#2: Coalition of the Willing? > Stem Cell Research?

THREAD BEGAN: SEPTEMBER 9th, 2004
After BOB said that the Coalition of the Willing, "...is not even close to the level of International cooperation that Bush claimed that we had..."
Noting that:
Bush said the Coalition was 49 Nations strong!
15 Nations didn't send a single soldier!
39 Nations sent less than 10% of their military!
42 Nations sent less than 500 troops!

NUGENT
OK bobby, Of course it’s a paper tiger. Its only made up to appease the liberals. I’m not sure what the big problem with the Iraq war is anyhow. Is it a human rights issue, or is it that we’re pissing off France? Either way I would guess that the problem is a general concern for our relationship with the global community. Well I think you would agree that we are a white elephant of sorts- ill equipped to tip toe through the global scene. Our economic, social, and political system is such that we can not downgrade to the a moderate level. The price that comes with this size is an inevitable overstepping of our bounds. Whether its oil or humanitarian aid, the US is forced to play a role in others business. When this happens detractors come from all angles, and a diligent defense is absolutely necessary in preserving our state. This defense must come before the appeasement of other nations in a less demanding situation.You’re upset about the 1000th American death? These people are soldiers- their profession, their duty is to fight and die if the situations is such. Read “Russia at War” to put 1000 deaths into perspective, or take a look at the numbers associated with heart disease or traffic accidents.You comment on the UN. The UN is a weak organization. There is no legitimate power structure, No country will act subordinate to another, and for that reason the UN cannot be the determining factor for global politics. If there is anything our current political situations tell us, its that people have a huge range of moral and ethical beliefs. And with this range, power must be advocated in either direction in order for anything to be done. The UN has managed to side step this concept completely.All said, operation “Iraqi Freedom” may have freed Iraq, it may have weakened the UN, who gives a shit. What it really did, was tell the middle east and all other volatile regions of this world that we will not baulk on the demands for our own stability.I want you to know that there is a whole lot about this country that bothers me. However, the opportunity that is provided for scientific, technological, artistic, medical etc. advancement is certainly worth fighting for Ohio State grads arguing politics HAHAHAH - that’s the first problem.

BOB
Nugent, you asked:
“I’m not sure what the big problem with the Iraq war is anyhow. Is it a human rights issue, or is it that we’re pissing off France?”
NEITHER.
My problem is NOT that the UN didn’t approve this invasion! (although that certainly doesn’t help matters) I completely agree that this country needs to put its security above the appeasement of France and others. Once again, the Republicans have put words in our mouths.
THE BIG PROBLEM IS:
(1) Bush told the American people that Saddam was sitting on WMDs...----------He wasn’t!
(2) Bush and Cheney told the American people that Saddam had links to Al-Queida----------There is still ZERO evidence of this!
(According to the bi-partisan Sept 11th Commission).
(3) Bush said that there was a 49 Nation Coalition commited to fighting alongside us....----------Only 7 nations could muster 500 troops for the mission!
Call it exagerating, falsifying, making an understandable error, propaganda, relaying bad intelligence, or lying.
I don’t fucking care!!
Forget the UN!
Forget the poor Iraqis!
Forget France!
Nothing that Bush told the American people was the truth!!
America trusted him and invested 200 billion tax dollars and 1000 Americian lives (and it isn’t even close to over yet). Then found out that the justifications for the war were bogus.
THIS IS THE BIG PROBLEM!
By the way...
Does anyone remember the expression, "The buck stops here."
It means that a President must ultimately take responsibility for what happens on his watch. Bush blamed the intelligence agency for the bad intelligence and the soldiers at Abu-Grey for the bad behavior. Case closed.
This finger pointing does not fly with me!

