap guitar.
Hes been playing both sides for years.
In my opinon the whole things a farce........yet in the mean time weve some how managed to mess up Iraq and get a pretty good Jihad started there.......
In all honesty Sadaam Husein was messed up.......but there was a certain amount of stability in that country, after years and billions we can not say that today......
                                                                                  TG

110
Politics & Religion / Re: Media Issues
« on: July 20, 2007, 02:54:16 PM »
Ok, I'am not sure I agree with the termonology.....but ok for sake of argument lets go with "reform"......How do you think weve done so far since 9/11? Would you say we are winning over the Islamic community world wide?
Are you saying that sending troops into countries like Iraq is a method of reform? Please expound on that and how thats supposed to work.

Lets look ar Iraq for example......We got rid of Sadaam H. Now we are dealing with the likes of Guys like Sadr......Who would you say is/was the bigger threat?
Obviously S.H. was Iraq's "president" but I feel Sadr is much more radical by was of "Islamic Jihad"
How far does this go? Ever time a hardline Islamist stands up we take him out?.......
I need to buy some weapons manufacturing stock!
                                                                                    TG

111
Politics & Religion / Re: Media Issues
« on: July 20, 2007, 02:06:13 PM »
Woof GM, Those that know me, know I'am certainly no "Fake but True" Lefty. 
However I have been thinking and rethinking......The war in Iraq and all that goes along with it......
You make an intresting comment/statement or whatever.... in your last post ,"global Jihad".
I do believe in A global Jihad.....However I'am not so sure this can be won by invading and destroying countries.....
Sure, I supported the removal of Saddaam Husien from power.......though I don't really view him as a jihadist......not in the truest sense of the word.
Do you think honsetly a war against "global Jihad" can be won by destroying countries like Iraq?
A friend once said to me......"You can kill the man but you can't kill the dream"
Would you not agree that global jihad is more an ideal than an individual?
                                                                         TG

112
Politics & Religion / Re: Freedom of religion...
« on: July 14, 2007, 05:16:54 PM »
Woof Rog, Crap I just vaporized my whole post :-(....anyway.....Everyone whos a nonChristain pretty much views Christians as whackos. Thats a given.....and in a lot of cases with good reason.
Try not to make too much out of the "Christian conspiracy" thing....Christians are not that tight knit and besides how in the world do you get something out to the Christians without the rest of the world finding out. :lol:
I agree with a lot of what your saying as for the equal time and all that....yea why not.  wasn't that what happend when the whackos interputed it and got arrested?
If you read the link I posted it talks about giving time to other faiths.
My point still is why throw out something traditional with out good reason?
Do you have good reason to discontinue this practice?
Why or how is everyone better off leaving religon out of public life?
Besides who is "EVERYONE"
                                                                          TG

113
Politics & Religion / Re: Freedom of religion...
« on: July 14, 2007, 04:41:25 PM »
Rog, Ok so Scanlon and Abramoff view

114
Politics & Religion / Re: Freedom of religion...
« on: July 14, 2007, 01:23:42 PM »
Woof Rog, A quick google points to 1789......didn't read the whole article but heres the link.
http://www.senate.gov/reference/Sessions/Traditions/Chaplains_Prayer.htm

I agree that most likely the prayers deleivered on the senate floor are onley heard by those speaking them.....and that they are more or less done  "just because we always have" and your right thats no reason to pray.
Kinda like giving the same word of thanks before a meal.......not a lot of heart felt substance there most times. Does that mean they should stop?
There is a certain degree of revrence in a tradition like this.....even if its not necassarily in the given prayer.

My point though is why allow a single voice dictate the policy or the will of the masses........All too often we see this and I for one am quite sick of it....esp as something as harmless as a word of prayer on the floor of the senate.....who is that adversly affecting and what happend to the  accepting of diversety?
                                                                                          TG


115
Politics & Religion / Re: Freedom of religion...
« on: July 13, 2007, 05:29:49 PM »
Woof Rog, I have no idea who started the tradition or when.....my guess though it was a mutual agreement among the masses.
My point exactly is why change tradition, just because of a single person.
Notice my sarcasm in the .0001% who may object.....As I stated and I think you would agree MOST Americans beleive in a god or higher power and would not object if said being were refrenced as god or higher power......making them refrenced....in themselves to their particualr "god'
It would onley be the non beleiver in any "god" who would object. that being a very small number and the number who would take the time out of their life to object to this would be even smaller or nonexsistent.
After all why object to something that in their particualr minds does not exsist anyway.....would that not like be objecting to nothing? :lol:
Seems silly to me.
                                                                                 TG

