Aw, you're gonna make me blush...

Well, that's six pages.

Check out this deck of cards!

http://www.warprofiteers.com/

Having H2O praise Silver Hilton's posting as the best of the year is great ...kind of like Saddam Hussein high fiving Kim Jung Il

This thread has been like watching the Phil Donohue show or reading the DNC talking points emails. Same old "anti" hogwash....Some of you guys must spend hours dredging up "historical facts" to try to prove that the pledge of allegiance has no place in our society and the words "In God We Trust" are some republican conspiracy to force religion on the masses. Same old , same old......being patriotic is for suckers....what else was it? Bush is a liar...Saddam never had WMD.....Howard Dean for president? Gay marriages are cool...tax cuts are only for millionares...

About as predictable as you grandpa...



I Love it when you argue without actually making a counterpoint.

Kind of exposes the weakness of your argument and mirrors the actions of your party's leader. Hammer on a bunch of stuff that just flat isn't true (like 'h2o is a communist') hoping that just repeating it over and over and over again people will believe it.

When confronted with fact that your conclusions about the religious foundation of this country are based on fallacy, not fact, all poor grandpa can do is make further attempts to discredit the other side.

Actually, I thought SH was doing you a favor, Grandpa. He was merely pointing out some historical descrepencies in what you posted. I'm sure you agree that we should all stick to historical facts and not become "revisionist historians."

Although, sadly, some are being accused of acting as revisionists simply for correcting past reports to ensure that history is, indeed, factual.

I think it's more a demonstration of the benefits that education and research can provide to an argument.

Those historical facts are available to anyone with the energy and commonsense to sit down to Google, enter the words, "in god we trust", and then wait 15 seconds. So, because I will actually take the effort to do some research, I have opinions that are at least partly based on fact. Unlike the Bush groupies, who cannot be troubled to think for themselves, and have Rush Limbaugh do it for them.

I always chuckle when ditto-heads slam me in these forums as being liberal. It's nearly a 100% indicator that they are poorly educated on the issue at hand. It always happens just like this: produce facts that indicate that their position is illogical, and BOOM, I'm a commie. Oh, well, I guess 25 years of being a registered republican and a life member of the NRA don't mean what they used to...

Winston Churchill was once taken to task by another member of parliament for changing his position on an issue. "Sir," Churchill harrumphed, "when I encounter facts that indicate that my prior position was wrong, I change my opinion. What do you do?"

In the current debate around weapons of mass destruction, we are talking about what our government does when the data does not support their position. We are also talking about what we do as a people, if and when it appears that our data about our government changes. These are important questions. It is very clear that George W. does not change opinions easily. The question is, is he being a leader, or is he being unwise?

I, for one, wish he listened better and was more thoughtful about these questions.

"I think it's more a demonstration of the benefits that education and research can provide to an argument." Ouch

Are you really just being polite, or are you subtlely reasoning with blunt trauma? LMAO

The original posting of a quote from someone in a Florida paper was extreme for sure but I posted it to bait the loyal lefties into doing just what they did which is jump all over the "God" references and search Google for logical arguments as to why the country was really not founded by religious men and women. If this was "College Bowl" and I was in a serious debate I would do more research but I will just say that the arguments on this thread from SH and H2o and others simply reflect our fundamnental philosophical difference. I don't think most religion is dangerous or scary. Islam maybe but the good muslims who don't want to kill us all don't say much. I also think the majority of Americans would like a more wholesome life in which morals and religion are good things. Family is a good thing. Going out of your way to tear it all down all the time is pathetic from my viewpoint which , of course, is different from the philosophies of some of those here. The small minority is very vocal and the majority don't want to get involved and risk being ridiculed by those who vehemently oppose their honest views.

Here's a good article explaining the situation from Washingtonpost.com


By John McCain
Sunday, June 15, 2003; Page B07


Like many Americans, I am surprised that we have yet to locate the weapons of mass destruction that all of us, Republican and Democrat, expected to find immediately in Iraq. But do critics really believe that Saddam Hussein disposed of his weapons and dismantled weapons programs while fooling every major intelligence service on earth, generations of U.N. inspectors, three U.S. presidents and five secretaries of defense into believing he possessed them, in one of the most costly and irrational gambles in history?

After the first Persian Gulf War, the discovery of Hussein's advanced nuclear weapons program following years of international inspections surprised everyone. When U.N. inspectors left Iraq in 1998, they catalogued Iraq's continuing possession of, or proven failure to disclose, one of the biggest chemical and biological weapons arsenals in history.

Critics today seem to imply that after seven years of elaborately deceiving the United Nations, Hussein precipitated the withdrawal of U.N. inspectors from his country in 1998, then decided to change course and disarmed himself over the next four years, but refused to provide any realistic proof that this disarmament occurred.

I am not convinced. Nor was chief U.N. weapons inspector Hans Blix, who recently catalogued Iraq's failure to come clean on an array of weapons programs the United Nations believed were continuing. Nor were Congress and President Clinton, who advocated regime change in Iraq in 1998 -- before the U.N. inspectors left.

While war was never inevitable, it was, in retrospect, the most telegraphed military confrontation in history. Hussein had plenty of time to destroy or disperse weapons stocks and to further conceal weapons programs, which often rely more on human knowledge than physical infrastructure. If Hussein had the weapons destroyed or concealed, reconstituting them would have required primarily the skills of Iraqi scientists. Precious few Iraqis would have been involved in the actual destruction or concealment. That's why capturing and interrogating Iraqis involved in concealment -- as well as scientific personnel -- is essential.

