Iran Endorses Bush for President

Panasonic Lumix G 14mm F2.5 ASPH

Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 USM

10/29/2004 09:00:19 PM · #27

Iran is not a terrorist country, and they do not harbor terrorists: Evidence: They have repeatedly arrested and detained Al Quada militants that were attempting to enter the Iranian territory. Despite CIA's best efforts to make a correlation between the terrorist networks and the Iranian republic, there has been no connection made.

Iran does not have any WMDs: Evidence: They have opened their borders to inspectors time and time again, complying with even their most frivolous requests--all in hopes of diffusing this threat. It is only natural for a state to possess some kind of defense program (especially a region as hostile and unstable such as the Middle East). However, if they exceeded their defense needs, and started to become a threat, the neighbouring states would be alarmed way before the US administration could take any action (Israel).
Fact is: Iran has NEVER in their history posed any threat to neighbouring nations. There has been no terrorist devestation linked to the Iranian people, and there is absolutely no indication that the Iranian public poses any threat. It is highly unlikely that the state would attempt at attaining weapons of mass destruction.
Another case to keep in mind, is that a country would NEVER in their right mind deploy any WMD's against any other nation, unless if it was due to defensive purposes. It is simply a form of suicide. The magnitude of retaliation taken against the country would be so severe, that the entire civilization would be depleted.
Finally, Iran's title as an "Axis of Evil" is nothing more than political diversion. The Bush Administration is the only entity pointing fingers towards Iran, only to deviate from their disastrous domestic and foreign policies. The American public has experienced four years of fear and terror, only due to the persuasive tactics of the Bush Administration. It is only natural that Iran is starting to feel the heat.

In conclusion, Iran undoubtedly possesses some form of defensive power. However, they do not possess any form of WMD. This notion becomes obvious when one pays closer attention to the country's political, social, cultural and historical dynamics.

Olyuzi

Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX7

10/29/2004 10:18:07 PM · #28

For the Bush administration, there are not enough enemies. Yet, the neocons in the Bush administration are the biggest enemies of the rest of the world. They are looking for wars. In the Middle East especially, they are looking to dissolve the nation states there to get control of the region that is vital to their imperialistic and corporate global goals.

Cam

Sony DSC-F717

10/29/2004 10:34:58 PM · #29

Originally posted by Olyuzi:

When you say something like that, it takes away any credibility that your previous posts may have made.

I can certainly understand someones opposition to the war. I can even understand that viewpoint.

But when you go off and say they want war because of some plot to take over the world, and make themselves rich....well thats just silly.

Olyuzi

Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX7

Panasonic Lumix G 14mm F2.5 ASPH

10/29/2004 10:46:50 PM · #30

It's what's really going on behind the terrorism wars. The whole question of globalization and the dissolution of the nation state, as well as, the National Security Strategy and the Project for a New American Century are the realities of the politics going on in the world today. The Bush administration does not represent the people of the United States, but rather, they are the instruments of the corporate globalists.

MadMordegon

10/29/2004 10:49:32 PM · #31

Originally posted by Riggs:

But when you go off and say they want war because of some plot to take over the world, and make themselves rich....well thats just silly.

PNAC vid The site //www.newamericancentury.org

Its less silly than you think.

Cam

Sony DSC-F717

10/29/2004 11:07:49 PM · #32

Originally posted by MadMordegon:

Originally posted by Riggs:
But when you go off and say they want war because of some plot to take over the world, and make themselves rich....well thats just silly.

PNAC vid The site //www.newamericancentury.org

Its less silly than you think.

What does that have to do with current leadership?

gingerbaker

Canon EF 135mm f/2.0L USM

10/30/2004 11:13:53 AM · #33

Originally posted by Riggs:

Originally posted by MadMordegon:

Originally posted by Riggs:
But when you go off and say they want war because of some plot to take over the world, and make themselves rich....well thats just silly.

PNAC vid The site //www.newamericancentury.org

Its less silly than you think.

What does that have to do with current leadership?

The current leadership are all official members or proponents of PNAC.

10/30/2004 12:57:27 PM · #34

Originally posted by gingerbaker:

Originally posted by Riggs:

Originally posted by MadMordegon:

Originally posted by Riggs:
But when you go off and say they want war because of some plot to take over the world, and make themselves rich....well thats just silly.