116
Politics & Religion / Re: Freedom of religion...
« on: July 13, 2007, 02:48:49 PM »
Woof Rog, I agree with SB....Its probably traditon
Probably also based on the founding fathers strong Christian roots.
I'am sure for this very reason it should be abolished, since its really not fair to the .0001% atheists that make up the U.S. pop.
Would you not agree that most people beleive in a god or higher power....and as long as refrence is made as such....the onley ones that should be offended would be the atheist?
As for those "Christians" who disrupted the prayer....It is my opinion they were wrong in doing so and were more harm to the cause of Christ than they were help.
It was they're right to NOT engage in the prayer and there was also in my opinon no charge agaisnt them by God for the prayerful actions of those who did pray in the Hindu prayer.
We will all give accounts for ourselves when we stand before God......We will not give accounts for others......Thats my argument for why they should have allowed the prayer to continue uninterupted...... :wink:
Of course if there were no prayer....then there would be no problem....which I have really no problem with either, because then there is still equal representation for faiths...that being NONE.
                                                                                   TG

117
Politics & Religion / Re: Iran
« on: July 10, 2007, 10:23:39 AM »
I guess 11 years in prison was not enough :-P............
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,288793,00.html


Convicted Adulterer Stoned to Death in Iran
Tuesday, July 10, 2007

 E-MAIL STORY PRINTER FRIENDLY VERSION
TEHRAN, Iran  —  In a rare confirmation, Iran on Tuesday said a man convicted of adultery was stoned to death last week in a village in the northern part of the country, Iran's judiciary spokesman said.

Jafar Kiani was stoned to death in Aghchekand village, 124 miles west of the capital, Tehran, on Thursday, Ali Reza Jamshidi told reporters. It was the first time in years that Iran has confirmed such an execution.

"This verdict was carried out Thursday," Jamshidi told reporters.

Death sentences are carried out in Iran after they are upheld by the Supreme Court. Under Iran's Islamic law, adultery is punishable by stoning.

Jamshidi didn't elaborate on how the stoning was carried out, but under Islamic rulings, a male convict is usually buried up to his waist while a female criminal is buried up to her neck with her hands also buried.

Those carrying out the verdict start throwing stones and rocks at the convict until he or she dies
 
International human rights groups have long condemned stoning in Iran as a "cruel and barbaric" punishment.

Earlier Tuesday before Iran confirmed the stoning, U.N. human rights chief Louise Arbour condemned the execution, her spokesman said.

"The execution has apparently gone ahead despite Iran's moratorium on execution by stoning, a moratorium that had been in effect since 2002," said Jose Diaz of U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights.

"Stoning is in clear violation of international law," Diaz said Tuesday in Geneva. He said Arbour considered stoning to be a form of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment that is prohibited under an international treaty which Iran has signed.

Also Tuesday in Norway, the Foreign Ministry said Iran's ambassador was summoned by Foreign Minister Jonas Gahr Stoere to protest the stoning.

Gahr Stoere was "deeply upset" that the death penalty had been carried out and called stoning an "inhumane and barbaric method of punishment," Foreign Ministry spokesman Frode Andersen said in Oslo.

The reported execution comes two weeks after international pressure, including protests from Norway, caused Iranian officials to delay carrying out the sentence against Kiani and his female companion, Mokarrameh Ebrahimi, who also was sentenced to death by stoning. It was not known if a date had been set for her execution.

The couple had reportedly been imprisoned for 11 years.

Stoning was widely imposed in the early years after the 1979 Islamic revolution that toppled the pro-Western Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi and brought hard-line clerics to power. But in recent years, it has rarely been applied, though the government rarely confirms when it carries out stoning sentences.

There is no official report of the last time Iran stoned someone to death, but there were unconfirmed media reports that a couple was stoned in 2006 in Mashhad, located in northeastern Iran.

A group of women's rights activists headed by feminist lawyer Shadi Sadr have been campaigning to have the sentence removed from Iran's statute books.