Despite highly intrusive inspections after the Gulf War, U.N. inspectors were shocked in 1995 when an Iraqi defector revealed the existence of Iraq's enormous biological weapons program. Until we capture Hussein or prove him dead and eradicate the remnants of his apparatus of terror, which continues to coordinate daily attacks on U.S. forces in Iraq, Iraqi scientists will not feel free to talk, and warped dreams of outlasting America will persist.

We went to war in part because Hussein failed to account for his weapons, had proven his willingness to use them and behaved in a way that encouraged governments around the world to believe he possessed them. Our intelligence about a hostile foreign government is never perfect. When it tends overwhelmingly toward one conclusion -- in Iraq's case, that Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction -- should we give the benefit of the doubt to a dictator with a record of deceit and aggression?

It is certainly appropriate to examine the quality of the intelligence that influenced the administration's decision to go to war. It is appropriate to examine what went right and what went wrong in the prosecution of the war and in its aftermath. But I find it impossible to credit as serious the suggestion that this war shouldn't have been fought because, lacking better intelligence, we ought to have assumed Hussein's good faith.

We should not let legitimate debate about the search for weapons minimize the task now at hand: the reconstruction and democratization of Iraq. Discovering the truth about Iraqi weapons is important, securing Iraq's democratic future even more so. This will be the final measure of our victory, not how many gallons of anthrax we find. The United Nations found a lot, and we will either find more or find out where it went.

We fought this war to defend the security of the United States against the threat from Hussein's proven weapons programs and his refusal to come clean, his record of aggression against his neighbors, the utter collapse of containment, the possibility of his cooperation with terrorists, and his brutal oppression of the Iraqi people.

Does anyone believe that the United States, the Iraqi people or the Arab world would be better off if Hussein were still in power, if 8-year-old children were still held in Iraqi prisons, if Hussein were still threatening his neighbors? Hussein alone was responsible for this war, and we need make no apologies for supporting the use of U.S. military force to rid the world of his murderous regime.

It is too early to declare final victory in Iraq. But we're well past the point of knowing that our war to liberate Iraq was right and just. The discovery of mass graves filled with the bodies of murdered children should have convinced even the greatest skeptic. We made America more secure, liberated millions from a reign of terror and helped create the prospect for the establishment of the first Arab democracy. That should make Americans proud -- and critics of the administration's decision to go to war a little more circumspect.

It is too early to declare final victory in Iraq. But we're well past the point of knowing that our war to liberate Iraq was right and just. The discovery of mass graves filled with the bodies of murdered children should have convinced even the greatest skeptic................................................................

Oh no Senator McCain! the greatest skeptics will not give up their attacks no matter what evidence anyone finds.

We already got the weapon of mass dstruction,Saddam himself.

I don't know if there is a lot to add to this thread but I'll try. Given that WMD's have not been discovered, given that Sadaam is not found (hopefully soon to be remedied) - Do you feel safer and more secure? Though the result of getting a Hitler out of power is a good one, I go back to the arguement that I made earlier. That result, in and of itself, is NOT the right and just thing to do. If we are to committ the American military to a war, the overriding result must be - A strategically safer, more secure USA. I, for one, do not feel any safer or more secure after the war in Iraq. Certainly, the American soldiers deployed there are not.

eddie.........I will come over with my 300 Win Mag and sit outside your house just in case any of those pesky terrorists show up...Would that make you feel safer? or will it take a Demo in the presidency to make you feel better? I'm not sure what would happen if we went into isolation and let all the crazy people in the world run wild...Wanna try it and find out? Make Jimmy will come back with that cardiagan sweater??? He did a great job in North Korea...and earlier in Iran...Maybe Bill could come back and invite Kim Jung Il over to the White house for some head. That may calm him down without military action.
keep the faith eddie...

Not yet, according to the recent news stories, but maybe soon. Sounds like that are on a hot scent...

"Naturally, the common people don't want war, but after all, it is the leaders of a country who determine the policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag people along, whether it is a democracy, or a facist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. This is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in every country."
--Hermann Goering, Hitler's Reich-Marshall
at the Nuremberg Trials after WWII

Grandpa, Do not get me wrong, I am no isolationist - I believe that American Military Action is absolutely justified when protecting our safety and security. I also believe that concept is the basis of GW's pre-emption policy. The question is then legitimate - one significant outcome of preemptive military action must be an enhancement of US safety and security. On that basis, the Afghanistan action passes the test, Iraq - probably too early to tell but the signs are not good.

In regards to your kind offer of protection - it is appreciated but I live in Puyallup. I'm afraid that your weaponry only works against commie, pinko, liberals. They are few and far between here and represent no threat. King County, however, that may be something different. Take care Grandpa.

silver hilton,
If there has to be a northwest fishing website that continually divulges far too much information about things (fishing spots, gear to use, launches, techniques, etc... ) that would normally have to be determined by trial and error, it's nice to hear a voice of reason. Grandpa2, your rearing (Jackson, Mobile, Macon, Shreveport?) would be fine on a 1960's political (NRA maybe?) forum if there were such a thing. This is 2003, it is a fishing forum, and you have very little insight into piscatorial pursuits. Do you fish? Or, Do you (like so many on this site) just want to be recognized in a fishing world you otherwise never would?

Damn!

Thought for sure it was a dead horse this time.