PNAC vid The site //www.newamericancentury.org

Its less silly than you think.

What does that have to do with current leadership?

The current leadership are all official members or proponents of PNAC.

That's a serious charge, sir. I'd like to see you substantiate it. I guess the first thing I'd like to see is your definition of "current leadership". My definition would be the President, his chief advisors, and the Cabinet, along with the ranking members of the Congress. And you did say "all" did you not? So, to itemize - please provide substantiation for each of the following:

George W. Bush - President
Dick Cheney - Vice-President - no need to prove - acknowledged member/proponent
Andy Card - Chief of Staff
Condoleezza Rice - National Security
Karl Rove - Senior Advisor
Al Gonzales - Chief Counsel
Porter Goss - CIA
Robert Mueller - FBI
Anne Veneman - Agriculture
Don Evans - Commerce
Don Rumsfeld - Defense - no need to prove - acknowledged member/proponent
Rod Paige - Education
Spence Abraham - Energy
Tommy Thompson - Health & Human Services
Tom RIdge - Homeland Security
Alphonso Jackson - Housing & Urban Development
Gale Norton - Interior
John Ashcroft - Justice
Elaine Chao - Labor
Colin Powell - State
Norm Mineta - Transportation
John Snow - Treasury
Tony Principi - Veterans Affairs
Mike Leavitt - Environmental Protection
Josh Bolten - Office of Management & Budget
John Walters - Drug Control
Robert Zoellick - Trade
Bill Frist - Senate Majority Leader
Tom DeLay - House Majority Leader

I await your response with eagerness, but somehow doubt that it will be forthcoming.

Gordon

RIM BlackBerry Curve

Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM

10/30/2004 01:20:26 PM · #35

It's obviously extreme to say that all of the current adminstration are members of PNAC, but there are significantly represented, at the highest levels.

Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz are both public members - Sec of Defence and Under Sec of Defence. Cheney, Elliot Abrams (NSA Chief of middle eastern affairs), William Bennett, George Bush's speech writer, Jeb Bush, Richard Perle, on the defence policy board until he resigned mid 2003 due to conflict of interests. Karl Rove is also a significant member and Bush's chief political advisor.

So yes, you are correct in the strictest sense of picking up on the word 'all'. However, it would be difficult to claim that these are not people extremely significant in forming the current US foreign policy, and all publically claim to be members of PNAC.

Now you could believe that George W. Bush doesn't listen to his sec. and under sec of defence, NSA middle eastern advisor and his political advisor when it comes to his decision making, particularly about a war in the middle east. That might even be true. I don't quite know which of those options I'd be more concerned about though ?

Message edited by author 2004-10-30 14:14:16.

bdobe

Canon EOS-1D Mark II

10/30/2004 01:59:11 PM · #36

Originally posted by Riggs:

-------------------------------------------------

I'm always amazed to learn that some people are still not aware of the players inside the Bush administration. Now, I'll try to address only part of this conversation, and rephrase Riggs' question thus, What does The Project for the New American Century have to do with the Bush administration? I presume that this is what Riggs wants answered.

The Project for the New American Century (PNAC) is composed of a group of men (I frankly don't know whether there are any women in it) that had long advocated the overthrow of Saddam Hussein for various reasons, including oil, the necessity to project American power in the Middle East, the need to protect an ally (Israel), and to prevent Hussein from developing weapons of mass destruction. On January of 1998 the group sent a letter to president Clinton urging him to remove Saddam Hussein:

"In your upcoming State of the Union Address, you have an opportunity to chart a clear and determined course for meeting this threat. We urge you to seize that opportunity, and to enunciate a new strategy that would secure the interests of the U.S. and our friends and allies around the world. That strategy should aim, above all, at the removal of Saddam Hussein's regime from power. We stand ready to offer our full support in this difficult but necessary endeavor." [letter]

Moreover, the same group sent another letter to the then majority leader in the House of Representatives, Newt Gingrich, urging that Congress exert pressure on the White House to persue the removal of Saddam Hussein.

Please note that this is five years before Mr. Bush warned us of the "grave and gathering danger in Iraq" if we did not do something soon. Now, if you scroll down, you'll see the list of signatories on the letter addressed to president Clinton. If you've followed the events and players surrounding the Bush White House over the past couple of years, there ought to be a couple of names that immediately jump out at you, for example: Richard Perle, Donald Rumsfeld & Paul Wolfowitz -- just to name some of major players.

