Democrats A Threat To Sportsmen?

[Mackdaddy21]

Timc1086,

Okay I have plenty of evidence to back up my claims, much of it concrete. Bush did not lead us to war under shotty evidence. The intelligence was sound and even the harshest critics, such as french renegade Jaques Chirac and ungrateful German Loser Chancellor Gerhard Shroader, agreed and believed that Saddam possessed WMD's.
To you have said that Saddam didn't have any WMDs or we haven't found any is ALSO FALSE. About three months ago, insurgents attacked coalition troops and exploded six shells with SARIN GAS (a wmd). There is your evidence right there.
We may not have found the piles of WMD's yet the intelligence suggested. I have to remind you, Iraq is a large rugged country with countless desert wastelands where stockpiles of WMD's could be hidden. We have been too busy fighting off the terrorists to seriously look for WMDs. I still believe the weapons will be found once the fighting dies down, and that may take a few years. You also have to remember that another hostile Baath Party Stronghold, Syria, exists directly accress the border in the NW part of Iraq. Intelligence revealed that massive movement across the borders took place in the several days before the war took place. It is probable that the weapons were moved into Syria.
How can anyone say they didn't think Saddam was a threat to our security. It is a proven fact, that we dismantled many large terrorist training camps in northern Iraq near the SYRIAN BORDER. It is true that he both harbored and aided terrorists. And remember when immediately after the events of 9/11 that we all cheered when Bush said "we will make no distinction between the terrorists and those who harbor them," and also "you are either with us or against us?" What ever happened to that?
When you say it's very questionable that the Iraqis are better of without Saddam, you are again unaware of the facts. Most all of the Iraqis are greatful to us for removing the justly dubbed "Baghdad Butcher". The media just doesn't show it, they only show the bad.
The main reason that you critics may not be aware of these happenings is the fact that the mainstream media, besides fox, is horribly slanted to the left. The way they slant the news is by choosing what to cover. They only report on what is going wrong, not on what is going right. ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, MSNBC, and the like are all "DONKEY NEWS." Period. By neglecting to cover the successes we have, and by dwelling on only the things that go wrong, people are not getting the whole story, much less the truth.
When I say democrats are wrong in all areas, such as sportsmen's rights, I am talking about the far left, such as the Clintons, Kerry, Howard Dean, Nancy Pelosi, Tom Daschle, and Ted Kennedy. I am not talking about the moderate left like Joe Lieberman, or past democrat presidents such as FDR and Truman.
It is a fact that the democratic party is growing increasingly far left. We have not had a sensible democratic president in this nation, or one that didn't have a far left agenda, since Truman, and his predecesser FDR.

The Democrats are the ones who lock up public land to public use. All land that is owned by the City, County, State, Or Feds is PUBLIC, with the exception of Military Bases and Ranges. We are the city, county, state, and Feds. Our founding fathers intended our system to be a respresentative democratic republic. Government officials are supposed to do what the majority want, and to REPRESENT what the majority view is, as long as it isn't in conflict with the constitution. Largely, even in all parties, they don't do this. For this they should be removed from office. However, the democrats are the main ones who follow their own agenda, claiming it is in "the best interest" of the people.
In our area, we have excessive restrictions against non motorized boating or ice fishing, even wading, in any lakes that supply water for many cities. They do this because of a baseless fear of contamination, and of liabilities. This is the democrats at their best. They want to create more "preserves". They gradually sneak in more and more restrictions until access is banned or our rights to hunt or fish these places that WE OWN are gone.
Under Clinton, more and more public land was locked up to it's owners, us. They say they are only for reasonable Gun Control, yet they push more and more laws rather than enforcing existing laws. The Brady Bill and The Gun Control Act of 1968 are more than sufficient. However they do not have much impact on crime at all. That is simply because criminals ignore them. They can obtain guns anywhere. It is a fact, that in areas like Washington DC and many others with very strict gun control laws, CRIME IS FAR HIGHER. Gun control laws do not work at all. At best they are a slight hinderance to criminals, maybe delaying them from obtaining guns for a day or two. At worst, they are the beginning of taking away the guns of all law abiding citizens.
The sources for my facts are obvious. Watch the news, the real news, not donkey news. Watch Fox News, and you will get the real truth. Do not trust Tom Donkeykaw, Peter Donkey, or Dan I'd Rather be a Donkey. To get info on how gun control has little affect on crime, maybe even making it worse, get the official police crime reports for all cities, it's all public info. The facts of the hypocracy of the democrats bashing Bush for "false war in Iraq, and "no wmds" is available by simply watching past speeches made by Kerry, Clinton, Pelosi, or even Chirac in france. The facts are undeniable.