NUGENT
Bobert,Kudos on the Truman reference. I agree that responsibility should be taken by the people of power in any organization, especially government.Also- nice use of font size and color.
-----------------end compliments-------------------------
Your argument reflects the weakness of your party. You apparently have no disagreement with the outcomes or effects of the War in Iraq. You only nitpick on the procedure for which it was carried out. Those who support this war don’t need one hundred and one concrete reasons to protect this country. Hussein was a menace. He disobeyed orders for inspection and was deliberately opposing a very reasonable set of standards imposed by the global community. I believe when these radical dictators break laws, especially those aimed at controlling WMD’s, they need to be dealt with. Thank goodness someone (my boy Dubya) had the balls to take care of business.Now unfortunately there are enough movie stars, college students and gays to make up a Democratic party; and for that reason, all of this half-assed intelligence was submitted as viable reasoning for our invasion.Of course all of these left wing politicians would support the war then double back and question the intelligence. Next time we’ll sit down and make sure everything is perfectly aligned to please you liberals, that should give the threat plenty of time to prepare.Lastly Ill say that Saddam had a year plus to cover up his illegal activity. Im not saying the accusations of WMD’s and Al Queida are right, but you certainly cant know they are wrong. I for one, would rather not find out the hard way. You should all take a minute and thank the Republicans for protecting your sorry assesas for me putting words into your mouth.... Im only trying to help you see the error of your ways. You’ll thank me when you grow out of this Democratic funk

DAN
All, Go to this website...
www.marklarose.com/alwaysremember.htm


MANEY
ok all we might as well stop talking now, nugent has spoken! enough said! is anyone going to disagree? I wouldn't or else he will eat u! Plus he has an ivy league degree!!!!! Here is an idea, let's change the issue, let's talk whether or not one should pull out or wear a condom? This obviously is a bigger issue than wmd, right?

CHUCK
Nugent actually does a great job of articulating the bigger picture justification. Fine. I dont agree, but that is a fine explanation of war supporters ability to sleep at night. We get it, Sadaam was bad, and anyone that didnt want to take him down is a pussy.
But something is being missed: IRAQ IS A FUCKING DISASTER. We are losing control. More deaths last month then a year ago. Yesterday there was heavy fighting in Baghdad. That was the one place we actually seemed to have control over. All accounts say we are conceding huge parts of other fringe areas to radical militants. THIS THING IS ONLY GETTING WORSE.
So if you support the war, shouldnt you be really mad at Bush for this deplorable execution of our occupation. And what is his answer: Stay the course. Its pathetic. Bush has failed everyone in his Iraq policy. Obviously those that only wanted war based on WMD (w/ a broader coalition) were failed. AND those that support the war were failed because the vulnerable occupying military has to sit in Iraq as a constant target, without the proper training, equipment, etc.
BUSH HAS FAILED EVERYONE IN IRAQ (except the contractors).
So if you really hate liberals so much, vote for Buchanan.

MANEY
Seriously, let's change the issue! Same points back and fourth. I have heard both sides from everyone. K great. No one is changing their minds. Let's talk about out sourcing, or the ladies, who got action this weekend? As for me nothing. Nugent, I know ur stock must be rising, you look sexy in your football picture. Lefties, hugging trees does not count.

ZELIN
Viscione, are you fucking serious. I love the fade out of Barabara Streisand. She is quit a threat to our great nation. Cañ~t wait to come home on wed and kick your ass.

BEN
well buchanan aint running, but if i did vote for him, would all you libs vote nader? i thought not. nader is against the war unconditonally. i dont know where kerry stands, and im not just saying that because he is a "flip-flopper" i just really dont know. i think he wants to be against it - but he wont come out and say it like dean would. he might as well at this point, i actully think it would help him. if he just came out and said it, instead of playing word games and all that.......
maney sorry no luck this weekend with the ladies, me either......0 for 2 on friday night.
interestingly enough, i havent recieved 1 email about those CBS Bush Natl Guard "documents." i think its pretty clear theyre fake, but it is absoultely remarkable that rather and co. contiue to walk the plank for kerry. no surrpise, since rather has hated the bush family for years now. if this indeed comes out that CBS knew it was questionable and ran it anyways, its the nail in the coffin for kerry, because every baseless charge from here on out (well, even if its true) republicans can just point to this fiasco and say "just like the CBS Story."

KYLE
Dear Bush Cheney Campaign,
My friends and I have an email forum where we discuss a variety of topics and recently have been writing about September 11th due to the recent passing of the third anniversery. Our good friend Daniel Viscione sent us a link to a website presentation that served as a reminder, all be it a shamefully partisan one, of the acts of terror that struck our nation. The basic theme was that we should never forget 9/11. I completely agree.Yesterday Secretary of State Colin Powell said yesterday on NBC'c Meet the Press that there is no direct connection between the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 and the Iraqi regime (you may want to let Vice-President Cheney know about this). My question for the Bush/Cheney Campaign is: Why are we spending so much of our resources which are supposed to be for "the war on terrorism" in Iraq when the people who did this to us are still free and making movies? Have you forgotten about 9/11?
Several members of this group are swing voters in the critical state of Ohio. Please reply to our whole group when clarifying this important issue. Thank you in advance for your reply and check out my Republican friend's website www.keelerreport.blogspot.com. He thinks you'll win, I hope you lose.