In the past years, Iran's reformist legislators demanded an end to death by stoning as a punishment for adultery, but opposition from hard-line clerics sidelined their efforts.

Capital offenses in Iran include murder, rape, armed robbery, apostasy, blasphemy, serious drug trafficking, adultery or prostitution, treason and espionage.



118
Politics & Religion / Re: Political Rants
« on: July 08, 2007, 04:01:12 PM »
Woof, I think this definitely falls under the category of "Political Rant" :-P
I think Cindy Sheehan needs a psych eval. :roll:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070708/ap_on_el_ho/cindy_sheehan_pelosi
                                                                       TG

119
Politics & Religion / Re: Media Issues
« on: July 07, 2007, 05:53:16 AM »
Woof, Like I said I have been loosley following this thread so I dont know all the particulars.......but I'am defintaly against gov.imposed networking....or as Crafty stated being forced to listen to the views or opinions of anyone I don't want to hear.
Changing the chanel seems easiest.
Besides to hear what you want to hear merly involves tuning into the station that preaches your agenda. As i previously stated theres a audience for everyone......and someone for every audience.
A Aerosmith lyric says "talk with yourself and you'll hear waht you want to hear" :-D
                                                                        TG

120
Politics & Religion / Re: Media Issues
« on: July 06, 2007, 05:00:48 PM »
Woof Rog, I would say that for the most part I agree with what your saying. Though I doubt that this would/will happen.
   Hopefully anyone who would here someone say "liberals hate America" or anything like this would dismiss it as worthless spew.
Unfortunatly there are those types who do buy into such mindless crap.
Just the same its safe to say that this probably happens just as much on the left side as it does the right......none the less theres probably an audience for everything.
I think the idea that your speaking of .......checking speakers facts and content of what they are saying would best be served on a program specific setting.
More or less a debate type show with a moderator or fact checker for substance.
Though I think the audience for this would be limited, as well as those mouth pieces who would be willing to risk their reputations and agendas in a public forum. Hence the money factor for programming as audience equals $$$
CNN does do a show similar to this called "cross fire"  righty's and lefty's square off on specific topics. I have watched this from time to time.....though I do tire when one side won't let the other present their point, by interupting them. James Carvell is usally best for this tactic.  Of course you mentioned this as a problem already........So I don't have a good answer.
Unfortunatly, we can not rely on others to be honest and just tell the truth and base it on FACTS.
Then again if all would do this we would'nt need lawyers and courts either........ Just my opinion
                                                                                TG

121
Politics & Religion / Re: Media Issues
« on: July 04, 2007, 11:44:34 AM »
Woof Rog, I have been loosley following this conversation, and I'am just wondering if there was some mouth piece out there specificly that you would like to see get more air time thats not getting it or something specific your talking about.

The onley thing I see is that you want, or would like to have,is the right wingers checked with rebutal on their shows.
Are you making the claim that the lefts view is not equally or fairley represented?
I don't quite see this as true with the last election as being evidence.
Besides don't you feel that people are smart enough to make their own decisions on what they choose to believe without being convinced?
Obviously yourself being a good example. Minority maybe....But then did it ever occur to you that the right is really more the main stream than you may be willing to admit and that most people have no issue with what your claiming.

Did it ever occur to you that living where you do may have you a little out of touch with the other 99.9% of America
                                                                           TG

122
Politics & Religion / Re: World Trade Center Tower 7
« on: June 30, 2007, 01:39:23 PM »
Woof Dog Brian, Thats an intresting post. First off I have no intention of debating with you.  Though a question or two if I may.
You claim to be a soverign..... If I may ask, What type of work do you do? As a Soverign....what type of currency do you use to buy your or pay for your needs?
I would also be intrested to hear what all the the end game stuff means to you personally......by personally I mean when the bottom falls out.....what happens to you.  Tell the truth :wink:
                                                                          TG

123
Politics & Religion / Re: Media Issues
« on: June 28, 2007, 06:50:51 PM »
Woof Rog, I think you answered yourself with this quote:
Quote
I don't see the right-wing radio hosts or their views as the problem, but that they get to present their spew with no requirement that any opposing views be presented.  Sure they can (and do) take calls from liberals, but this is the "opposing view" being presented completely on the host's terms.  After all, it's their show.