Furthermore, if you were to do a search on the signatories to the letter, you'd find that many of them ended up working in the Bush administration, in various governmental positions*:

Elliott Abrams
//uscirf.gov/cirfPages/bio_Abrams.php3?scale=1152s
//www.disinfopedia.org/wiki.phtml?title=Elliott_Abrams

Richard L. Armitage
//www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/biog/2991.htm
//www.disinfopedia.org/wiki.phtml?title=Richard_L._Armitage

William J. Bennett
//www.mediatransparency.org/people/wbennett.htm

Jeffrey Bergner
//www.disinfopedia.org/wiki.phtml?title=Jeffrey_Bergner&redirect=no

John Bolton
//www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/02/20010221-6.html
//www.disinfopedia.org/wiki.phtml?title=John_Bolton

Paula Dobriansky
//www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/03/20010312-9.html
//www.disinfopedia.org/wiki.phtml?title=Paula_Dobriansky

Francis Fukuyama
//www.bioethics.gov/about/fukuyama.html
//www.disinfopedia.org/wiki.phtml?title=Francis_Fukuyama

Robert Kagan

Zalmay Khalilzad
//www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/05/20010523-7.html
//www.disinfopedia.org/wiki.phtml?title=Zalmay_Khalilzad

William Kristol
//www.mediatransparency.org/people/bill_kristol.htm

Richard Perle
//www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/04/text/20010406-7.html
//www.disinfopedia.org/wiki.phtml?title=Richard_Perle

Peter W. Rodman
//www.dod.mil/policy/isa/bios/peter_w_rodman.html

Donald Rumsfeld
//www.defenselink.mil/bios/secdef_bio.html

William Schneider, Jr.

Vin Weber

Paul Wolfowitz
//www.defenselink.mil/bios/depsecdef_bio.html

R. James Woolsey

Robert B. Zoellick
//us-mission.ch/BIOS/Zoellick.htm

(*Note that for those individuals without links I could not find any relevant information.)

Moreover, some -- here and elsewhere -- contend (me among them) that the Bush administration exploited 9/11 and exaggerated the threat that Saddam Hussein posed in order to pursue an elective war against Iraq. Many point to the Bush administration's appointment of many of the above individuals to key posts, as a sign that there existed in the administration a predisposition to see Iraq as an enemy -- even when it did not pose a threat to the US. Futhermore, many point to a document published by PNAC, which hints at a "larger plan" involving Iraq, the Middle East and the US military. That document includes this graft:

"Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event â�� like a new Pearl Harbor." [Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategy, Forces and Resources for a New Century, p. 51. PDF]

The above statement is offered in the context of "transforming" the US military into a more "mobile" and "nimble" fighting force; however, when placed in the context on 9/11 and its Pearl Harbor like psychological affect on the nation, one can understand how the authors of the document -- that is, the members of PNAC -- saw 9/11 as the opportunity to enact their plans for the Middle East, Iraq and the US military. For example, one of PNAC's goals was to transform the military, and to do so they needed to illustrate how a more "mobile" and "nimble" force could be effectively used in combat. Now, if you recall, before going into Iraq the administration (namely, Rumsfeld) argued that we would need less troops than what the Pentagon was asking for. Now, the Pentagon lost that argument, so we went into Iraq with a lot less troops than was required to secure the country after the fall of Saddam Hussein. Of course, we're now paying for this blunder. However, Mr. Rumsfeld, as a member of and signatory to the PNAC letter, for ideological reasons, chose to go into Iraq with less troops than what the Pentagon had originally requested.

Finally, the signatories to PNAC's Statement of Principles include the following: Dick Cheney, Jeb Bush, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, and others.

To say that the Bush administration did not have plans for Iraq long before 9/11 is simply not borne out by the record. Now, "absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event â�� like a new Pearl Harbor" who knows when the Bush administration would've invaded Iraq; however, it's clear that 9/11 presented the Bush administration the perfect rationale to go into Iraq and then enact the plans laid out by PNAC to remove Hussein, transform the military and project US power in the Middle East.