BOB
Nugent, I enjoyed your response immensely!
I love your ‘take no shit’, ‘straight shootin’ approach to politics. Also I think the Republican team will benefit greatly from a big sac of adrenaline, like yourself.
-------end compliments-------
You made a good point in your last email, so I shall stop ‘nitpicking on procedures’ and return to the big picture. I’ll even write my response in good-old American swagger (since you Republicans all seem to respond so well to it.)
This Iraq War ain’t makin’ America no safer!
(Three mighty good reasons)
(1) We can’t pulverize them real terrorists with our boys spread thin like this in Iraq. Bin Ladin (the man responsible for September 11th) is still out there laughin it up! Afganistan is short on resources and Iran is buildin’ WMDs (for real). America is under attack and now ain’t the time to send 130,000 of our boys on some cock-a-maimy mission to some country that simply ain’t no immenint threat.
(2) Them cold-blooded terrorists are dyin’ with every passin day (thank the good lord) but they’z recruitin, too. I agree we need to smash ‘em all back into the sand, but we gots to be careful. If we ruffle the feathers of average folk in the region too much, (no international legitimacy, Abu-Ghraib scandal, lies about them weapons) their support and numbers is just gonna grow!
(3) I don’t like being lied to by some high flyin’ politician. Good intentions or not. And neither does nobody else. Now I hate France, just as much as the next guy, but we need allies in this fight. The next time we got good intelligence on some stinkin tyrant the whole world gonna say that we’z cryin wolf again. And after that hanky-panky we pulled, not allowin those nations to bid for reconstruction contracts, we’ll be lucky if they don’t just leave us to clean up this Iraq mess all by our lonesome. Gonna cost a lot of hard earned tax dollars, I reckon.
Listen, I’m all for defendin’ this, the greatest nation on the planet. And god knows I’m all about kicking some terrorist ass! But Bush ain’t makin’ us no safer. We done lost the hearts and minds of average Iraqi folk, our allies are getting thin (just when we could use a hand), Bin Laden is havin’ a field day, the insurgency is growin’ and Iraq is a damn pigsty.
My friend Mervin says that sooner or later we gonna pound them terrorists into oblivion and Iraq’ll be free, just like us. Maybe so. But the way we went about this…lyin’ bout them weapons and terrorist links, torturin' those prisoners, I got a bad feelin in my gut. But I'm prayin...Im prayin that the good lord can forgive our trespasses…and our votes.
And another thing….
Nugent made the comment that, “Now unfortunately there are enough movie stars, college students and gays to make up a Democratic party.” Since we have lowered the bar, I’d like to diagram your proud party, as I see it. You see there are only 3 or 4 kinds of Republicans in my eyes:
The top 8% of the Party is comprised of:
(1) The Elitists
---Well educated, strong understanding of the Market
---Great wardrobes
---Completely indifferent or oblivious to the suffering of others
---Secretly loath Blacks, Jews, Latinos, Women, Foreigners, Gays, etc..
---Like golf
(2) Second Generation Elite
---Born into the Party
---Never left the lap of luxury
---Claim to have lots of black friends
The Other 92% of the party:
(3) The Exploited Church Folk
---Good people, with big hearts
---Have been told that Jesus votes Republican
---Afraid to ask questions
(4) Uneducated Rural America
---Vote based on accent
---Put guns above all else
---Super Homophobes
The survival of your party relies on the expolitation of Jesus and those who died on Sept 11th, fearmongering and hiding behind the flag. More Americans voted for a Democrat in the last three Presidential Elections.
Your good-old-fashion party is the party of intolerance, the party of elitism and the party of the past.