Emphisis on "after all its their show"
When you start requiring rebutal and all else as you suggested then it ceases to become "Their show".
Probably sponsers and the bottom line, MONEY are quite a factor here.
I think it pretty simple that if its worth anything to the person putting out their agenda....say the left,they could do it just as easily as the right simply by doing the same things.......and of course funding it........that is if it means so much to them and their cause.
Beats the crap out of constant whining  "its not fair"  :|
                                                                                     TG

124
Politics & Religion / Re: Free Speech vs. Islamic Fascism (formerly Buy DANISH!!!)
« on: June 20, 2007, 07:38:18 PM »
Woof Milt, I agree about the cheap shot thing. Its part of the reason I intend to not post often here. I do hope that Rog will answer my 2 questions that I asked earlier.
I'am just intrested in what he has to say about them........and thats it I'am out.
A funny thing is that people are people and just because their opinions might be on opposite ends of the spectrum makes them no less people at the end of the day. :-D Weather Christian or pagan  :|
In the words of the infamous Rodney King "why can't we all just get along" :wink:
                                                                         TG

125
Politics & Religion / Re: Free Speech vs. Islamic Fascism (formerly Buy DANISH!!!)
« on: June 20, 2007, 03:07:52 PM »
Rog, I agree with your post.
My question is: who would you like to see win this war, specificly Iraq.
Also how would it be good for America and Iraq to lose this war?
I'am guessing that you think it would be good for America to lose this war as a lesson for all the wrong doing that has transpired since its inseption.
I doubt that, our leaders would take it as such since it is such a broad out look.....even so.....how would our losing be good for Iraq?
I still think inspite of all the wrong/bad things, that a U.S./Iraq  victory would be good for  the U.S. Iraq and the rest of the world.
Simply because the people who we are fighting are FAR worse than Bush and the present admin.
In a year or so we will be rid of Bush, not so for our enemys in Iraq.
                                                                                  TG


126
Politics & Religion / Re: Free Speech vs. Islamic Fascism (formerly Buy DANISH!!!)
« on: June 20, 2007, 01:42:25 PM »
I can't say as Iv'e actually heard any American say that they were 100% opposed to us winning the war or that A U.S. victory would be the worst possible outcome for us andIraq. I think its a first for me.
Who would you like to see win this war?
Its kinda hard to comprehend your mindset Rog.  I understand all your gripes but I don't get your bottom line and how it would be good for the U.S. and Iraq.
Seems contrary........care to enlighten me with your thought.
                                                                         TG


127
Politics & Religion / Re: Free Speech vs. Islamic Fascism (formerly Buy DANISH!!!)
« on: June 18, 2007, 04:31:09 PM »
I really do not plan in getting into this conversation. Been there done that, however, I would like to add that.....I don't know of any Country U.S. or otherwise that permits the stoning of adulterers or the murder of homosexuals.
How many Islamic countrys permit this?
Also I don't see JESUS partaking in any of these activitys either in fact he condemed such things.
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=john%208&version=50

I think the problem that Rog has is not really so much to do with Christianity, but morals themselves.
You see there is a seperation of church and state as Rog states, but the thing I think hes missing is, that you don't have to be "religous" to have morals.
Lots of non religous people are against abortion as well as homosexuality.......as Rog also well knows......real Christians love the sinner....but hate the sin.
Then thats just my observation and I happen to know quite a lot of Christians. :lol:
                                                                                     TG
Its my hope that someday Rog will accept Christians the same way he embraces homos and pro-abortionists. We are all still people even though we may have different beliefs.

128
Politics & Religion / Re: Interrogation methods
« on: March 20, 2007, 12:15:18 PM »
Rog, Ok forsake of argument fair enougth. What would you say be fair evidence necassary to be proven a "jihadist"? Would you say that being associated with other known jihadists was sufficent?
 Also I would agree if found innocent surley let go and sent home.
What though do we do with them if found to be guilty?
Also what to do if found guilty and found to be in knowledge of information of other jihadists or jihadists activitys ect.....?
How in other words do you suggest they be made give up their knowledgable information?
                                                                            TG