Timc1086, I cannot imagine how bad it would be for us if Gore was in Office. There is no denying he is of the extreme left and has no regard and possibly contempt for our rights to fish and hunt on our public lands. Saddam Huessein would still be in power, slaughtering babies left and right, harboring terrorists, and possibly in possession of possible WMDS. Even the possibilty he had them is enough to justify war, since he already fired on our planes constantly, and allowed and probably supported terrorist training camps in Iraq. One phrase to sum up the obvious connection between Saddam and Al Quida, AL SADR, deputy of Osama who has been in Iraq for years, killing innocent people and those who try to stop the evil ones and Saddam from killing babies and conspiring with other fanatics to KILL ALL OF US IN THE USA.

Tyler

[TroutFishingBear]

I'm really frustrated by the sheer lack of intelligence or factual points in the banter on this board. I mean, where did we all of a sudden assume that Democrats, since they oppose Bush, support PETA's 'terrorist' activities?  Things are just being fabricated... kind of like, oh I dont know, "faulty" intelligence; a "concrete" link between Iraq and Al - Qaeda; an imminent threat to teh saftey of America becauise of Saddam Hussein's presence atop teh Iraqi throne.  Oh, wait I get it- it must have been all those WMDs he has.

You would not be saying this if al gore were in office right now. You would be supporting the war. Since even Democrats, Clinton included, said these things about saddam. Not just bush. Bush is just the guy in office so you blame him. Clinton and others both said things about Saddam being a terrorist. Watch some of his older speeches, particularly around about the time we bombed them some during his presidency, you will here him say things like this about saddam.

Can't criticize it now.

Youre right, I wouldnt be saying this if Al Gore were in office right now. Because Al Gore woudlnt have led us to a war on shoddy evidence

My point is that clinton said that saddam has weapons of mass destruction, therefore, he and bush's intelligence about the matter was the same. You can't blame bush for the intelligence.

[fozsey]

I'm really frustrated by the sheer lack of intelligence or factual points in the banter on this board. I mean, where did we all of a sudden assume that Democrats, since they oppose Bush, support PETA's 'terrorist' activities?  Things are just being fabricated... kind of like, oh I dont know, "faulty" intelligence; a "concrete" link between Iraq and Al - Qaeda; an imminent threat to teh saftey of America becauise of Saddam Hussein's presence atop teh Iraqi throne.  Oh, wait I get it- it must have been all those WMDs he has.

You would not be saying this if al gore were in office right now. You would be supporting the war. Since even Democrats, Clinton included, said these things about saddam. Not just bush. Bush is just the guy in office so you blame him. Clinton and others both said things about Saddam being a terrorist. Watch some of his older speeches, particularly around about the time we bombed them some during his presidency, you will here him say things like this about saddam.

Can't criticize it now.

Youre right, I wouldnt be saying this if Al Gore were in office right now. Because Al Gore woudlnt have led us to a war on shoddy evidence .  It is one thing for Clinton to decry Saddam Hussein's actions (I've already done taht here) or even to point out that his people would benefit from his removal (that they have is questionable). It is WHOLLY another for the president of what is supposedly a country built on democratic values of liberty to lead said country into Iraq, pull out their leader (however corrupt) without widespread support from the UN or other world powers, and institute a "democratic" government there (that will need all of God's good graces to avoid violent failure).

My point is this:  I did not feel threatened by Saddam Hussein before OR after september 11th, because I do not live in a small village in central Iraq.  He didnt have any WMDs... I mean, we've been there for months and havent found a single one!  Saddam brought terror to his people; he did not portray, to us, a clear and present threat.

I am not going to even get into a debate as to wether the war in Iraq was right or wrong. If you feel the war was wrong, I respect that, period. Now, just exactlly how long do we wait for the UN, who it seems Mr. Kerry is basing his entire campaign strategy regarding the Iraq situation on, not to mention the entire left wing of the democratic party, to enforce mandates that were passed to avoid another invasion of Kawait or some other country that couldn't defend itself or worse him buying the technology for a nuclear weapon and using it on another country that couldn't defend itself?  Or, should we wait until he actually does something like that before we act. The fact is he already did and I have no reason to believe that he wouldn't have again. Prior to what happened to our country in September of 2001 I might have sided with you. "IF" the UN had done what it said it would do and enforced the 17 mandates I would have sided with you. If there wasn't concrete evidence that France and Germany were corupting the UN by doing business with Iraq under the table and getting rich off of illegal trade with them I might have sided with you. If Iraq had produced the evidence that it either destroyed the Biochemicals that we gave them or gave them back, I might have sided with you.

