In 2004 Georgia went Republican 58% vs 42% Democrat. While some may change their minds, I personnaly do not see any current Democrats that I would vote for. Then again I'm a little right of Atllila the Hun!

The states that may tip the Balance are Ohio and Florida. It will be interesting to see who goes against Hillary.

Probably a couple of other states as well, but sit down, get a drink and let me ask you a serious question, major.

Ready?

Ok, what would be so wrong with Hillary get elected President? She would obviously focus on social programs, the islamofacists would attack us even more and it would be clear to every citizen and voter that the Dems were not the right choice. Probably set them back another 30 years.

I know the obvious answer is the destruction of the world, but you know as well as I that the military would kick the towelheads butt if left unleashed - and that's what Hillary would have to do - It is not like she has a prayer of actually running the military, so they would just do what they are trained to do on their own.

So, let her get elected and live out her fantasy and then in 4 years we regroup. OK?
meow

I am a firm beliver that our system can survive any individual serving as President. This does not mean that great harm cannot be avoided by keeping extermely poor candidates out of office. Many on the hard left feel this way about President Bush.

Having suffered under Clinton as Commander in Chief from 1992-1996 I saw first hand the social experiments on the military expand. Don't ask, don't tell, nation building in non-strategic places like Hati, etc. Don't get me started on the Balkans, we were supposed to be out of there in a year talk about a quagmire.

Anyway my Hillary predictions:

Defense: Cut the military budget, elimnate our nukes, put law enforcement in the lead on investigating and arresting terrorists. Korea blackmails us, then Iran gets the bomb.

Domestic: Taxes are raised to record highs, socialized medicine is enacted. Three liberal Supreme Court appointments plus hundreds of other liberal judge appointments.

Social Security will finally need to be fixed because Democrats are in charge. There will be means testing applied so people that saved and planned forfeit their benefits to the parasites. Spending on education triples with free tuition for "poor" students.

Amnesty for Illegal aliens. Once they can vote, adios middle class!

Often times I think Pat Buchannan is a bit off his rocker. But the more I think about what he is saying on the immigration takeover issue the more I believe he just might be right. For votes I believe Hillary would accelerate an amnesty program. And as history records the fall of the West one will be able to harken back to it's first enabler. Our sitting president George W. Will my kids be the last generation of this great republic?

WASHINGTON – The Mexican government is not just winking at massive illegal immigration into the U.S., it is actively plotting it as a strategy at reconquest of American territories formerly under its control, charges Pat Buchanan in a blistering new indictment of border security.

Buchanan: Mexico
Plots Reconquest

"As Rome passed away, so, the West is passing away, from the same causes and in much the same way. What the Danube and Rhine were to Rome, the Rio Grande and Mediterranean are to America and Europe, the frontiers of a civilization no longer defended."

So you just continue to sit there and ignore your surroundings and let God take care of it. As the story goes ...

A good christian man fallen into difficult waters. A boat came by and asked if he needed help but he said no, God will rescue him.
As time passed he was getting tired so was tempted when the second boat came by but his faith held firm. Again he refused the help because he knew God would resuce him.
When the third boat arrived he was more determined than ever and convinced that he would pass Gods difficult test so once more refused the boat rescue.
He drowned.
In heaven he asked God why he didn't rescue him.
Gods reply was "What do you mean, I sent you three boats!"

So I guess we should just continue ignoring those boats - and not even look for them - God will certainly come in time to resuce us!

Whe told you she was doing what she could here, but Man is so hopelessly screwed up now God is going to have to intervene to put it straight.

It is called prophecy. Says Christ is coming back when Man gets so unbelievably screwed up they would destroy themselves if allowed to continue on their own.

We are there.