129
Politics & Religion / Re: Interrogation methods
« on: March 20, 2007, 11:24:56 AM »
Rog, what kind of contest would you have the accused do to determine weather or not he was a "jihadist"?
I mean what would satisfy you, and what do you suggest?
Lets please be clear and frank about this..........
                                                               TG

130
Politics & Religion / Lebanon
« on: August 07, 2006, 01:20:11 PM »
Rog, I agree!! Hanging is not the norm for the Islamo fascists, I'am pretty sure beheadings is more to their liking. :wink:
                                        TG

131
Politics & Religion / Invitation to dialog to Muslims
« on: July 13, 2006, 05:47:28 AM »
Woof Rog, Please tell me where in the Bible it is made crystal clear that women are the property of men.
Also will you please give me an example where something in the Bible is subject to more than one interpretation.
Do these things if you will and I will be more than happy to discuss them with you.
                                              TG

132
Politics & Religion / Invitation to dialog to Muslims
« on: July 09, 2006, 04:45:43 PM »
Woof Michael6343, I'am somehwat suprised and saddend by your response. I'am also appreciative in your transparent and seemingly genuine honesty in your dialog. I thank you for it.

I will speak strictly for myself and as a Christian and answer my own questions to you.
I too come from a turbulent past to say the least. The thing that makes me common with all people that walk the earth is that I'am a sinner. All have at one point in their lives committed a sin.
The thing that makes me different is that my sins are forgiven. I have accepted that holy sacrifice of Jesus Christ Gods own son on the cross and am washed in his shed blood.
The Bible teaches that without the shedding of blood their is no remission of sin.
God made a way for all mankind in giving his holy unblemished  pure son, the lamb of God, that who soever should believe in him  will not perish but have everlasting life.
So what makes me different......I'am a sinner saved by grace through faith. There is nothing that I could do on my own, but to recieve the gift of God.
No way can I redeem myself.

What will get me into heaven.......Covered by the blood of Christ. God being holy cannot look at sin, yet God can look at me through the blood.
Again left to myself no way can I enter into God presence. Imagine me in all my sins and failures attempting to dwell in heaven with a perfect God.
Would I not contaminate heaven itself if I were allowed in my present condition?
I have great hope and peace in the fact that, I don't have to do anything except recieve Christ as saviour and  God takes care of the rest.

The nice thing is its simplicity...... It is also one thing that makes Christianity different from all other religions. A Christian does not have to wonder if they will get to heaven, If they are saved they know for sure and are promised by Gods word.
                                                      TG

133
Politics & Religion / Invitation to dialog to Muslims
« on: July 09, 2006, 02:35:18 PM »
Woof Michael 6343, I can for the most part agree with what you say, and have no problem with it.
Most certainly it is your faith, and most certainly you are right come judgement day you will stand alone before God.
It is really not my intention to get into your personal business, and I really have no desire to get into any religous debate.
You state again this:
When I read scripture from any book I deliberately look for the good, the positive. If one were to totally abide by your belief that every ounce of the Koran or Bible should be revered as truth and acted as such then I would shutter to think of the BS that would be going on.

For me If I don't beleive that the entire Bible is truth then I make God to be  Liar. Which even in stating sounds absurd, as God is holy and is incapabable of lying.

You may say the Bible was written by men....... True, but as inspired by the holy spirit of God.
2nd timothy chpt. 3 vs 16-17 says:
16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.
So obviously as a Christian I need to beleive the Bible is the word of God and is truth.

There again how you believe is truly your business.
A question If I may ask.
What is it that makes yourself different from any other person that walks the earth?
Another......IF I may? :D  
What is it that will get you into heaven?
                                                      TG

134
Politics & Religion / Invitation to dialog to Muslims
« on: July 09, 2006, 09:30:21 AM »
Woof Michael6343, I'am a Christian and in your statement Quoted here:

I find it funny that people always bring up the old BACK IN THIS TIME HE SAID THIS AND THEN HE SAID THAT crapola....how do you know? How does anyone know? Surely one doesn't believe every word that was written in a history text or a Hadith or a Bible or a Koran etc. etc.? Surely an intelligent human being understands the methods of selective history? Our books are built on it!...LOL