10/30/2004 02:17:32 PM · #37

Hey Ronb, :) you forgot:

Paul Wolfowitz - Deputy Secretary of Defense - acknowledged member/proponent

Elliott Abrams - National Security Council (United States Mideast Policy) - acknowledged member/proponent

Jeb Bush - George W. Bush's brother, and governor of Florida - acknowledged member/proponent

Paula J. Dobriansky - Under Secretary,Â Global Affairs appointed by President Bush on March 12, 2001 - acknowledged member/proponent

Aaron Friedberg - Vice President Cheney's Deputy National Security Adviser - acknowledged member/proponent

Francis Fukuyama - Presidentâ��s Council on Bioethics, Council on Foreign Relations -acknowledged member/proponent

Fred C. IklÃ© - Defense Policy Board, Center for Strategic & International Studies - acknowledged member/proponent

Zalmay Khalilzad - Ambassador to Afghanistan - acknowledged member/proponent

I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby - Chief of Staff to Vice President Dick Cheney - Founding Member

Dan Quayle - U.S. Department of Defense Policy Board, former vice president under Bush Senior - acknowledged member/proponent

Peter W. Rodman - Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs - acknowledged member/proponent

Henry S. Rowen - Defense Policy Board Member - founding member

John Vincent (Vin) Weber - National Commission on Public Service Member - acknowledged member/proponent

These people are ALL members of PNAC, and guess what? they ALL work for the government. several were directly appointed by GW Bush himself, and the PNAC list I didn't include, are lobbyists, private government contractors, private government advisers, If anyone would like more info on the Architecture of power that is changing our world, this website provides a long list of right wing "leaders" in our country.

here's the link to the home page: //rightweb.irc-online.org/index.php

here's a link to the list: //rightweb.irc-online.org/ind/index.php

here's a link to PNAC statement of principles and the original signers: //www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm

here's more!!!!

Kenneth Adelman - Defense Policy Board Member, Fox News: Guest commentator - acknowledged member/proponent

the list goes on and on and on... do some research

Message edited by author 2004-10-30 14:39:00.

10/30/2004 02:48:08 PM · #38

Originally posted by ericlimon:

Hey Ronb, :) you forgot:

Paul Wolfowitz - Deputy Secretary of Defense - acknowledged member/proponent

Elliott Abrams - National Security Council (United States Mideast Policy) - acknowledged member/proponent

Jeb Bush - George W. Bush's brother, and governor of Florida - acknowledged member/proponent

Paula J. Dobriansky - Under Secretary,Â Global Affairs appointed by President Bush on March 12, 2001 - acknowledged member/proponent

Aaron Friedberg - Vice President Cheney's Deputy National Security Adviser - acknowledged member/proponent

Francis Fukuyama - Presidentâ��s Council on Bioethics, Council on Foreign Relations -acknowledged member/proponent

Fred C. IklÃ© - Defense Policy Board, Center for Strategic & International Studies - acknowledged member/proponent

Zalmay Khalilzad - Ambassador to Afghanistan - acknowledged member/proponent

I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby - Chief of Staff to Vice President Dick Cheney - Founding Member

Dan Quayle - U.S. Department of Defense Policy Board, former vice president under Bush Senior - acknowledged member/proponent

Peter W. Rodman - Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs - acknowledged member/proponent

Henry S. Rowen - Defense Policy Board Member - founding member

John Vincent (Vin) Weber - National Commission on Public Service Member - acknowledged member/proponent

These people are ALL members of PNAC, and guess what? they ALL work for the government. several were directly appointed by GW Bush himself, and the PNAC list I didn't include, are lobbyists, private government contractors, private government advisers, If anyone would like more info on the Architecture of power that is changing our world, this website provides a long list of right wing "leaders" in our country. And before I hear any arguments that this website is done by left wing loonies, guess what? it's a right wing website.

here's the link to the home page: //rightweb.irc-online.org/index.php

here's a link to the list: //rightweb.irc-online.org/ind/index.php

here's a link to PNAC statement of principles and the original signers: //www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm

here's more!!!!

Kenneth Adelman - Defense Policy Board Member, Fox News: Guest commentator - acknowledged member/proponent

the list goes on and on and on... do some research

I didn't "forget" them. I provided a list of who I include in MY definition of "current leadership", and extended an invitation to gingerbaker to provide HIS definition. To date, he has not responded. You pick out names that support your agenda, but then YOU "forget" all of the other ( presumably non-associated ) names that would be included at the same government levels as those whose names you DO provide.