-----------------------------
Keeping it real and to the core of the issue, not the peripherals.

for more premature deaths in history than any other reason - probably all other reasons combined.
As relgious as one may be, my point was that the concept of having God fix it all is a way of relaxing and forgetting about it - a way of avoiding the fear that we all feel in the presence of overwhelming odds and what appears to be serious world problems. We need to use this fear, not ignore or avoid it.
As much as "In God We Trust" is ever present, this country was built on the principles of religious freedom and it was one of the overriding reasons many risked everything to leave the religious oppression in the early days.
It may be an accurate statement that God will sort it out, but I find that just making the statement is a bit escapist.

I say, let's drop all of our religious beliefs long enough to sort out what is the best way ahead so that in the end God has the least amount of sorting out to do.

Now, how many boats has he sent us that we've ignored waiting for him to sort it out?
I don't think we are there yet - there's still much to go wrong.

It seems like everyone is talking about peace and safety. I agree that the time seems right for the return of my Lord Jesus Christ. Check out 1 Thessalonians 5, but also look up 2 Thessalonians 2.

Jesus will not return until after the rebellion, and until after the man of lawlessness sets himself up in God's temple proclaiming himself to be God. Most people think this means that the temple is going to be rebuilt in Jerusalem, but check out John 2. Jesus said his body was the temple. 1 Corinthians 6 says that my body is a temple of the Holy Spirit.

It is more likely that the way it will be fulfilled is that people will be forced to receive a mark on their right hands or foreheads as prophesied in Revelation 13. Because the mark will be the number of the name of the man of lawlessness, or beast as he's described in Revelation, it will be setting himself up in God's temple. 

We need to get prepared for not accepting that mark because if we do, it's all over like it says in Revelation 15.

This is not a welcome issue on this board.

Take it to the one in my profile link. It IS welcome there and is being discussed in various forms.

All others who wish to discuss this are more than welcome.

I can think of a number of comments to make, immediately upon reading. But not here.

-----------------------------
Keeping it real and to the core of the issue, not the peripherals.

Excellent reference on the body armor procurement. I will look into those ammendments further to see what else was added that might have concerned the republicans, as you said there are many ways to shape legislation.

I wholly agree that all troops should have top of the line body armor and any other equipment

From a very liberal web site www.laborresearch.org, seem that Republicans are spending more on defense.

Bush Budget: All Guns, No Butter (February 14, 2005)

"Bush’s $2.57 trillion budget for 2006 increases military spending by 4.8 percent — not including the war in Iraq — and cuts all other federal government programs by 0.5 percent, with the deepest cuts aimed at services for working Americans and the poor.

The primary purpose of the budget, released on February 7, is to fund the war machine that Bush needs to push forward his foreign policy objectives in the Middle East and guarantee a position of military dominance in the world. The 2006 budget represents a 41 percent increase in military spending since 2001."

So I would say tha Republicans "Support the troops".
Body armor is defensive. What offensive actions do Dems support to fight our enemies?

Nothing.
In a republican controlled government - and what they have attempted was brought down by politics, not by the policy.

What about the Clinton presidency? Major - how many men did you lose under your command fighting terrorism? OOops sorry, you didn't have a command but how many did the entire armed forces lose during that period? The USS Cole - and?

I don't understand why everyone is so hell bent on beating the ragheads. If we had enough diplomatic channels to use we could possibly make countries like Iran and N. Korea understand that if they contiune their sillyness we ARE prepared to turn them into the red glow that makes the sunset so pretty, regardless of UN blab.

The cold war was won because of threat, not because of war.

But now we are on two fronts fighting "wars against terrorism" with no public support, no decent exit strategy in either situation and streched so thin that we would be in serious trouble if we needed to open a third front.

So I say we need to find a way to win the war without resorting to sending bullet stoppers and IED targets.

The dems sure do scream for bipartsan cooperation. If they were as concerned about protecting Americans from terrorist attacks couldn't their brilliant minds come up with ANY legislation or policies that would get bipartisan support?

They can sure throw their weight around and filibuster judicial nominees. Harry Reid can stop the business of the senate and go to closed session.