You state that one doesn't believe EVERYTHING thats written in the Bible. Sorry to inform you that is incorrect. I for one do and so do also most all of the members of the church that I attend.
As a Christian I can not pick and choose the parts that fit what I want, but have to decide is it truth or is it not.....What I mean is all of it.
How conveniant  it would be if I were allowed to just take the parts of the Bible that suited my need and was able to discard the rest.
That is quite silly if you ask me.
Concerning yourself......I might ask you a like question.....Do you beleive what the Koran says or not.
It is one thing to say you don't live in ancient Mecca, as neither do I but the Bible is relevant for todays times, is not the Koran?
Your post appears to suggest to me that your faith is based on convenience more than anything and you onley choose be beleive what it is that tickles your fancy.
Which is fine but would most Muslims agree with you?
I also am well aware that there are a  lot of watered down Christians walking the earth, that I would not agree with.
Most of the time, their issue is a lack of devotion to faith and understanding of the Bible and what it teaches.
Are you a devout reader of the Koran?
                                                                SB

135
Politics & Religion / Invitation to dialog to Muslims
« on: June 30, 2006, 06:22:22 AM »
Sitbatan, I have a question for you.... Abraham had a son with the handmaid of Sarah (Hagar). The son was Ishmael.
Abraham was a Jew, Hagar was an Egyptian.
How do you feel about Ishmael being half Jew?
                                                TG

136
Politics & Religion / Political Rants
« on: September 16, 2005, 12:25:22 PM »
Woof, Milt says a fetus is not "someone".

Neither is a baby a boy or a boy a man, but given the chance to live they both will/ would be..........
                                                   Tom

137
Politics & Religion / Political Rants
« on: September 15, 2005, 10:18:25 AM »
Woof, Good luck with that thought Rog. I suppose the same case could be made MORE for the mayor of N.O. since I view him more DIRECTLY responsible to the citzens of N.O.

Prentice, Its not a matter of what Brownie did in the past, but the fact that he never got into the Katrina game, shoot bro. he never got off the bench.

I think that was quite eveident when they wouldn't even allow him to speak to the press. :?
                                                Tom

138
Politics & Religion / Political Rants
« on: September 14, 2005, 03:54:06 PM »
Woof Rog, No argument, "Brownie" was a screw up and apparently appointed on the buddie system.
I would even venture to say that in this day and age, Bush made a totally irresponsible choice in what proved to be a position that did in the end really matter. I would even go one step further and say, If Bush was truly concerned with protecting America in the war on terror he would have chosen for the head of FEMA a better qualified person. Just for fun I will say.......maybe Bush didn't thikn the guy could be THAT incompetent. :wink:
Iam sure all the Bush haters will exploit this to the MAX.
                                             Tom

139
Politics & Religion / Political Rants
« on: September 14, 2005, 06:17:31 AM »
Woof, I agree. Bush did take the blame on the Federal level. The head of Fema (Brown) stepped down. Is that what you had in mind Rog?
Brown should probably have been fired, but he was indeed publicly humiliated into resigning. There is plenty of blame to go around on this one.
Should blame not trickle down to the state and local level as well? Example, the 1000 school buses that sit under water, that were never manned to aid in the evacution of the people of New Orleans?
Leagaly loaded a school bus can haul just under 50 people. Loaded to the gills who knows.......
With all the advance warning of the huricane one would think this should have been a option....? Esp in the poor areas where people could not get out?
                                                      Tom
P.S. Hopefully we can all agree there is procedure that needs to be followed in events like this.
I think it unfair to blame someone else when people don't do THEIR part in following procedure, and get the ball rolling.
You know what they say about the word ASSUME.

140
Politics & Religion / London hit by multiple explosions
« on: July 09, 2005, 08:59:44 AM »
Woof Kris, I have been watching the news reports and truly admire the way the folks in London are so defiente about the bombings.  In that they will not let these bombings disrupt or change their lives.  The monsters that did this may have killed some innocent people but they won nothing by this cowardly act.  stand tall!
                                Tom

141
Politics & Religion / London hit by multiple explosions
« on: July 07, 2005, 04:04:52 PM »
Woof, I just want to echo Kalani, and also encourage our British friends to stand tall. We march on together!
                                                  Tom

142
Politics & Religion / Libertarian themes
« on: May 15, 2005, 03:24:39 PM »
Woof Buzwardo, While i find this conversation mildly amusing, it is rather obvious that your WAY too much for me.