The hypcritical politicians on the left, and John Kerry is a card carrying member even if he won't admit it until he gets elected, publicly supported the war for the reasons stated until it was time for them to make a run for the Whitehouse and then all of a sudden they changed their minds and denounced the entire Iraq conflict because they say it was sold solely on the premise of WMD's being located in Iraq. The stated WMD's weren't there. I concede that point. I personally might have not been as supportive had they not included the WMD issue, but I feel that there was justification based on all of the other reasons stated. If you believe that the WMD evidence was fabricated to lead us to war then you must believe in little green martians and the tooth fairy too. The simple fact is the WMD's were there because WE gave them to Sadam. Sadam didn't produce proof that he destroyed them as was mandated by the UN resolutions so a normal logically thinking conclusion would be that they were still there as admitted by John Kerry, Bill Clinton, John Edwards, Joe Lieberman, Ted Kennedy, and a host of other Democrats that voted on the Iraq war. When Mr. Kerry states that he will get the support of the UN and the international community I politely and respectfully say that he is FOS because it was tried and failed not only by GW but by Mr. Clinton too.

Will Iraq have a stable Government in the near future? To me its doubtful at best, but the people living there will have that opportunity now which they would have never had before. I 100% whole heartedly support every millitary member serving in Iraq or anywhere else in the world unconditionally. I pray each and every day for a safe and speedy end to the conflicts in Iraq so we can get our brothers and sisters home safe and sound, but I can see in the bigger picture that Iraq will undoubtly continue to be a breeding ground for terrorists which is already happening if we aren't somehow involved. I feel safer knowing that we continue to have a millitary presence in Iraq. Mr. Kerry will remove that millitary presence as stated so based on that fact alone to me he isn't the best man for the job and Mr. Gore is more concerned with political bomb throwing than what is going on internationally so I don't think he is suited for public office or a leader to deal with another September 11th and he might do his beloved democratic party a favor as Howard Dean did not say anything at all.

BTW MF,

Ask Linda Ronstat how she feels about Michael Moore now? 

[USMC130FE]

TimC1086,
Just a quick question.....how old are you?  And where are you from?  Just wondering?

[USMC130FE]

Oh yeah, heres another reading that I "tripped over"

... great insight on Kerry from Ann Coulter's new book, All the Best. By Ann Coulter:

