Just sitting here trying to figure out what one has to do with the other. Explain.

Ok there was a settlement September 2002...

http://www.naacp.org/news/releases/f...nt090302.shtml

"Central Voter Database
Eligible voters who were removed from the voter rolls in error will be identified and restored to the lists. New procedures will be implemented to help prevent mistakes, such as misidentifying voters as having been convicted of a felony, or incorrectly identifying voters as having registered elsewhere, from occurring in the future as the new statewide Central Voter Database is put in place."

One of the main points of our anti Saddam campaign is that he is a dictator that supresses the basic human rights that we value. But this is going on in our own country. 91,000 Americans were not allowed to vote so that George W.Bush could be President. Now if that doesn't smack of some third world dictatorship I don't know what does. Dont get me wrong I don't like Saddam and think he needs to go.

If you have the calender "They Misunderestimated me" you will understand that last quote.

:2 cents:

First, not a Republican.

Second....I have a problem with Saddam because he represees his country and is a danger to all other countries, including the States.

Now, what the heck does Saddam have to do with you wanting felons to vote?
:2 cents:

Everyone that has replied in this thread has pretty much replied with their own opinion.

For the Americans, I say this; if you're happy to give into every president that comes on board into administration and follow their lead, then fine, so be it. Just remember that a presidency is more than one person, so you have the right to fire anyone in that presidency. Being patriotic just because you think you have to, is pretty stupid. You should question what your government tells you.

To the non-Americans or "haters", I only have to tell you that most Americans are patriotic, but they fall short of wanting to die for every single thing America does, because for the most part, the government does not speak for Americans... and it would be a misconception if you thought America was perfectly represented on this forum. The opinions I've seen in defense of this war are held with the simple minded and uneducated.

Sensible persons who see their fellow countrymen defend a cause that is obviously without any merit, keep silent so they won't be held in the ranks of coward or non-patriot. The truth be said, we all need one another. We could not function properly if we didn't put every effort possible to prevent the act of war.

For those that find comfort in war and have some deep rooted disorder that requires them to feel above anyone else, your time will be short. The ultimate goal for every human being should be peace, it should be prosperity.

You can't put people in the same group just because it makes you feel better. You can't label a person a terrorist without putting his peers in the same category, you also can't go after one thing and ignore another thing which is equally responsible.

First, let me say that I don't doubt that mistakes were made. However, to say it was just against blacks. GET REAL!

Dude, you are still quoting biased papers. This lawsuit that you site is just that, another stupid lawsuit. Anyone can put together a lawsuit and file with the courts. I read through the 'crap', and it still stands as 'crap'!

Let's look at some of the names they quote: Conseulo Maria Graham. Oh yeah, that sounds black. How about Sherry Edwards? Joanna Clark? Michelle Floyd? John Cheever?

It's the demoncrats (not democrats) doing their best to cause trouble for the rest of Americans. Nothing more, nothing less.

At the rate this thread is going, we won't have to worry about a war in Iraq, we'll have our own right here on GFY.

:1orglaugh :1orglaugh

We? Who's we? I (and most Americans, though definitely far from all) will always back our soldiers. And, in this case I do back the president (even though I think he could have handled this situation much better from the beginning), backing the president is far from a given. We've had plenty of military action that in my opinon was clearly not necessary or not our perogitive (Panama comes to mind, as do others). If you think a war is unjust, then you should *not* blindly follow the president. Excercise your right of expression. While I disagree with the anti-war protestors, I sure as hell respect their right to express themselves.

well in the bit I qouted you said "This is one the ONLY " which is why I asked. Hold your guns..you forgot to type 'of'..was clarifying before I jumped as it changes the entire sentence.

The whole problem with IRAQ is the fuckup that happened when George Bush SR. didn't go into Bagdad 10 years ago to plaster Saddam. Had he finished the job like it should have been we all wouldn't be debating here today on this subject.

He had the clear support and chickened out at the last moment back then thinking it would create a power void that IRAN would scoop up.