Once Kerry is / if Kerry is sworn in as President, and he makes his top level appointments - it would be interesting to take a hard, close look at his appointees for their relationships to organizations and people and corporations and who their mothers, fathers, sisters, brothers, aunts, uncles, cousins, grandparents, great-grandparents, ad nauseum were associated with, supported, etc. I'm sure many such ties could be twisted into just as great a degree of innuendo and unsubstantiated accusations as the liberals fling at those in the Bush administration.

But I must say one thing about this rant - thanks a heap for turning me on to PNAC. I can hardly wait 'till Jerry Falwell and the Christian Coalition joins forces with PNAC - the Crusades will look like a cakewalk by comparison.

By the way, have you heard about the secret Republican plan to amend the Constitution so that Arnold can run for President in 2008? They intend to get the amendment passed by weaving subliminal messages into TV Reality Shows. If I were a liberal, I'd trash my TV until 2010, just to be safe.

10/30/2004 03:00:35 PM · #39

Originally posted by RonB:

I can hardly wait 'till Jerry Falwell and the Christian Coalition joins forces with PNAC - the Crusades will look like a cakewalk by comparison.

hmmm...
That remark is a little disturbing.
I bet you'll be among the fist to strap on an AK so you can go out and "crusade" against all them unbelievers huh? Have a nice trip.

Originally posted by RonB:

I didn't "forget" them. I provided a list of who I include in MY definition of "current leadership"

seem's like you left them out to hide some agenda. Lift the veil, your only fooling yourself.

Message edited by author 2004-10-30 15:12:04.

bdobe

Canon EOS-1D Mark II

10/30/2004 03:08:08 PM · #40

Originally posted by RonB:

By the way, have you heard about the secret Republican plan to amend the Constitution so that Arnold can run for President in 2008? They intend to get the amendment passed by weaving subliminal messages into TV Reality Shows. If I were a liberal, I'd trash my TV until 2010, just to be safe.

Ron, you asked a serious question and some of us have provided you with serious answers to your request; and all you've done here is avoid having to do some serious thinking about the Republican party, the Bush administration and its relation to PNAC. That organization, PNAC, its goals and influence on the current administration raise serious issues regarding the current administration, our involvement in Iraq and the future commitment of resources (military, financial, strategic and cost in lives) to that part of the world... as citizens of this country, we should be doing some serious thinking about what it all means for our country.

10/30/2004 04:21:09 PM · #41

Originally posted by bdobe:

Originally posted by RonB:
By the way, have you heard about the secret Republican plan to amend the Constitution so that Arnold can run for President in 2008? They intend to get the amendment passed by weaving subliminal messages into TV Reality Shows. If I were a liberal, I'd trash my TV until 2010, just to be safe.

Ron, you asked a serious question and some of us have provided you with serious answers to your request; and all you've done here is avoid having to do some serious thinking about the Republican party, the Bush administration and its relation to PNAC. That organization, PNAC, its goals and influence on the current administration raise serious issues regarding the current administration, our involvement in Iraq and the future commitment of resources (military, financial, strategic and cost in lives) to that part of the world... as citizens of this country, we should be doing some serious thinking about what it all means for our country.

Sorry, but I haven't seen any serious answers from the left for at least the last 4 months. All I see are a constant barrage of smearing innuendo, unsubstantiated accusations and "rhetorical" questions that are intended solely to arouse doubt in the minds of those unfortunates who do not know any better. I read the postings of many liberals who, if one were to believe their posts, posess more insight, more knowledge, more intelligence, and have greater access to "Good, accurate" intelligence, than the President of the U.S.and his advisors.
They turn a blind eye to U.N. corruption and incompetance, the lies of Bush's opponents, and the futility of diplomacy with terrorists.

I've seen conservatives ask serious questions that remain unanswered - questions like, why do members of the military favor Bush?, Why do communist organizations support Kerry?, Apart from "because he isn't Bush", what reasons can you give for supporting Kerry? These serious questions go unanswered, but still the stream of liberal propoganda continues unabated. I have spent countless hours answering questions, both serious and slanderous, but have yet to encounter any liberals ( save Gordon, if he, if fact is ) who take as much care as I do to respond to serious questions. That's my opinion.