Someone explain how all the energy they used to attack GITMO, Abu Ghraib, foreign wiretaps, bank transfer programs, secret prisons, alleged massacre in Hadefa and every other complaint they have makes any American safer.

All I want is one POSITIVE thing (other than body armor) that they have done.

If you say they will abandon Iraq are you prepared for Iran's dominance of that region? Are you prepared to pay $10/gal for gas? Are you prepared for the mass graves, like in Cambodia for every Iraqi that cooperated with the new government? I hope you don't go there.

Attacking Gitmo and Abu Ghraib were two good things they did to advance the war on terrorism.
Abu Ghraib: Showing the world and especially the Iraqis that the American Way Of Life includes punishing the wrong doers.
Gitmo: Trying to show that the rule of law applies to everything we do, not just when it's comfortable. Like in the rest of our justice system, put them on trial, punish the convicted and send the rest home. - Or do you really believe that holding foreign individuals with no trial for years furthers our causes in the places these people come from?

Iraq: What I want to know is why we still have american soldiers dying there when president stood up in a very Hollywood-like show and declared that the war was won?
Better: What are we doing or going to do to stop Americans dying there?

You conviently forgot quite a few other fatalities, the Dhahran attack was on US Airforce personnel. I guess deaths of innocent civilians don't matter to you.

February 26, 1993, New York, United States. A massive van bomb exploded in an underground parking garage below the World Trade Center in New York City, killing six and wounding 1,042. Four Islamist activists were responsible for the attack. Ramzi Ahmed Yousef, the operation's alleged mastermind, escaped but was later arrested in Pakistan and extradited to the United States. Abd al-Hakim Murad, another suspected conspirator, was arrested by local authorities in the Philippines and handed over to the United States. The two, along with two other terrorists, were tried in the U.S. and sentenced to 240 years.

April 14, 1993, Kuwait. The Iraqi intelligence service attempted to assassinate former U.S. President George Bush during a visit to Kuwait. In retaliation, the U.S. launched a cruise missile attack two months later on the Iraqi capital, Baghdad.

December 1, 1993, north of Jerusalem, West Bank. Yitzhak Weinstock, 19, whose family came from Los Angeles, CA, was killed in a drive-by shooting. Hamas took responsibility for the attack

Sometime in 1994: near Atzmona, Gaza. U.S. citizen Mrs. Sheila Deutsch of Brooklyn, NY injured in a shooting attack.

October 9, 1994. Nachshon Wachsman, 19, whose family came from New York, was kidnapped and then murdered by Hamas.

October 9, 1994: Jerusalem, Israel. Shooting attack on cafe-goers in Jerusalem. U.S. citizens Scot Doberstein and Eric Goldberg were injured.

March 8, 1995, Karachi, Pakistan. Two unidentified gunmen armed with AK-47 assault rifles opened fire on a U.S. Consulate van in Karachi, killing two U.S. diplomats, Jacqueline Keys Van Landingham and Gary C. Durell, and wounding a third, Mark McCloy.

June 25, 1996, Dhahran, Saudi Arabia. A fuel truck carrying a bomb exploded outside the U.S. military's Khobar Towers housing facility in Dhahran, killing 19 U.S. military personnel and wounding 515 persons, including 240 U.S. personnel. Several groups claimed responsibility for the attack. In June 2001, a U.S. District Court in Alexandria, Virginia, identified Saudi Hizballah as the party responsible for the attack. The court indicated that the members of the organization, banned from Saudi Arabia, "frequently met and were trained in Lebanon, Syria, or Iran" with Libyan help.

August 7, 1998, Nairobi, Kenya. A car bomb exploded at the rear entrance of the U.S. Embassy in Nairobi. The attack killed a total of 292, including 12 U.S. citizens, and injured over 5,000, among them six Americans. The perpetrators belonged to al-Qaida, Usama bin Ladin's network.