Amen.

You're partially right. The problem is that Iraq was partially defeated, humiliated and then left stewing under sanctions and inspections (on and off) for a decade. Either Sadam should have been deposed the first time around or he should have been let off the hook. Either way, Iraq should have been quickly reintegrated into the world community.

I'm sorry if I gave you the wrong impression. I'm not at all opposed to war. It's not my first choice, but it is necessary. Nor do I feel war is unjust, especially in the case of Iraq.

AND I totally back people protesting to express themselves. Its our right as Americans. I just don't agree with them. And I have every right not to agree with them. Works both ways.

I hear people say they back our soldiers, but what I see are protests. That does not back our soldiers. The soldiers are part of the military and all actions against the war is against our soldiers. You may see it differently, but I do not.

I exercise my right of expression all the time. Some may say too much. Hey, you may think I express to much too.

I'd love to get feedback from someone in the military. Would be good to see their view.

I wouldn't necessarily say protesting is backing the soldiers, but I do wholeheartedly think that you can back the soldiers and not back the president. I know there are plenty of soldiers' parents who back the soldiers 100% but don't see eye to eye w/the Prez. Shit, Generals Athony Zinni and Stormin' Norman Schwartkoff aren't backing the president.

Do you contend that if someone doesn't back the president they can't back the soldiers?

I was in the ROTC in college and my father served in the Korean War and stayed active in the US Army reserves up to the rank of Colonel. He's buried in Arlington National Cemetary and got a beautiful full military honors funeral ceremony with the flag drapped cason and riderless horse, 21 round salute goodbye, etc. One of my cousins is a General. And I have another cousin in the Coast Guard and an uncle that is retired from a career in the Navy.

Military guys are a special breed and I have the utmost respect for them.

I'll never forget as a kid looking at my father in his Officer's uniform and feeling so proud knowing that he was willing to go to war and risk his life for others.

What's wrong with leaving that out? You accused him of not understanding communism when that clearly isn't the case.

Communism is perfect in theory, but not in reality.

At least someone knows what he's talking about. America needs natural resources big time to survive. They wouldn't beable to survive without the rest of the world.

I'd bet if every country was completely on its own, the USA would survive as well if not better than any other country doing the same.

Americans are composed of the pioneers and adventurers from all partrs of the world in our heritage and in our blood we have invincible determination, courage and unlimited fortitude.

Great post! Agreed.

Not with our insatiable appetite for SUVs.

Moreover, our economy would be fucked, seriously fucked for a long time to come. Anyone who has taken Econ 101 understands this. Whether we like it or not the economy is global and interdependent.

You make it sound like American's are the best and only they are capable of achieving the best... don't be so ignorant. A human is a human.

You are quite the diplomat. Ever consider a career in diplomacy? Seriously.:thumbsup

You have a better pulse on America than most people on the board.

Thanks. I just see what I see. A lot of people know the real truth, they just feel they want to give their leader a chance. I'm a little different, I don't believe them from the first moment, if I get anything positive from them, then it's a bonus.

Nobody wants to love a terrorist, but deep down you know that is the right thing to do... pity, compassion, forgiveness... You can't be a real martyr or hero if you wave a flag that says, "Feel sorry for me!" -- do you see the problem with pride? If you have to kill someone breaking into your home, do you wave a flag that says, "I'm a hero!" -- NO, unless you're sick. Who can entirely blame Bush when we have accepted words/concepts like "pride" and "patriotism"...? Love is the answer, but it'll never happen until we have real leaders that can follow simple wisdom like "turn the other cheek", "do unto others...", etc... it's simply the right thing to do, but nobody wants to hear it because it's not macho -- nobody likes Ned Flanders because he reminds you that you're a bad person -- and your pride prevents you from investigating your divine nature. Go polish up your war medals, meanwhile your soul tarnishes... :1orglaugh

Terror only exists if you allow yourself to define it as such. Smoke a bowl and pray for the souls of the murderers.