10/30/2004 04:32:07 PM · #42

Originally posted by RonB:

I can hardly wait 'till Jerry Falwell and the Christian Coalition joins forces with PNAC - the Crusades will look like a cakewalk by comparison.

hmmm...
That remark is a little disturbing.
I bet you'll be among the fist to strap on an AK so you can go out and "crusade" against all them unbelievers huh? Have a nice trip.

Originally posted by RonB:

I didn't "forget" them. I provided a list of who I include in MY definition of "current leadership"

seem's like you left them out to hide some agenda. Lift the veil, your only fooling yourself.

ron,
you are making a true believer out of me.

10/30/2004 04:54:22 PM · #43

It is apparant that some failed to connect my Jerry Falwell joining forces with PNAC statements to those following, in which I warn of subliminal messages in TV reality shows. The connection, I thought, was obvious, and obviously meant to characterize both as being nothing more than making "conspiricy theories" and poking fun at those who are inclined to believe every one that comes along. I momentarily forgot that some people really do believe that PNAC is not only intent, but could possibly even succeed in taking over the world.

10/30/2004 04:58:13 PM · #44

Originally posted by RonB:

I read the postings of many liberals who, if one were to believe their posts, posess more insight, more knowledge, more intelligence, and have greater access to "Good, accurate" intelligence, than the President of the U.S.and his advisors.

Actually, reading the posts will show that these liberals just might "posess more insight, more knowledge, more intelligence, and have greater access to "Good, accurate" intelligence" than you do. Unless you really are the President or one of his Advisors...
Hmmm... might be?
I guess your sources are better than everyone else's huh?
That seems to be what you keep telling everyone.
I'm sure that any number of people on this site can go and read every post you've personally made, and find multiple examples of "smearing innuendo, unsubstantiated accusations and "rhetorical" questions that are intended solely to arouse doubt" that you have made.

look! there is a post from ron in this very thread that is "intended solely to arouse doubt" in relation to PNAC

Message edited by author 2004-10-30 17:01:45.

10/30/2004 05:26:30 PM · #45

Originally posted by ericlimon:

Originally posted by RonB:
I read the postings of many liberals who, if one were to believe their posts, posess more insight, more knowledge, more intelligence, and have greater access to "Good, accurate" intelligence, than the President of the U.S.and his advisors.

Actually, reading the posts will show that these liberals just might "posess more insight, more knowledge, more intelligence, and have greater access to "Good, accurate" intelligence" than you do. Unless you really are the President or one of his Advisors...
Hmmm... might be?

No, I'm not, and yes, of course, it might be. Some liberal posters DO, from time to time, show some signs of having done some decent research. BUT, that doesn't stop them from taking their eye off the ball, so to speak, and just avoiding the topic and just pasting another talking point that they found on the liberal sites they frequent. In many cases, they cross-post the same item, just to increase the coverage, it seems.

Originally posted by ericlimon:

I guess your sources are better than everyone else's huh?
That seems to be what you keep telling everyone.

Not at all. But at least I try to select sources that provide background and substantiation - not not just supportive rhetoric without substantiation. And what I keep telling everyone is that it shouldn't matter who owns the site, but does the site provide substantiation of its claims.

Originally posted by ericlimon:

I'm sure that any number of people on this site can go and read every post you've personally made, and find multiple examples of "smearing innuendo, unsubstantiated accusations and "rhetorical" questions that are intended solely to arouse doubt" that you have made.
look! there is a post from ron in this very thread that is "intended solely to arouse doubt" in relation to PNAC

OK. You're "any number of people" - go find multiple examples, and report on what you find ( please cite thread, date, and time so that I can find the context of what you quote - just so that I can determine that you are not quoting me out-of-context ).

Gordon

RIM BlackBerry Curve

Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM

10/30/2004 05:35:45 PM · #46

Originally posted by RonB:

but have yet to encounter any liberals ( save Gordon, if he, if fact is )

Not the in the American meaning of the term, no - I wouldn't consider myself a liberal. Given that I don't get to vote here, I'm not sure who I'd really vote for, but politically I find myself most closely aligned with the Libertarian group, not that I'd ever expect them to win. That works out as fiscally conservative and socially liberal to paint it with a broad brush. I find the views of both major US parties quite alien in many ways.

Message edited by author 2004-10-30 21:37:59.

gingerbaker