MANEY
WOW, Bob where did you get those numbers? I love it. I have a feeling those are Bob numbers though. So let's talk about what your party is made up of: 100% bitch. Your party likes to pretend they are for the little person and all for liberal ideas. Yes, John Kerry, he is surely one that paints the pic. of living the hard life of the avg. American. I mean he has it pretty tough being married to what is her name? Oh yea Heinz. Rough life I am sure. Surely he represents the non elitist does he plays golf too? Further more, Dems. are made up of people who can't make up their mind and simply say what is ever convenient for that specific time and place. Finally bob where would you put Abe Lincoln? Was, yea he was a Republican, and I think, yea, he helped free the slaves. Wow! he must fall in category 4. Not sure though. So where does Keeler fall into this mix? Or J, Dan,Nugent. I know where I fall. You left out a category 5. Be a republican to simply be against Bob. Keeler, also keep at it.

NUGENT
You’re a funny guy Bob. You must have a lot of time on your hands. Since you mentioned it several times, I want to make it clear that I don’t much care for religion. It’s a crutch for weak minded people and is probably the number one hangup for human progress. Second, I’m not a Republican (anti abortion, anti stem cell, pro religion, bla bla bla) its just happens to be the best alternative to our liberal decay.A democrat promoting Buchanan, such a sly politician you are Chuck.“deplorable execution of our occupation” who taught you these words? Quick thought to both of you. You each raise good points about the difficulties faced in Iraq, but that is all you do. Do you have any solutions to offer? If by some chance Kerry gets in the White House he’ll have to deal with it. The thing is we all know what will happen- Kerry will back off, he just doesn’t want to say it. That’s not my style, that’s not America’s style, and that’s not Bush’s styleMilitary history 101 *es muy importante* We are a technologically and numerically superior force. Through persistence we will win (this isn’t Braveheart with the spears). There are exceptions, but Al-Queida, Iraqi insurgents, etc are so far inferior that even their best tactical decisions versus our worst would never mean defeat. They know this, so what do they do? ..... Commit a few well placed attacks and let CNN and the LA Times do the rest. Political turmoil has been the undoing of every unrivaled empire in modern human history. And these terrorists our aiming at that goal. This should be obvious, yet here you are attacking policy. Nothing last forever. Someday the threat will be big enough that all your bickering is going to cost us. Liberalism is this countries greatest enemy and will eventually be its undoing.

DAN
Bobby,
Excuse my absence from participation. Reason being partly because I started a new job, and partly because you have been speaking a lot of hot garbage. As of late, your arguments have been weak and unfulfilling in our roundtable. I truly believe you have put little thought into what you are writing. In fact, I will go out on a limb and say that you are just playing devil’s advocate just to keep an argument going….Although, it is better than not coining in at all.
I too would have a weak argument myself If I didn’t site an example, though it pains me to bring it up again….
Your argument:
“Bush said that there was a 49 Nation Coalition committed to fighting alongside us----------Only 7 nations could muster 500 troops for the mission!
…of the 49 Nations in the Coalition, only 10 sent at least 10% of their military.”
My argument:
I would never figure you to be so narrow minded. True, these countries, for example, El Salvador, Latvia, Mongolia, and Dominican Republic gave such small numbers in troops, but Bob, look at whom you have mentioned. You were astounded by the fact that Latvia gave “a whopping 120 soldiers.” I fail to see your reasoning behind this. There were more people going to Revere H.S. when we graduated than in today’s entire Latvian Military. To give up such a number should be looked at as a sacrifice, not criticized because of comparison. Especially in today’s world where national security is probably the top priority of every single nation. Terrorists don’t just attack the US and Iraq. I am sure every country on the coalition list is now looked down upon by a lot of the Middle East. Every soldier sent away is one less protecting his or her country…BUT IT MUST BE DONE!
Do you not think that these 49 countries are putting forth other forms of aid-i.e. weapons, textiles, money, food, medicine, etc. The size of troop sent to war is not the way to judge a countries involvement.
And by the way, your breakdown of Republicans was just plain stupid.
On a lighter note, I too would like to say, it is good to here from you, Nugent. Not only because I agree with some of your ideas and opinions, but also, because no one has heard from you in a while.
I would like to capitalize on is when you wrote: “These people are soldiers- their profession, their duty is to fight and die if the situations are such.”
---I completely agree. Our soldiers have the luxury of going into the military if they so choose. Nobody forces our soldiers into their profession, unlike some of the countries we are fighting against, and even some of the countries we are fight with They have a clear understanding of the ultimate sacrifice when they sign up for their tour.
Save the whales!
PS- To Zelin and others who agree with his response to my 9/11 forward... I don't remember the fade out of Streisand, but now that you mention it, it sounds funny to me. Yes, I realize that this e-mail was originally sent out toward the conservative side of society, but the underlying message is all the same. This e-mail was sent with nothing but good intentions. Although, since there was an attack toward me I must defend my ground. Obviously, Streisand was shown like all of the other democratic assholes who spoke against what has happened since 9/11. For that, she should be shown. My only regret is having to look at how ugly she is and that I am reminded how bad her acting is as well as her music. FUCK STREISAND, AND HER FUCKING COUNTERPARTS, MICHAEL MOORE, JANINE GARAFELO, AND CHARLES RENGAL, AND JOHN KERRY!!!