   Kerry was indisputably brave in Vietnam, and it's kind of cute to see Democrats pretend to admire military service. Physical courage, like chastity, is something liberals usually deride, but are tickled when it accidentally manifests itself in one of their own. One has to stand in awe of Kerry's military service 33 years ago. Of course, that's where it ends, including with Kerry -- inasmuch as, upon his return from war in 1970, he promptly began trashing his fellow Vietnam vets by calling them genocidal murderers.
   But if Bush can't talk to Kerry about the horrors of war, then Kerry sure as hell can't talk to anyone about the plight of the middle class. Kerry's life experience consists of living off other men's money by marrying their wives and daughters. For over 30 years, Kerry's primary occupation has been stalking lonely heiresses. Not to get back to his combat experience, but Kerry sees a room full of wealthy widows as "a target-rich environment." This is a guy whose experience dealing with tax problems is based on spending his entire adult life being supported by rich women. What does a kept man know about taxes?
   In 1970, Kerry married into the family of Julia Thorne -- a family estimated to be worth about $300 million. She got depressed, so he promptly left her and was soon seen catting around with Hollywood starlets, mostly while the cad was still married. (Apparently, JFK really was his mentor.) Thorne is well-bred enough to say nothing ill of her Lothario ex-husband. He is, after all, the father of her children -- a fact that never seemed to constrain him. When Kerry was about to become the latest Heinz family charity, he sought to have his marriage to Thorne annulled, despite the fact that it had produced two children. It seems his second meal ticket, Teresa Heinz, wanted the first marriage annulled -- and Heinz is worth more than $700 million.
   Kerry claims he will stand up to powerful interests, but he can't even stand up to his wife. Heinz made Kerry sign a prenuptial agreement, presumably aware of how careless he is with other people's property, such as other people's Vietnam War medals, which Kerry threw on the ground during a 1971 anti-war demonstration. At pains to make Kerry sound like a normal American, his campaign has described how Kerry risked everything, mortgaging his home in Boston to help pay for his presidential campaign. Technically, Kerry took out a $6 million mortgage for "his share" of "the family's home" -- which was bought with the Heinz family fortune. (Why should he spend his own money? He didn't throw away his own medals.) I'm sure the average working stiff in Massachusetts can relate to a guy who borrows $6 million against his house to pay for TV ads. Kerry's campaign has stoutly insisted that he will pay off the mortgage himself, with no help from his rich wife. Let's see: According to tax returns released by his campaign, in 2002, Kerry's income was $144,091.  But as The Washington Post recently reported, even a $5 million mortgage paid back over 30 years at favorable interest rates would cost $30,389 a month or $364,668 a year.
   The Democrats' joy at nominating Kerry is perplexing. To be sure, liberals take a peculiar, wrathful pleasure in supporting pacifist military types. And Kerry's life story is not without a certain feral aggression. But if we're going to determine fitness for office based on life experience, Kerry clearly has no experience dealing with problems of typical Americans since he is a cad and a gigolo living in the lap of other men's money. Kerry is like some character in a Balzac novel, an adventurer twirling the end of his mustache and preying on rich women. This low-born poseur with his threadbare pseudo-Brahmin family bought a political career with one rich woman's money, dumped her, and made off with another heiress to enable him to run for president. If Democrats want to talk about middle-class tax cuts, couldn't they nominate someone who hasn't been a poodle to rich women for the past 33 years?
   Don't forget -- John Kerry is strong on defense:
He voted to kill the Bradley Fighting Vehicle;
He voted to kill the M-1 Abrams Tank;
He voted to kill every Aircraft carrier laid down from 1988;
He voted to kill the Aegis anti aircraft system;
He voted to Kill the F-15 strike eagle;
He voted to Kill the Block 60 F-16;
He voted to Kill the P-3 Orion upgrade;
He voted to Kill the B-1;
He voted to Kill the B-2;
He voted to Kill the Patriot anti-Missile system;
He voted to Kill the FA-18;
He voted to Kill the B-2;
He voted to Kill the F117.
   In short, he voted to kill every military appropriation for the development and deployment of every weapons systems since 1988 to include the battle armor for our troops. With Kerry as president our Army will be made up of naked men running around with sticks and clubs. He also voted to kill all anti-terrorism activities of every agency of the US Government and to cut the funding of the FBI by 60%, to cut the funding for the CIA by 80%, and cut the funding for the NSA by 80%. But then he voted to increase OUR funding for U.N operations by 800%!!!
   If you are interested in the character of the next president of the United States, please forward this to those you want to inform. We do need a character as President.

[Fat Boy]

What I feel now is that obviously, I would like our troops to be safe, but the war to be stopped before we get ourselves any deeper. We are naïve to think that we can install a successful fledgling governement just like that, in a country that has been under totalitarian regime.

Point taken Tim.  But right now the war is against us.  We'd love to end it, but we can't abondon the Iraqi people and turn them back over to a tyrant government.  Even if Kerry is elected, we won't pull out.  We are in this one for the long hall.  And, if Kerry can get the UN more involved, it would be only a puppet operation, because the UN enforcement comes from US troops and not much from any other nations.  Bush said that this would be a long process from the beginning, perhaps years, to stabilize Iraq.  It may cross more than a few more administrations. 

Secondly, the PETA reference wasnt  to your post, but to the one that brought up a connection between PETA ad terrorism, which was irrelevant to the theme of democrats/sporting rights.

I think what Mike was referring to was domestic terrorism sponsored by PETA to underground organizations that are allegedly blowing up labs, threatening researchers using lab animals, shooting cows and blaming hunters, etc. in the name of animal rights.  I don't think that he meant there was a link to the Middle East terrorism.  But, perhaps any administration should consider these fanatics in the war on terrorism too.

PETA made significant campaign contributions. would you turn them down?

Absolutely, it's a matter of principle, what we stand for.  If a politician is going to represent us as sportsmen and citizens, then you want him to not have money in his pocket from the other side.  So if I was running for office, yes I most certainly would turn down that money.  I'd rather lose an election than abandon my morality.  That is the problem with politicians like Kerry, you really don't know where they stand.  Maybe they're all like that

i dont think this is something that bickering amongst ourselves will definitively answer; rather, its sort of a "wait-and-see."  but has bush, in 4 years, in any way expanded our sporting rights? ( ir eally dont know, maybe he did.) i just dont think that we should side with a president just because teh other guy might possibly maybe do something which might kind of affect what we like to do in our free time but hasnt promised to do anything of teh sort yet.