August 7, 1998, Dar es Sala'am, Tanzania. A car bomb exploded outside the U.S. Embassy in Dar es Sala'am, killing 11 and injuring 86. Osama bin Laden's organization al-Qaida claimed responsibility for the attack. Two suspects were arrested.

Like the 9-11 commission stated, they were at war with us, but we were not at war with them. Sounds like someone was asleep at the wheel!

Do you really advocate nuking an Islamic country? What about all the innocent people. Boy and you thought Bush was arrogant and turned the world againsyt us. How would you justify that?

Thanks Major for sticking to the point and letting go of the name calling for this post.
And thanks for the post, you make a very good point - there were many American deaths during Clintons presidency:
- WTC 6
- Kuwait 0
- West Bank 1
- Gazha 0
- Nachshon 1
- Jerusalem 0
- Karachi 0
- Dahran 19
- Nairobi 12
- Dar Es Saalam 0 (11 US citizens?)
= 39?
= Of these, only 6 on US soil.

Ok - so the loss of US life during Clintons presidency was not nearly as massive as since W but there were certainly mistakes made in the security department - mistakes which all 3 of the last presidents share the blame. W had the "luck" to have such a massive attack as 9/11 during his presidency that it woke not only him but the rest of us as well.

So I want to know why they did it. And I don't believe the "Their religion wants to rule everywhere". Yes, some factions do but I do not believe that is a very large percentage - there are just too many Muslims living in western style democracies unwilling to risk the status quo for a worlwide Afganistan.

So what is driving them?

As I understand it, Osamas stated goal was to get the US out of Saudi Arabia. Corrections?
And Hamas/Iran has declared that Isreal must die. Or?

Why? What are we doing in Saudi Arabia that is so critical to our well being? Protecting the House of Saud? Something else?
And what about Isreal? What have they done to make Iran & co so angry? Why do they all hate Isreal?

Yes, I would nuke any country which I perceived to be a threat. But that is not the goal and it would take a lot of evidence for me to make that decision.
The goal, as it was in the cold war, is to ensure that the other side KNOWS we will kick their butts into the afterlife if they don't shape up. The need to know that we can and we will. And it's the diplomatic channels that are used to get this message across.

I’d say the vast majority of the Arabic resentment to the west stems from the history of the ill-fated Prince Sultan Air Force Base.

After the US-lead multinational force kicked Saddam out of Kuwait, the US twisted the collective arms of the Saudi ruling class to allow the US to build a massive Air Force base in the middle of Saudi Arabia.

This did not sit well at all with the rank-and-file Saudi public, and the extremist Wahabbi sect was apoplectic. Professional troublemakers like Osama Bin Laden saw this as their golden “wedge issue” to build up popular support against the existing Saudi aristocracy.

Think a moment if the tables were turned: how would America react if the Bush Administration permitted 10,000 heavily armed Muslims to establish a military base within an hour of Atlanta and not subject to American law? I suspect most Americans would feel more than a bit apprehensive, and the more extremist fringes of the Christian faith would be loudly decrying that decision based solely on their intense hatred of Muslims.

Bin Laden masterfully exploited the Bush administration’s lack of attention to terrorism (remember, Cheney shelved implementation of a comprehensive overhaul of American security in Feb 2001) to successfully attack America on American soil. Bush then elected to go to war with Iraq for various reasons, very few dealing with American security.

Once the Saddam regime was overthrown, America then began setting up permanent military bases in Iraq….and closed down the less-than-10-years-old Prince Sultan air base.

This made Osama Bin Laden a hero in many Arabic circles…he accomplished his mission of driving American military bases out of Saudi Arabia.

You state that we must "ensure that the other side KNOWS we will kick their butts into the afterlife if they don't shape up. The need to know that we can and we will. And it's the diplomatic channels that are used to get this message across."

The only problem with that is that these fanatics WANT to die in the name of their religion. That dog don't hunt. They also know that we will NOT nuke them.