CHUCK
For some reason people act like its wrong that Kerry/Heinz are rich. That's what I like. They are fucking loaded, and dont mind giving back to the less fortunate, in an effort to make a better society. Bush is rich, and just wants to cut his own (and buddies) taxes.
Rich democrats are not hipocrites, they are role models. They are not selfish. They have $5 milliion, and say 'go ahead and raise my taxes because we need to eliminate this debt and secure social programs which benefit the future of this nation. That is nobel.
Bush and his buddies just want more money. And dont care about providing for the elderly or newborns. That's the opposite of nobel.
And no more about Iraq, until everyone can admit its going in the shitter. Maybe it was a good idea (i disagree), but either way, the wheels are falling off. There will be civil war in a year. We are losing serious control.
I feel bad for those that think the war was a good idea, because Bush failed to send enough troops, and now your vision for a peaceful iraq has will never come to evolve.
1. Part of the point is that there are no immediate solutions. That is a testament to how badly Bush has fucked this thing up. (this may have been a winable war and a just cause but the horrific execution has failed the spirit of any 'democratic iraq')
2. Like it or not, there is a larger problem with Iraq: No one else likes us. Like it or not, that is important. I dont think Germany/France will send troops to iraq, but its possible. Or its possible they will train iraqi's outside of iraq. Or its possible they will send troops to the Sudan, instead of us, when we decide in the near future to do so. There is no world leader that will step to the plate for Bush....we know this. Will they for Kerry.....its unclear and slightly less then probable. But that is a better chance then Bush has of garnering world support.
3. IT IS LIKE BRAVEHEART. That's the problem. High tech shit doesnt matter. We're fighting those willing to die. We're fighting hidden car bombs. We're fighting in religious shrines.
4. If we followed you idea of persistence, we would still be in Vietnam.
5. I dont know the solution. I think this foreign policy of bush is a disaster. BUT even if he is doing a decent job.....his domestic policy has been even worse. We all suffer (including the really wealthy) in the long run with these soaring deficits and shrinking middle class. So there is no way voting for Bush can be justified (especially with all this nutty religious stuff....do you realize how far we are falling behind in stem cell research to other nations....europe is going to beat us to the next economic jackpot, because bush wants to make a bunch of losers from alabama happy....its just not worth it)

JAY
In response to "this is how bad bush fucked things up." What would Kerry have done? If I'm not mistaken, Kerry voted for the war as well (and Kerry doesn't vote). The only thing that would have differed if Kerry was in office is the reconstruction of Iraq. I don't even have to explain. I know you liberals know that. What is your response? Don't tell me what Kerry would do now, tell me what he would have done when shit was hitting the fan. I don't understand how Kerry can say things were handled poorly when he was supporting the decisions when they were being made. Responses? I am surprised Kerry even voted. Look at his voting record. It's pathetic. Bob, you always tell me it's our responsibility as a citizen to vote. Does a senator share the same responsibility? Doesn't a senator have a significantly larger voice than me? How can you support someone who doensn't fulfill his responsibilities as a senator? Hopefully this guy can speak up if he becomes president. Just for shit and giggles I want one of you liberals to give me the stats on Kerry's voting record. I know it, I just want to hear you say it. And I want some sort of rebuttle. I know it'll be hard, but mamma says you can do anything you put your mind to. I don't think she was refering to this though. If you need the web cite, I'll be glad to give it to you.
Nuge, you're anti stem cell. I really havn't researched the topic yet, but I think it's going to be the topic for my law thesis. I havn't picked a side yet so try and pursuade me. If anyone else has some input on this topic I'd love to hear it. It could help me w/ my paper and maybe avoid these repetitive arguments about iraq.