That is one problem that sportsmen have though, there are a few of us that join organizations and donate money to fight for our heritage, but the majority of us are apathetic with just that kind of attitude (no offense to you personally I mean Tim, I'm simply stating that we sportsmen have always taken things in stride and not raised too much of a stink).  My point is that we can't wait for someone to actually pass a law and take something from us, because once a law is in place it's much tougher to get it off the books.  We have to be proactive.  One way is to vote.  The other is to organize and speak out for what we believe in.

Now, to address everyone here.  I realize that we have different opinions on the subject of politics and I respect that.  Debate is good.  As long as we keep it civil and not attack or flame anyone, this makes for a healty topic and is good for the site.  From my standpoint, when I quote someone, I want it known that I'm not picking on them personally but simply applying a reference to what I'd like to talk about, not directing an attack on someone.  I think pretty much everyone does that.  It would be pretty darn boring if we all agreed on everything, wouldn't it?  So, for you Democrats and Kerry supporters out there, thanks for your input and while some of us may not agree, we do respect the right to your opinion and to state it.  So let's keep on keepin' it clean and have some fun on this debate!

[Fat Boy]

Oh yeah, and just because I'm in the position of being a moderator on this site doesn't mean that my opinion is any better than anyone elses and certainly doesn't reflect the opinion of the other moderators on this site or the site itself.  When I post on fishing topics or things like this, it's when I'm wearing my Kevin hat.  When I set up posts on the lakes and rivers boards, species boards etc. for the benefit of the site, that's when I have the moderator hat on (by far the majority of my posts) and they don't reflect opinions, just fishing facts.  I just wanted to make that distinction.  Also, if I put my moderator hat back on, I want to remind everyone that sometimes these kind of heated topics can get out of hand, so just to let you know that if a future post is deleted, it's because it violates the rules of the site.  We don't delete posts simply because we don't agree with them.

[USMC130FE]

Something else to look at.....
 
> I happened to look at the label of a jar of Heinz
> sandwich slice pickles. Yep...."Made in Mexico"
>
> Check some of your Heinz products. "Sen. John
> Kerry keeps talking about U.S. corporations
> leaving this country and setting up shop in foreign
> countries, taking thousands of jobs with them. He
> is right, because that has happened.
>
> However, he is trying to blame it on George W.
> Bush. As far as I know, Bush has not moved one
> factory out of this country because he is not the
> owner of a single factory. That cannot be said
> about Kerry and his wife, Teresa Heinz-Kerry.
>
> According to the Wall Street Journal, the Kerrys
> own 32 factories in Europe and 18 in Asia and the
> Pacific. In addition, their company, the Heinz
> Company, leases four factories in Europe and four
> in Asia. Also, they own 27 factories in North
> America, some of which are in Mexico and the
> Caribbean,I wonder how many hundreds of American
> workers lost their jobs when these plants
> relocated to foreign countries. I also wonder if
> the workers in Mexico and Asia are paid the same
> wages and benefits as workers in the United
> States. Of course they're not. However, Kerry
> demands that other companies that relocate
> should pay the same benefits they did in the U.S.
> Why does he not demand this of the Heinz
> Company, since he is married to the owner?
>
> If Kerry is elected, will he and his wife close all
> those foreign factories and bring all those jobs
> back to America? Of course they won't. They're
> making millions off that cheap labor.
>
> If you can read this, thank a teacher.
>
> If you are reading it in English, thank a soldier.
 
 

[fastribs85]

steve thanks great post of cours kerry wont move thows places back but just think not everything can be made in the usa we wouldnt be able to aford everything that we have now so its a hard call on some things but i would love to see more jobs come back to the usa thats for sure

[TimC1086]

Good grief. Where do I begin?  Well I am 17 years old and from Massachusetts, and will be attending college in Vermont this fall. Though I hardly see how thats of any importance here.

Since it seems everyone in this thread has attacked my posts, I can't possibly address them all.  So what I'll say is this: 

     To those that claim to have the facts, open your eyes.  I dont know how many times in this thread someone has slammed Michale Moore or the other left wingers for a lack of factual information, and then turned around and rattled off "facts" of their own, from the same dubious origins.  Just because you say that ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, and nearly every other major news outlet in America are wrong, and ONLY Fox News is right, doesnt mean thats the case.  Come on people.

To those that have claimed that John Kerry will infringe upon our fishing rights:  Try looking around a little. One of his more emphatic campaign promises is stricter enforcement of the clean water act, to "Make America's waters.... more fishable" (Johnkerry.com).  Let's not assume that because he's a member of teh democratic party, he's going to take away from what we have.