The only way unfortunately to deal with these fanatics is the old fashioned way. To close with and destry them. Eight years of lobbing cruise missles did nothing but enbolden them.

Like it or not the motivation against the "great satan" is our decedance and being infidels and non believers. Oh, our support for the right of Israel to exsists p*sses them off to no end either. So are you willing to abandon another 8 million jews for peace?

One of the biggest mistakes made by Clinton was the Gorelick "wall" which helped thwe 9-11 attack succeed. Dems treat terrorism as a law enforcement issue! Clinton passed on Sudan's offer of Bin Laden, so yeah many mistakes were made.

BTW, I ignored your childish barb why don't you stick to the issues and avoid your usual name calling?

These fanatics ALL want to die for their religion? That just does not make sense.
They don't WANT to die but they are PREPARED to die for it (they often live in such poverty that they may prefer death, but I digress)
And who is "they"? It is certainly not the leaders, just the soldiers.

Yes, they need to know we will kick their butts but you said it so well, they "know" that we will not use nukes. They need to be taught otherwise. What is our national policy on nuke-lur weapons in war, anyway?

Now I guess it's normal for someone that has known nothing but combat training all his life to think that the right way to solve any conflict is to "close and destroy" them, but believe me, there are other ways.

Am I willing to abandon 8 million Jews - or do you mean Israelis? What do you mean by "abandon"? Are we currently holding their heads above water?

Have you ever once asked WHY the Israelies are so hated? And please don't say it's religious - many cities around the world live with many different religions for long periods in peace and including Islam.
What is it that makes them so hated? - and you may have to Google a long time to find an un-biased source.

BTW - what name calling - what name have I ever called you? I thanked you for keeping it civil, let's let it go.

Major - how many men did you lose under your command fighting terrorism? OOops sorry, you didn't have a command

Guess you didn't call him a name but you did give him a pretty hard backhanded slap. Kind of the same thing huh?

Yep, you are right, as always (well, almost) git. It wasn't a name but it was rude.

Sorry Major, uncalled for.

And people say that PTC Guy and I don't get along.

It’s sometimes hard to write well when one is frustrated with a situation that they have strong feelings about or little control over.

That’s one reason that I take no attacks on here personally. If people didn’t have differing opinions this would surely be a boring blog.

PTC Bad & Guy...are you sure you're not siblings?

Your right about one thing. We ought to be able to jab and poke a bit in a playful and sarcastic manner lest we let 'er rip and say what we really think. Just kidding on the "what we really think" bit. But the humor and sarcasm do add a special touch. And we've all gone overboard from time to time (some definetly deserving it). But if we didn't cut up this would be about as exciting as reading a Windows manual.

Keep up the exchanges and welcome aboard Ex. Hadn't got you quite figured out yet but it's coming.

Hey...Where's Highgreen? I kind of miss the ole troublemaker.

Hey, the pictures make more sense, now. I guess I gotta go find an appropriate picture.

BTw, when I see the red "whats new" on black background, I read "what's mew"

Some help with your pic just let me know. I've got a few tucked away in case the Lion gets voted off or something.

This look good?

That'll work. Little hard to make out but now we can recognize you.

There's even one guy on here that uses a picture that looks like a lawyer. So yours should fit in just fine.

They don't believe it is inherent in people. And that some people are consumed by it.

They don't have a clue what Muslim's believe. They think they are just another group of people who have a problem by believing in something. Not a group dedicated to ruling the world and eliminating Infidels however required.

Negotiate peach with Islam. Yea. Right.

-----------------------------
Keeping it real and to the core of the issue, not the peripherals.

And I further believe those should be removed from society as quickly as possible.

What a muslim believes is like saying "what a christian believes". Just like there are huge differences between roman catholic, baptist, fundamentalist christians, etc, but all these versions focus on a figure, Jesus Christ.
There are many factions in Islam, Sunni and Shia being only two. The common thread is their focus on Mohammed.
Not all want to rule the world.