BOB
You got my goose!
Nugent, you took a really childish blow at the Democratic Party:
"Unfortunately there are enough movie stars, college students and gays to make up a Democratic Party"
What did I do?...I got all red-faced and jumped into defensive mode, reacting with an equally childish reply. I am wallowing in my regret.
Let me try to re-establish my more moderate side:
10 Big Reasons I LOVE the Republican Platform
1. I love free trade
2. I believe in the ideal of less federal government
3. I have no pity for the welfare recipeints
4. I dont think government should regulate industries such as transportation, postal etc..
5. I prefer that the power be with the states
6. I do not support paternalistic laws
7. I love Capatilism and embrace 'big-business'
8. I support the 2nd Amendment
9. I respect politicians that don't waver
10. They aren't worried about being politically correct all the time
And there is more....I agree with a ton of the criticism that I hear about the DEMs. I am nervous as hell about Kerry (personally, I was a Dean guy). I still don't get why the fuck the guy voted to give Bush the War Crown if he didn't support the war! I never fucking would have! If you want me to defent him, you are talkin to the wrong guy!
The bottom line is that I don't have a boner for either party, but I can't handle another 4 years of Bush foreign policy. I simply believe that this strategy of smashing anti-Americanism will backfire.
PS And Nugent you said that:
"We are a technologically and numerically superior force.
Through persistence we will win..."
I think our good, old friend, Ho Chi Mihn, said it best when he said:
"You will kill 10 of our men and we will kill one of yours. In the end, it is you who will tire of this." Isn't that exactly what happened?!

NUGENT
good timing on your nice guy, modest rebuttals.You both shoot down my comment of persistence with the Vietnam parallel. And your right to do so, but I see a larger problem growing from this similarity. Both wars have occurred after the 1960's liberation bananza. We now live in an era where a large, morally diverse crowd regulates our social/political world. This has created a very indecisive system. And what is stemming from this, is a roadmap to victory for our enemies. All they need to do is survive and the strength of our liberal movements will halt the war machine. In addition all the new concerns with rules of engagement and civilian welfare means the enemy not only survives but comes out relatively unscathed. Basically, if we tuck tale and run here... We are reaffirming our inability to commit to winning a war. This is why I speak of persistence. Having bush run around like a cowboy for four more years isn’t a bad thing. We can always patch up with Germany later. Losing the ability to strike fear into those who wish us harm would be costly.Not all conflict is decided in 6 months with 100 casualties. We shouldn't sacrifice our patience because its an election year

BOB
Jay: As far as stem-cell research goes I think it's not much different from abortion or euthenasia. The Church folk think its bad cause we shouldn't play God blah, blah, blah....these are the same people who stoned Galileo and shunned Da Vinci. They hate science nerds cause they provide real answers to the questions that their dusty religious books used to.
The majority of stem cell research that is being proposed is from fertility treatment or aborted fetuses. These guys were gonna end up in the garbage any which way. We're not talking about fertilizing eggs just to be used for research. Some people argue that using the aborted fetuses is somehow condoning abortion, well maybe. Personally I don't have a problem with abortion so the whole thing seems ridiculous to me. Others suggest that we use adult stem cells found in bone marrow, I believe. It isn't half as flexible though and requires donars and has some other hangups.
If anyone has a non-God agruement for resticting stem cell research I'd love to hear it.
Chuck: You mentioned Kerry being all about givin money to the poor and sick. You seem to trust the guy. What are your thoughts about his vote to give Bush the War go-ahead? How do you think that Kerry will respond to this in the debates?
Dan: As much as I regret my vicious, childish, knee-jerk reaction to Nugent's descripition of the Democratic Party (which, by the way you didn't denounce as you did mine), I am glad that it got you motivated to jump back in the mix. Welcome back, I though we had lost you to married life (you know picking out wallpaper borders and such).
I get your point about the Coalition. The little guys are making a big sacrifice and there are other types of help besides sending soldiers. Good point. But my agruement was simply that the amount on support we’ve got from this coalition isn’t living up to the picture that Bush painted us...that’s all.
Maney: When I watched the Republican Convention I was shocked at the Lincoln references...even Arnold dropped his name. What a dirty trick. Apparently it worked though, cause Abe was the first guy that you mentioned in your rebuttal.
American political parties have changed alot in the last 140 years. Everythihng that the Republican Party stands for is exactly what Lincoln fought against in 1865. Lincoln was a progressive, a liberal, he believed in a strong federal government, the rights of minority citizens over economic gain or state law, he fought against the conservative, traditionalist, rural southern mentality that we now call the Republican Party.
Despite the fact that they are both Republicans, Lincoln and Bush are complete opposites. The fact that the Republican Party is making this comparison (and that it works) it truly pathetic.
Nugent: You said that nowadays:
"The strength of our liberal movements will halt the war machine."
And you honestly meant this as a bad thing!?!
Stopping the war machine does sound like such a pussy thing to do when you think about it. Did Dale Kyle join the roundtable or what?
That comment is truly scary, Nug.