Finally, to everyone in general:  Take a look at yourself right now.  Is your life better than it was before Bush was inaugurated? Are you really happier? I can't finish this now, my buddy's about to pick me up to go fishing... maybe we can all try and remember whats good in life here... fighting a bass that jumps like never before, catfishing at 12 am with your friends, or getting up before the sun for a long day on the water.

Tim

[fozsey]

Good grief. Where do I begin?  Well I am 17 years old and from Massachusetts, and will be attending college in Vermont this fall. Though I hardly see how thats of any importance here.

Since it seems everyone in this thread has attacked my posts, I can't possibly address them all.  So what I'll say is this: 

     To those that claim to have the facts, open your eyes.  I dont know how many times in this thread someone has slammed Michale Moore or the other left wingers for a lack of factual information, and then turned around and rattled off "facts" of their own, from the same dubious origins.  Just because you say that ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, and nearly every other major news outlet in America are wrong, and ONLY Fox News is right, doesnt mean thats the case.  Come on people.

To those that have claimed that John Kerry will infringe upon our fishing rights:  Try looking around a little. One of his more emphatic campaign promises is stricter enforcement of the clean water act, to "Make America's waters.... more fishable" (Johnkerry.com).  Let's not assume that because he's a member of teh democratic party, he's going to take away from what we have.

Finally, to everyone in general:  Take a look at yourself right now.  Is your life better than it was before Bush was inaugurated? Are you really happier? I can't finish this now, my buddy's about to pick me up to go fishing... maybe we can all try and remember whats good in life here... fighting a bass that jumps like never before, catfishing at 12 am with your friends, or getting up before the sun for a long day on the water.

Tim

Tim,

I want you to know that my intentions in any of my posts weren't to attack anyone, but to merely show another point of view and to explain my criteria for choosing my point of view.

I don't think Fox news is right 100% of the time any more than I think any other news agency is right 100% of the time. I critic any and all news regardless of where it comes from and encourage others to do the same. If and when I make a statement in fact, it is based, not on a news agency's spin, but on verifiable imformation reproted by independant sources and by the person's own admission. If no such information has been presented, I will state that it is my opinion and not a fact. I will give you an example.

Are you aware that today the Washington Post reported that 2 missles were discovered in Iraq that both contained Nuclear warheads? As reported both were armed and ready to use. No other news agency that I am aware of has reported this. NONE. As far as I am concerned as of this moment the story reported by the Washington Post is nothing more than a rumor that without being substantiated will remain a rumor in my mind. Is it true? Who knows? Time will tell. In my opinion, it is entirely possible and likely that it will be substantiated in the coming days. John Kerry stated that SH had nuclear weapons capabilities prior to the war. This isn't my opinion. Mr. Kerry stated pubilcally that he believed the Nuclear Weapons were most likely there along with Mr. Clinton, Tom Dashle, Ted Kennedy and so on, but today they are criticizing Mr. Bush personally because none were found.

I have just as little respect for the Right Winig Bomb Throwers as I do the Left. I have little respect for Ann Coulter due to her tendency to toss bombs from the Right. That doesn't mean that there is no truth in what she says any more than it means that there isn't any truth to what Michael Moore has to say, but for the most part their political agendas far outweigh their abilty to decifer truth from fiction and since Mr. Moore won't answer publically for his statements I don't have any time for him.

Use your critical thinking ability to decifer Mr. Kerry's statements regarding the "Enforcement of the Clean Water Act." I am not saying that his agenda in this area is necessarily bad, but and this is a big but, if you use his voting record as a premise to anyalize that statement it is possible that he just threw "cleaner water for fishermen" phrase in there to pacify any fishermen hinging on their vote when in reality he may make said waters cleaner by trying to keep fishermen out. Again, PETA is a huge campaign doner in this area and has a considerable amount of weight to throw around. They would not financially support a canidate without expecting something in return. At some point it will be time to pay the piper. Lets not assume that his intentions are noble until he proves they are. Sorry, I am playing devil's advocate as you are in some of your posts. Don't think for a minute that I don't read and comprehend what you are writing. I do. That doesn't mean that it is going to change my mind any more than you reading my posts will change yours. It is interesting to me the way different minds work. Thats why I take the time to read all of this.