So in closing this conversation please allow me a suggestion or two. If your concerned about carry too much weed and being sent to prison for it. The next time you pick up your quarter pound of weed (112grams) ask your dealer to short you a couple of grams and dont weigh the baggie just to be sure your under weight. That way if you happend to get busted at least you wont end up in prison over it :wink:

Since you seem to champion the cause of reforming Americas drug laws, I can onley assume that this is important to you. I would suggest you possibly align yourself with the folks from norml, they have been doing this for quite a number of years, and allow me to wish you GOOD LUCK!!

In closing also let me wish you good luck in staying out of prison for something you believe in!
                                               TG

143
Politics & Religion / Libertarian themes
« on: May 14, 2005, 07:21:55 PM »
Woof buzwardo, I briefly scrolled the fbi.org link and didn't see anything that even remotly eluded to the increase in marijuana busts.
Thats ok. You talk of the penalty fitting the crime, in Ohio its a misdemeanor of 100 dollar fine for possesion of 112 grams or less. I don't find that to be extremly harsh :? . I don't think they haul you away in handcuffs for it either. Pretty sure its just a ticket and on your way type situation.(do you find this harsh?)
When you refer to "all" the laws being enforced i asume your speaking of some law written two hundred years ago type thing. Like beating your wife on the county court steps. Then the answer is of course not.
 If your refering to the laws that everyone is aware of and knows the penaltys for and knows are illegal, like the drug laws. yea i want them enforced.
Dosen't my desire to have our drug laws enforced make me as much a liberatarian as your desire to have them challenged and broken?
If not then please give me your definition of a libertarian.
                                               TG

144
Politics & Religion / Libertarian themes
« on: May 14, 2005, 06:19:00 AM »
Woof Guru Crafty, I agree with you totally. However should a guy get a ticket for ten over he really has nothing to complain about hes still illegal.
Just the same as the guy who gets pinched for his weed.
Iam merly stating the obivous, its the law.
I haven't heard of any increase in pot busts, around here or in the state of Ohio. So Iam not sure as to the legitimacy of that claim, Rog made a good point though about the vast numbers of pot smokers.
Wouldn't it make more sense that since there are so many of them, that more would get busted, vs hard drug users?
A lot of the people i see around here who get popped usually get nabbed when pulled over for some kind of eratic driving behavior, kinda thing, I really don't see the cops busting down the door to nail grandma for smoking her joint while watching the six oclock news.

I wonder if Buzwardo can give any statistical evidence to back up this claim? Maybe he's just blowin smoke? :wink:
                                        TG

145
Politics & Religion / Libertarian themes
« on: May 13, 2005, 12:55:21 PM »
Woof, My point was merly, that if you break the law and you do it willingly then you really have no one to blame but yourself.
Just like drinking and driving is against the law, so is possessing pot, smoking pot or possesing drug parafinelia(sp).
So regardless of what a person may think of the law, its still the law.

In refrence to the Kerryist wrong drug wrong wrong war I dont find that it applies.  You simply can not say one illegal substance should be more aggressivly attacked than another.
Wouldn't that be the same as a speeding driver saying GEE officer i was onley ten miles an hour over the limit what about the guy who was doing 130 that just flew by me...... Still guilty.

Just to further that thought a bit before i close, i think its totally understated and under reported the abuse of perscription (legal) meds, which have just as high or even higher harmful addictive potentials.

Anyway thats another rant altogether :wink:
                                          TG

146
Politics & Religion / Libertarian themes
« on: May 13, 2005, 04:09:04 AM »
Woof, Just out of curiosity, how do you guys feel about cops who sit outside night clubs, bars and the local watering holes and nab guys for dui as they leave?
                                           TG

147
Politics & Religion / Politically (In)correct
« on: September 23, 2004, 04:04:47 AM »
Woof, you might be a liberal if you think, john kerry can carry a majority vote in november :wink:
                                          TG

148
Politics & Religion / Politically (In)correct
« on: September 01, 2004, 11:56:15 AM »
Howl Guro Crafty!!! Oustanding!! Sounds like a school i would want to send my kids to!
I would really like to see more people young and old alike be responsible and accountable for their own actions! Rather than make excuses or place blame, most of which as noted in the post is pure b.s. My hat goes off to that high school!!
                        tom

Pages: 1 2 [3]