Yup.

Compared to what??

What is your definition of perfect??

Are you naive enough to believe that your own definition is something that would be universally accepted??

:1orglaugh

I think utopian would be more appropriate. Yeah, wouldn't it be great if society was completely egalitarian, everyone was equal, made the same amount of money, no crime, no greed, etc., etc. Of course it's completely contrary to human nature. But Marx and Engels were idealistic and their intentions however misguided were still fairly noble. It's just an inherently flawed philosophy that in the real world (or any other world) can not work, and inevitably will lead to more tyranny/greed, etc. than capitalism.

I think I understand where you are coming from. The problem is what a terroist attack does to the economy. When the economy of a country suffers from a terroist attack that in my opinion is a threat. The USA accounts for about 25% of the world economy, so terroist threats/attacks arent good for the world in general.
Iraq has not caused trouble in some time. However Iraq has invaded countries in the past, was defeated and ordered to disarm. When a tyrant holds dictatorship of a country he alone rolls the dice, no checks or balances to keep the nation sound. Now after 12 years of violations towards the UN Iraq is a strong subject of debate. Does a dictatorship based goverment that has only violated a few UN resolutions deserve to be removed by military force? Does Sadam really have enough bio/chem weapons to kill millions? If so, is there really a chance that he will provide terroist networks with them? How will a military attack on Iraq effect other countries? Will a rebuilt Iraq serve as a economic/dipolmatic strong point for the US? Many questions can be raised reguarding this issue. Nobody has the same opinion. Nobody has the perfect idea. Many people both pro-war and anti-war focus on one issue of the puzzle. Nobody knows how the puzzle will look ounce put together. Many pros and cons reguarding the outcome can be assumed and nothing more. Nobody knows what will actually happen. Anti-americans, the blood thiristy, the tree huggers, the conspiracy thirsty, the american patriots, can only stress what they think will happen. I am probably not making sense anymore. I am off to celebrate Tuesday. I need more drinks, more smoke. No more computer for the day

Perfect relative to my opinion.

No, I'm not naive.

Is that your opinion talking again?? :1orglaugh

Too bad its happened several times since to varying degrees. See: Cambodia, East Timor, Rowanda, Chile, the kurds, and several south/central american countries.

America is today's Roman Empire. Deal with it.

Though slightly off topic, my fears of having this Bush Administration is beyond the war, more personal for us in this business. Once this wartime mentality is over, and this Republican admin starts focusing on domestic issues, pornography may become a prime target.

So besides all the wartime talk, I would rather have another administration step in next election period, for I fear a lot of harassment in this industry from the current one.

after reading all of the above posts it is very apparent that a lapse in world contraception occured about 20 years ago or so. and now they are all posting here !

conserve and preserve the gene pool. use contraception and legalize abortion.

smoking dope don't do non harm eh ????

LOL LOL :1orglaugh

I couldn't agree more...

Wether you like him or not, GWB is not responsible for 3 millions + deaths, saddam is.
You can dream and wish all you want but the USA ain't goin nowhere, it's here to stay forever.
The day the USA will not exist anymore is the day this planet ceases to exist.
That's it, that's a fact, there ain't nothing you can do about it, so stop wasting your energy typing bullshit on this board and use it to make some money.
And remember one thing, ever since we can go back in history, europe has never been united, they always have been at war slaughtering each other, that's not going to stop, the slaughtering will just take another form. So all of you european union people, just go on living in utopia, after all it's an european tradition to close your eyes and look the other way.

You are exactly right !


:)

in case someone hasn't already told you - over and over and over...

Bush SR. followed the UN and stopped when it said. What the UN said was the mission was finished - it did not include "finishing the job" - that THAT is what is wrong with the UN.

Only a FOOL would think SR. wouldn't have LOVED to have finished the job.

the SMART thing JR. is doing is TELLING the UN - instead of being TOLD.

you will thank him for that one of these days... and it's going to kill you. :1orglaugh

Can't we all just get along? :helpme