CHUCK
Bob, You broke my heart with your confession to liking states rights and other dirty things. But thats okay, we have to unite against bush now, and then squabble over the details later.
I do trust Kerry. Unlike many senators that voted for the war, Kerry made a very detailed speech of what he thought Bush should do with his vote giving bush the authority. I wish he didnt vote for it, but he was very clear with what he expected: let the inspectors work, determine if there was suspected WMD, form a coalition, use invasion as a LAST RESORT. Bush did none of the above.
And how will Kerry do in the debates on this point. Horrible. He does not articulate a very complex position at all. That is invariably his problem. Everyday people dont have the time or energy to explore the complexity of Kerry's opinion. Main Example: Kerry DID vote for the $87 before he voted against it. This is common in senate speak. He disagreed on how it should be paid for, so he voted for one proposal which would have paid for the $87 billion now, and then voted against the final proposal which forces our children to pay for the war. Well, bush beats him over the head with this complexity, just like Cheney bashes kerry for proposed defense cuts....the very same ones Cheney proposed. But There is no way to explain that. Especially in the face of GW's 'i never wobble' rhetoric. (by the way, that is the problem with Bush, he never changes his mind....he actually thinks 'staying the course' in iraq will work.) Kerry is complex, and at his worst, confusing. but this country is going down the drain in foreign affairs and our domestic economy and someone has to stop this course. I truly believe that Kerry is a smart guy and has a great vision. is it coming out in this election? no. but his record is a nice blend of social liberal and reasoned economic policies.....and every other nation in the world likes him more then bush. so that'll do for now.

KYLE
Gents, I thought it might be helpful to look at what President Bush has said on stem cell research. Prior to 9/11 this was one of the big issues confronting the Bush administration. Bush has given one speech in the past 4 years to outline his stance and it was delivered August 9, 2001 at the place where he spent quite a bit of his presidency before 9/11, his ranch in Texas.
Currently the Bush administration allows for stem cell research in the following way: "Stem cells can be derived from sources other than embryos -- from adult cells, from umbilical cords that are discarded after babies are born, from human placenta. And many scientists feel research on these type of stem cells is also promising." - President BushThe controversy over stem cell research is obviously not over saving ambilical cords or placenta, it is over stem cells from embryos.
Presdient Bush went on to say:
"My position on these issues is shaped by deeply held beliefs. I'm a strong supporter of science and technology, and believe they have the potential for incredible good -- to improve lives, to save life, to conquer disease. Research offers hope that millions of our loved ones may be cured of a disease and rid of their suffering. I have friends whose children suffer from juvenile diabetes. Nancy Reagan has written me about President Reagan's struggle with Alzheimer's. My own family has confronted the tragedy of childhood leukemia. And, like all Americans, I have great hope for cures."
"I also believe human life is a sacred gift from our Creator. I worry about a culture that devalues life, and believe as your President I have an important obligation to foster and encourage respect for life in America and throughout the world. And while we're all hopeful about the potential of this research, no one can be certain that the science will live up to the hope it has generated."
If you read that last sentence, the President is arguing that because there is no gaurantee that stem cell research will cure major diseases, then we shouldn't buy into the false hope. Laura Bush has made a similar argument on the campaign trail this year. As Jon and Bob have alluded to: Science isn't certain. It is about discovering the unknown.
Finally, I love the way the President shapes debates. Because he has a "respect for human life in America", he opposes embryotic stem cell research. The reason I support embryotic stem cell research is because if a family member of mine contracts a disease that could be treated with knowledge acquired through stem cell research I WANT THEM TO LIVE. I'm pro-life when it comes to stem cell research because I want people who are alive to keep living and not die from a disease that we may be able to cure because our President won't allow the research because he has "deeply held beliefs" (religion).
Jay - the full tect of the President's remarks is available here for your reference and paper: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/08/20010809-2.html