|
Post by chrisfan on Sept 15, 2004 13:29:50 GMT -5
My parents just called me from the beach. They went down, in their rain parkas, with a couple of friends of theres to see the waves, which were crashing over the dunes already. They were also driving around trying to find the weather channel reporter who is in their county somewhere. That's just proof that early retirement isn't a good thing -- they don't have enough to do with their day! The call was cut short when my mom said "Oh, here comes a cop. We may need to go now". Serves 'em right.
Oh, and on an unrelated note, I got a discount card at Quizno's today because the guy behind the counter liked my Bush/Cheney button my my purse.
|
|
|
Post by stratman19 on Sept 15, 2004 14:37:38 GMT -5
The call was cut short when my mom said "Oh, here comes a cop. We may need to go now". Serves 'em right.Yep, it sure does...doggone rabble rousing parents anyway! Oh, and on an unrelated note, I got a discount card at Quizno's today because the guy behind the counter liked my Bush/Cheney button my my purse.Who says there's no benefits to being a Republican! ;D
|
|
|
Post by stratman19 on Sept 15, 2004 14:43:24 GMT -5
Sorry, I couldn't resist! ;D
|
|
|
Post by chrisfan on Sept 15, 2004 14:50:39 GMT -5
The call was cut short when my mom said "Oh, here comes a cop. We may need to go now". Serves 'em right.Yep, it sure does...doggone rabble rousing parents anyway! The worst part is, there's not a smidge of rebellion in my parents! Even when they were young, they were SO straight-laced that when my sister and I were kids, at that age where you discover the 60s and start raiding your parents record collection, we had nothing to raid but Kingston Trio and Johnny Mathis albums!!!!! They're as law-abiding and anti-rebellion as you can get ... until a major disaster comes to shore, and suddenly they decide to buck the system and go watch the waves.
|
|
|
Post by stratman19 on Sept 15, 2004 14:55:34 GMT -5
Haha! Leave it to retirement and a major storm for them to start sowing their wild oats!
|
|
|
Post by melon1 on Sept 15, 2004 15:09:41 GMT -5
Thanks for the invite, strat-o, but I'm afraid there's probably entirely too much traffic between here and Birmingham and IN Birmingham. If that's not the case lemme know. You can PM your phone # if you want. Peace.
|
|
|
Post by strat-0 on Sept 15, 2004 15:35:25 GMT -5
Melon, traffic is OK here, but I don't know how slow it is from Montgomery to here. I think most people are already out - they have returned the southbound lanes of I-65 to southbound traffic. You are farther out of the storm's path where you are now, but I don't know how your accomodations are. It's not expected to get bad here until sometime tomorrow night - at which time I may lose power - so you may be better off then where you are now! Well, come on up if you'd be more comfortable - plenty of room and "we'll leave the light on for you." I'll IM you contact info. Check out this data from a weather bouy about 70 mi south of Mobile - 42 ft waves! Yoww! www.ndbc.noaa.gov/station_page.php?station=42040
|
|
|
Post by chrisfan on Sept 15, 2004 15:53:37 GMT -5
It kind of makes me seasick just to THINK about how much that buoy is bouncing around right now.
|
|
|
Post by melon1 on Sept 15, 2004 16:18:19 GMT -5
Thanks strat-o. I'll think about it. Part of me wants to stay here and help my family if they need it. So I'm not sure if I'll be coming.
|
|
|
Post by melon1 on Sept 15, 2004 16:41:52 GMT -5
OK, finally I have a little time to respond to Chrisfan and Stratman's comments back on CE Vol. 5.
I don't consider myself to be "blinded by ideology". Otherwise I wouldn't listen to anything the Libertarian Party had to say. I do believe most of what I read about the left, however. Yes, this is true. And alot of what I read is from frontpagemag. Lots of Horowitz, Christopher Hitchens(concerning the war), Larry Elder and yes, even Ann Coulter. Her characterization of the left is not as far off base to me as it is to you perhaps. I think that the vision of the modern left comes from the devil. And I believe that most on the left are sitting ducks for deception, as in when the anti-Christ comes. There are plenty of posters who visit here that argue that Bush is satan. I'm simply the other extreme. I'm still not what I would consider to be ultra-conservative. The truth usually lies somewhere in between. That is between where the left is today and where the far right was many years ago. And it is my opinion that George W. Bush is closer to that in between place than any other president we've had in a long time. He is NOT far right. He is NOT ultra-conservative. He is pissing off multitudes of people which means he must be doing something right. Among those he is pissing off are, of course, family members of those who died in the War in Iraq who disagree with the war. I respect them although I disagree with them. I think they are blinded, as I would probably be also in their situation, by their emotions but on the wrong side of history, easily forgetting how much more devastation would be happening now or would be happening in the future in our country was it not for the War on Terror. Then there's plenty of other people George W. is pissing off. I saw some of them on TV last night wearing shirts that said "Value Your Vagina: Vote Liberal". Once again the Left proudly displays its morals. He's pissing off college professors who do their best to brainwash an entire new generation. He's pissing off the ACLU. Need I say more about that part? In the article I'm about to post you'll see that he's pissing off Arafat as well as the other Ayatollahs. He's pissing off the athiests. He's pissing off those who demand that women have a right to terminate their pregnancies, even while giving birth! He's pissing off those who want to institutionalize homosexuality through gay "marriage".