Finally, I feel my life is better now than it was during the previous administration. I have more money in my pocket and in my bank account than I did while Mr. Clinton was in office. It is going to take you another 4 years minimum to decide this one for yourself. I can tell you this today. I can also tell you that I had more money in my bank and in my pocket in the 4 years prior to Mr. Clinton and the 8 years prior to that. I feel safer today than I did in the weeks following Sept. 11, 2001. I don't agree with all of GW's decisions, but I will support them as long as he is in office. Right now I am mad as hell about the gas situation and I think that the Bush administration has the ability to effect change if they saw fit. I am not happy that they botched the intel on Sept. 11th and on the prelude to Iraq, but there is plenty of blame to go around for everyone there and it is still too soon to be putting all of your chips on them not being there at all.

Try not to get so defensive about replies to your posts. I am not attacking you. I am not going to attack you or your views. Your statements invoked a response. You got a response and hopefully an intelligent well thought out one. Who knows, you might just read some of my opinions and they might just change your mind. Probably not, but it could happen.

Hope you had a great fishing trip and I for one am glad you take the time to at least form an opinion. Most Americans today won't even do that.

[Mackdaddy21]

To Timc1086 and all who disagree,

No I'm not trying to attack your posts either, I just disagree. I like this site because when there is a disagreement it's kept very civil. I simply just don't agree or even really understand those who nay say everything GW does.
So your 17 timc1086? I'm 22, and even though your on a different part of the political side than I am, it's good to see another young person like myself who cares about politics. In my area, and all my friends my age and older, most don't care about politics. They don't vote, and many people, young and old, have an apathetic "the government can do whatever they want and their is nothing we can do about it" attitude. That of course is totally wrong. It is because many people have this attitude that many injustices in our society exist. It is simply because they go unchallenged.
I live in fairly conservative area, Western Colorado. It irks and frightens me to see that probably 80% of all young people from teens to 30 somethings in my area are liberal. I rarely see a Bush Supporter among the young. I just think that many who do nothing but rip Bush and disagree with all his things really just don't understand how the world works, or have really seen the "ugly world." A friend of one of my friends was in the first Gulf War, and always told me things about the horrors of Saddam. He was their for the unearthing of thousands of bodies killed by Saddam, many of them babies and children.
The only way to fight terror, PETA, and extreme left attacks is to attack them relentlessly. These are all enemies that cannot be appeased or barttered with. The only way to rid the world of this is to DESTROY THEM. In this country of course people have the right to have radical opinions even if they are immoral and not supported by most everyone, such as PETA. When I mean destroy, I mean use military force never before seen against all terrorists, which means most middle eastern countries. Iraq unfortunately is only stop number 2 in the war on terror. We have decades of work remaining. Many other despotic regimes that support terror, such as Syria, Iran, the PLO, Saudi Arabia, North Korea and the like must be destroyed. It's going to cost a lot of money, time, and sadly some of our lives, but it has to be done if we are to survive as the free world.
By Destroying PETA and the far left, I mean by attacking their rants with facts, legislation against them by guaranteeing our rights, and by discrediting everything they do.
As far as Kerry and the Clean Water Act goes, Kerry would gladly support banning fishing on some waters because some radical environmentalists falsely accuse fisherman of contamination. We have already lost our ability to boat and ice fish on some water supply reservoirs in Colorado because of Democrats in the water departments and city councils. Here in Grand Junction, we do not even get to elect our own mayor. He is appointed and is part of the city council. That to me and our citizens seems dangerously close to a violation of the separation of powers in the government that the consitution mandates. I have seen how democrats continually restrict and lock up our land to our own use. Remember, anything that is owned by the city, county, state, and feds, with the exception of Military Bases and Defense related things, is completely and totally public property. It is up to we the people to decide what goes on here, not the politicians. The politicians are supposed to represent us and enforce the will of the majority, as long as it's not in conflict with the constitution. As a whole, they do not do this. This goes for democrats AND REPUBLICANS. There are many things the republican party does I disagree with, but many fold more the democratic party does that to me is an abomination of our values.

As my great great grandfather used to say to my grandmother, and I am not meaning this to offend but for humor: "STEWED RATS AND AND FRIED CATS ARE GOOD ENOUGH FOR DEMOCRATS."

Tyler

[missfishylicious]

I'm really frustrated by the sheer lack of intelligence or factual points in the banter on this board. I mean, where did we all of a sudden assume that Democrats, since they oppose Bush, support PETA's 'terrorist' activities?  Things are just being fabricated... kind of like, oh I dont know, "faulty" intelligence; a "concrete" link between Iraq and Al - Qaeda; an imminent threat to teh saftey of America becauise of Saddam Hussein's presence atop teh Iraqi throne.  Oh, wait I get it- it must have been all those WMDs he has.

