Hmmm, wonder if this is the same Anonymous that keeps commenting on these threads...If so, you really should get educated at bit before you spout off.
I'm disgusted by the minimal justice imposed on Ms. Stewart. I can only assume that this occurred due to the judge, since common sense says otherwise... The evidence was obviously there and proved by a jury...so what is going on? Just another liberal judge advocating his/her position with respect to the â€œimperialismâ€ of America...Comment Posted By Deagle On 18.10.2006 @ 19:16
I just want to say that you are one of the few that responded that I agree with. Thank you. Could not have said it better myself. Keep up the good fight!Comment Posted By Deagle On 28.09.2006 @ 23:30
Actually, if this continues, you need to change the name of you blog. I'm sure you don't want to attract too many of us right-wingers...heh? At least come up with information that does not sound like our "middle of the road" fellow John McCain (You know, the guy that ignores the Constitution).Comment Posted By Deagle On 28.09.2006 @ 23:14
Understand Drewsmon's response! I'll take Jonah Goldberg for $500 please... Rick, your illness is effecting your posts. Hope you get well soon.Comment Posted By Deagle On 28.09.2006 @ 22:57
If the Pope was to speak plainly, in language that even the heathens could understand, maybe we would not have this problem. If you let the Popes speech be translated by the Iams(?), they will undoubtly provide the interpretation that invokes violence (it's their nature).
I blame the Pope for not speaking directly to the problem and taking it head-on. Trying to paraphrase so as not to hurt their poor Islamic feelings is what has led to this latest outburst.
I think it is time to ignore their false anger and let the war of civilization begin. It's not like we are going to appease them forever...(like France hopes to).Comment Posted By Deagle On 18.09.2006 @ 23:09
The Popes error was in believing that the intellectuals in Islam would provide the context of his speech. He along with others will have to learn the hard way.
There can be no intellectual dialog between religions when one espouses the annihilation of the others.Comment Posted By Deagle On 18.09.2006 @ 23:17
Well, after much agonizing over the current situation, I have come to agree with Rick that we either need to provide massive troops in Iraq or withdraw and let the Iraqis defend themselves. (Not my previous position).
Also, I believe that Rumsfeld does need to go, not because he has handled the Iraq problem incorrectly, but because of his vision of a small, modern army. The situation now requires a large but mobile army and that means an increase of funding and manpower. I don't see how we can survive the new world situation without changes, and I believe he is still stuck in the modern, fast, small, and efficient army - not what we need for the upcoming Islamic wars.
Hitch and Harlin are right...Comment Posted By Deagle On 18.09.2006 @ 23:32
Well, I took the NY Times article with a large grain of salt (too many presumptions and opinions of the author). If you agree with him that we must remove ourselves from Iraq, then what are the consequences?
More terrorism - we are seen much weaker in the Mideast and elsewhere.
South America along with Russia and China see us weaker and advance their efforts to undermine us.
So the position that you agree with would leave us much weaker and open to increased terrorism.
I'm not sure there is a better solution, but to withdraw from Iraq may be flawed. Tis a tough situation in todays world.Comment Posted By Deagle On 14.09.2006 @ 16:28
The problem with sending in more troops is that while we may help in the short-term resolution of terrorist and civil disturbances, the long-term solution will solely depend upon Iraq. These problems will return when we exit regardless of the current situation.
Adding more troops at this time would mainly solve the political situation at home. Iraq now has between 250,000 and 300,000 troops and policemen trained and to not let them be responsible for their problems would be worse.
I also believe that Rumsfeld is correct in his view of a more streamlined military. With that philosophy comes the idea that we no longer consider long-term military occupation. This may and in truth seems to be changing by the moment with South America and others becoming so belligerent towards the US. All of these events point to an ever-increasing need for a large military.Comment Posted By Deagle On 14.09.2006 @ 15:39
Let me clarify... Your leaders are saying these things, not the far left. Polosi, Reid, Murtha, not to mention your DNC leader Dean. Just who is speaking for you?Comment Posted By Deagle On 5.09.2006 @ 21:16
If your are serious, you need to be talking to these people, not conservative blogs.