The commands about Jews, Christians and making the world Islamic is foundational to the Koran and Muslims.

The approaches vary, but the goal is the same.

And you are an Infidel to them. All of them.

Even with differences within what is Christianity, not including cults and such secular definitions include, there are certain fundamentals inherent in all of them.

How do you tink Mohammed spread Islam? By the sword and an army.

-----------------------------
Keeping it real and to the core of the issue, not the peripherals.

I'm certrainly not even an expert infedel though.

Do we have any informed opinions on Islam and the Koran here?

Mohammed may have used the sword but what about the Spainish Inquisition? Nobody expects the Spainish Inquisition.

As I understand it, the Koran is not to be translated so it makes it difficult for those of us not fluent in the language to understand it.
Also, as is the Bible, the Koran is certainly misused to further goals of violent groups.

Some percentage is ready to take over the world, another percentage is not.

What are those numbers, please?

The point is Mohammed established Islam as a warrior religion. Peace can only be found in Islam, which is a point they do not elaborate on.

Islam is the most legalistic religion on the earth. Death fighting for Allah at the command of cleric guarantees entry into Paradise, with all its carnal pleasures.

You want to read the Qur'an in English. Go here.

I have posted the suras showing the Koran teaches Jews and Christians are to be driven out, killed, enslaved or converted. No other option.

You want a taste of Islamics, search Google for their forums and see how long you last on one.

I have debated a good many Muslims. Blind as bats and will tell you any history you know as true is false. And they will hold to that 100%.

As with the Iranian leader, a Shiite. They believe their End Times prophecies are ripe, now. Which means Isa (Christ) and a military leader, whose name slips my mind at the moment, will march forth and every last human will either convert to Isalm or die. They will conquer the world.

That is what that nutcase is trying bring about.

Sunnis have a different version, but it ends in world dominance, as well.

Why do you think these types are unopposed in the Middle East? They are the majority. Just the majority willing to act now.

Islamics have no problem with Infidels dying. But they have a huge problem with Infidels killing those they deem Islam.

It is a mess. And the unaccepting, self imposed, ignorance of the West is allowing it.

-----------------------------
Keeping it real and to the core of the issue, not the peripherals.

Good comments PTC_guy but they don't seem to jibe with what I've found in my limited surfing.

I agree that Islam is not just a religion but also a form of government and I'm certain there are fanatics but those exist in any religion.

One (fairly long and rambling but interesting) post I found here on www.islam.com kind of sums up the impression I get of why the terrorism is currently so rampant and I'd sure like some comments about it.

In general I feel that while Islam has it's bad types, they should be few and far between. The reason these bad guys are getting the upper hand has a lot to do with the way the general Muslim population are treated.

Any dissenting votes out there?

This Article saves me a lot of digging typing.

Study the history of Mohammed and the Ottoman Empire in their treatment of Christians and Jews.

He who wrongs a Jew or a Christian will have me as his accuser on the Day of Judgment.

— Prophet Muhammad

Regarding thi propoganda piece, read here for the complete history on this issue.

Now, what does the Quo'ran say about Christians and Jews? Read here.

Nice how Islam is not above lying to Infidels. Not a sin, after all.

So, what do you think?

-----------------------------
Keeping it real and to the core of the issue, not the peripherals.

I am not, but here are my observations:

Many exhibit a fatalism, In Sha Allah or "As Allah Wills it" kind of a whatever will be will be mentality or why bother. May explain why so many live in abject poverty.

They take their religion more seriously than most others. How many riot have you seen because a crucifix was dipped in urine or a painting of the Virgin Mary was made of elephant feces? But let a few cartoons of Allah run and watch out!!!

A rumor of Korans being torn or splashed with urine killed people in Afghanistan! Not exactly the religion of pease now.