You would not be saying this if al gore were in office right now. You would be supporting the war. Since even Democrats, Clinton included, said these things about saddam. Not just bush. Bush is just the guy in office so you blame him. Clinton and others both said things about Saddam being a terrorist. Watch some of his older speeches, particularly around about the time we bombed them some during his presidency, you will here him say things like this about saddam.

Can't criticize it now.

I know you weren't talking to me here but i have to say I would not be supporting this war if gore were in office and i won't support it if Kerry goes to office

[missfishylicious]

Well all I can say is you guys obviously feel very strongly about all of this and I must confess I stopped reading the stupid peoples posts because frankly there just to long and a waist of my time.I'm not talking about you fatboy,you know we just disagree  .

I do want to go back to my original point that it's a waist of time to talk to anyone who refuses to see the movie or read the book.

and by the way I think of Mr Moore as a comedian simple as that most comedians base there jokes on current events and thats all he's doing if he opens my eyes at the same time well it's more enjoyable than trying to read a lot of this

To Tim someone here said it will take you four years to decide if your way of thinking is right  see how they assume things ,when is your birthday ....one can only hope before November 

just one more thing can we please call the soldiers what they are poor (as in poverty level) kids (boys and girls) who have very little other chance at a better way of life .Thats why our government recruiters (hunts them down and seeks them out )  them,mostly  from low income areas.Why do you think they don't reinstate the draft...because then there (the rich backers of GW) sons and daughters would have to fight

could we ask ourselves a few questions please
when did all this middle east terrorist stuff start...not with GW or Clinton,it started with George's daddy the connections are made clear in movie and book there facts .

and someone pointed out that Mr Moore is a rich man did you know he set up a website to let people help him to spend his taxcut the bushes gave him of course there are guide lines your ideas have to help get bush out of office ..haa ha hee hee  thats right he's hilarious using the tax cut he got from them to hang there sorry butts  hee hee it's to funny     heres the site   www.SpendMikesTaxCut.com

I can't believe any one would listen to Anne Coulter here are a few quotes from the book "God says ,earth is yours.rape it it's yours"  "We need to execute people like John Walker in order to Physically intimidate liberals ,by making them realize that they can be killed,too.otherwise they will turn out to be outright traitors!" (on terrorists)" We should invade there countries,Kill there leaders and convert them to Christianity".....I wouldn't waist my time listening to someone so ignorant.

and I want to say i don't agree with everything Mr Moore says in his book he's a little fanatical but ,He's funny enough to overlook the bad stuff

[missfishylicious]

Something else to look at.....
 
> I happened to look at the label of a jar of Heinz
> sandwich slice pickles. Yep...."Made in Mexico"
>
> Check some of your Heinz products. "Sen. John
> Kerry keeps talking about U.S. corporations
> leaving this country and setting up shop in foreign
> countries, taking thousands of jobs with them. He
> is right, because that has happened.
>
> However, he is trying to blame it on George W.
> Bush. As far as I know, Bush has not moved one
> factory out of this country because he is not the
> owner of a single factory. That cannot be said
> about Kerry and his wife, Teresa Heinz-Kerry.
>
> According to the Wall Street Journal, the Kerry's
> own 32 factories in Europe and 18 in Asia and the
> Pacific. In addition, their company, the Heinz
> Company, leases four factories in Europe and four
> in Asia. Also, they own 27 factories in North
> America, some of which are in Mexico and the
> Caribbean,I wonder how many hundreds of American
> workers lost their jobs when these plants
> relocated to foreign countries. I also wonder if
> the workers in Mexico and Asia are paid the same
> wages and benefits as workers in the United
> States. Of course they're not. However, Kerry
> demands that other companies that relocate
> should pay the same benefits they did in the U.S.
> Why does he not demand this of the Heinz
> Company, since he is married to the owner?
>
> If Kerry is elected, will he and his wife close all
> those foreign factories and bring all those jobs
> back to America? Of course they won't. They're
> making millions off that cheap labor.
>
> If you can read this, thank a teacher.
>
> If you are reading it in English, thank a soldier.
 
 

if Kerry demands that companies in foreign lands pay the same wages and benefits as here then when this becomes law won't his wives company have to follow that law ?It would be suicide for him to only do it in his company.By the way the food industries is a little different I mean it does make sense to package food as soon as possible and since we can't grow pickles here all year they have to come from someplace. at least he sees there is a problem and wants to change it

The problem is the Kerry's are rich and so are the bushes so are all the presidential candidates as far as i can tell there never going to relate to the average Joe but the average Joe will never make it to the whitehouse because it costs to much to run so you have to weigh the good with the bad