Soloman Rusdie gets death threats based on "Satanic Verses".

No, Ex, we cannot think like them or expect them to act like us! Do you see Israelis dancing in the streets when Jewish suicide bombers slay innocent Paliestinians on buses or in markets? No again.

Not all Muslims are fanatics, but enough are and those that aren't just stand by watching. How many on this board have Muslim friends?

So I guess the only way to get the bad apple is to go in and surgically remove the entire bunch?

Send them all to heaven and let Allah sort out them out?

I think you did hit the mark pretty well in that those that are not fanatics are just standing by watching. While there may be only a small percentage of "bad" Muslims, they may be enough to incite the rest - and if you do take them out violently, beware. You have just created a bunch more enemys.

So, let's take Israel out of the equation and ask one more time: How many Muslims would still support the collapse of America?

And add one more; If we knew not to expect them to act or think like us, why are we (Commander-In-Chief and his staff) doing such a lousy job after the war in Iraq?

To answer your last question first, hell they can't even get along with each other. The Sunni minority thanks to Saddam oppressed the Shites. They now blow up each other's shrines and kill each other for fun.

Before we get all superior, the Catholics and Protestants were doing the same thing from before the 1917 Easter rebellion until just recently in Northern Ireland. The people got fed up and did something about it and you expect that in less than 3 years after a brutal dictatorship.

Time, sir, time is needed. Americans used to have guts and backbones of steel. Now politicans yell quagmire and Vietnam to score political points.

Remember these famous words:

Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe to assure the survival and the success of liberty. - John F. Kennedy

You said in a previous post that we won the Cold War, how long did that take, alot more than 3 years! How long I don't know, but we cannot fail. It is time to step up to the plate like the Greatest Generation did in 1941! Victory is our only option.

I've forgotten who it was who posted a few days ago, suggesting that the notion of "evil" is "medieval" and that we know better now. "Wicked" behavior is merely a byproduct of a treatable disease.

This view is kin to a variety of positions that seek to analyze away moral differences into non-moral factors.

Socrates, for example, maintained that no one every *knowingly* does what is wrong. Indeed, everyone always aims for what seems to them to be the right thing to do. The problem, however, is that, being finite in our knowledge, sometimes what seems right is not what is actually right. We are "deceived by appearances" he said. The key is to have clear knowledge of the difference, and this is obtained through skill at the "Science of Measurement."

Thus, he maintained that "immoral" behavior is always the result of ignorance, and "knowledge is sufficient for virtue."

It follows from this that everyone is really well-intentioned. Charles Manson is just as well-intentioned as Mother Theresa. The difference between them is non-moral in nature; it is epistemological. She knows something he doesn't.

I don't buy this for a moment. I'm convinced that there just is such a thing as wickedness or depravity.

Milton got it right with his characterization of Satan, who said, "Evil, be thou my good."

Democrats made sure troops in the field got body armor, something the Bush administration overlooked in their rush to get troops into Iraq.

Hey, didja happen to see that nationwide Washington Post poll last week that said that more Americans trust Democrats over Republicans in handling the war on terror? 46% thought Democrats could do a better job, 38% thought Republicans could do a better job.

It's a Washington Post poll silly. It might as well be a New York Times poll. What would you expect? How about a Washington Times poll. Bet it would give me the results I desired.

The Major is right. The only poll that matters is the one in November.

"Shoot the messenger" is a common tactic used by cowards when they don't want to confront something they consider unpleasant.

You certainly understand and employ the "Shoot The Messenger" tactic with great authority. You have proved yourself masterful at the art of the "drive by postings".

The only poll that counts is in November. The last Democratic president relied heavily on polls and when he was focused on polls Osama and crew attacked, attacked and attacked again.

Yes body armor is very important. It is amazing that we ever won wars without it. That said is that the only thing that the Democrats have done, if so that is pretty weak.

Can you provide a link to the exact bill or person who made sure the troops got body armor.