When Abraham Lincoln was president, many of the yankees hated his guts(we'll forget about the south altogether here). But in retrospect we view his bravery for standing up for what HAD to be done by calling him(most Americans anyway) the greatest president in our nations history. IMO Bush is on the right side of history and we won't know if that's true for another 20 or 30 years probably. In summing up, the left is not only wrong IMO, it is, as Horowitz puts it,"The Politics of Bad Faith".
|
|
|
Post by melon1 on Sept 15, 2004 16:46:38 GMT -5
Ayatollahs for Kerry? By Michael Freund The Jerusalem Post | September 15, 2004
The excitement is palpable. You can almost feel it in the air. The dictators of the Arab world just can’t wait for George W. Bush to lose the US presidential election in November.
Gripped with fear as they watch Bush’s democratic experiment in Iraq take shape, the tyrants and despots of the Middle East are pinning their hopes on Democratic challenger John Kerry to prevail.
After all, the last thing they want to see is a second-term Bush determined to reform the region, a development that would threaten their grip on power and stymie their efforts to obtain more lethal types of weaponry.
And so, the rhetoric in the Arab world is heating up, pointing to a real desire to see the US president go down in defeat.
Take, for example, a recent article in the Egyptian Al-Ahram Weekly (August 12-18 issue) by Cairo University’s Prof. Hassan Nafaa. Bush, he wrote, is a “wild eyed zealot” and an “evil fanatic”, one whose “departure from the Oval Office will mark the beginning of the decline of the forces of extremism and the rise of the forces of moderation.”
A Kerry victory, Prof. Nafaa says, barely containing his glee, would mean that “US foreign policy will undergo a major shift that will ultimately impact positively on Washington's approach to the affairs of the Middle East.” In other words, a Kerry administration would be far more compliant as far as the Arabs are concerned.
An August 4 editorial in the Syria Times expressed a similar sentiment, urging Arab-Americans not to make “the very mistake they made in the past when they gave their votes to Bush the Junior” in the 2000 presidential election. Instead, suggested the government-run paper, a vote for Kerry this time would prove to be “a wise one”.
Judging by their leadership, the Palestinians seem to feel the same way, with Yasser Arafat said to be among those who is rooting for a Democratic victory. “Arafat is waiting for November in the hope that George Bush will lose the election to John Kerry," Israel’s military intelligence chief Maj.Gen. Aharon Ze'evi Farkash told a cabinet meeting just over a month ago (Israel Army Radio, July 25).
Following Arafat’s lead, the official Palestinian media has made no effort to hide where its sympathies lie. On July 27, the Palestinian Authority daily Al-Hayat Al-Jadeeda, for example, ran a political cartoon depicting an American soldier bleeding to death in Iraq, with his final words being, “Don’t Vote Bush”.
And then, of course, there is Iran. The mullahs, whom Bush famously labeled part of the “Axis of Evil” in his January 2002 State of the Union Address, are also panting at the prospect of a Republican defeat.
Just last week, on a visit to New Zealand, Iranian Foreign Minister Kamal Kharrazi said that the US government was “looking for excuses” to act against Iran over its nuclear ambitions (Reuters, August 23).
A June 17 article in the English-language Tehran Times entitled “Pity the Next US President” was even more critical, comparing Bush and his neo-conservative advisers to “neo-Nazis” who have created a “stinking heap of a mess” throughout the world. “Kerry,” the paper asserts, “is exactly what the US needs right now.”
That the prospect of a Kerry presidency is evoking so much enthusiasm in the terror capitals of Damascus, Ramallah and Tehran is reason enough for Americans, and especially American Jews, to think twice before supporting the Democratic candidate.
Why, after all, would Yasser Arafat, Bashar Assad and the Ayatollahs want to see Kerry elected, if they didn’t have good reason to believe that he would go soft on terror?
To be fair, Kerry has sought to dispel this image, taking a slap at the Saudi royal family in his acceptance speech at the Democratic National Convention last month, and subsequently criticizing President Bush for not imposing tougher sanctions on the Syrian regime.
But these statements did little to dispel the notion throughout the Arab world that Kerry is “their man." As Martin Sieff, United Press International’s Senior News Analyst, recently pointed out, no one in the Arab world “really thinks Bush will change: And that is why so many old or former friends of the United States in the Arab world are praying for his defeat” (UPI, August 18).
Nonetheless, it seems, a majority of American Jews continue to lean towards Kerry, as a recent poll by the National Jewish Democratic Council is said to have found. According to the survey, an astonishing 75 percent of US Jews back the Massachusetts Senator, while just 22 percent support Bush.
With the election just two months away, now would be a good time for America, and particularly its Jews, to start thinking long and hard about the choice they face in November. Because if the Ayatollahs are banking on Kerry to win, then that certainly can not be the right way to go.
|
|
|
Post by melon1 on Sept 15, 2004 16:52:53 GMT -5
And yet more reasons not to vote for Kerry...
The Bizarre Candidacy of John Kerry September 14, 2004 By David Limbaugh
Remember when former Senator Bob Kerrey said that Bill Clinton was an "unusually good liar -- unusually good"? Well, surely by now Democrats realize that John Kerry is an unusually bad candidate -- unusually bad. Just consider:
Kerry's never said why he should be president, other than to fulfill a lifelong dream. He inappropriately boasts of his war heroism, when experience tells us that authentic heroes rarely brag about their heroism.
The Swift Boat Veterans have deeply discredited numerous parts of his Vietnam record, but Kerry hasn't even attempted a factual rebuttal to any of the charges. He has been forced to admit -- despite testifying the memory was "seared, seared in me" -- he wasn't in Cambodia, Christmas 1968, at the orders of Richard Nixon, who wasn't yet president.
He's had to virtually admit that no hostile fire accompanied his first Purple Heart incident, meaning he didn't deserve that award.
He has personally attacked President Bush's National Guard Service and V.P. Cheney's "five deferments" and contrasted it with his volunteering for two tours of duty in Vietnam. But he hasn't answered John O'Neill's charge that his first tour was 100 miles off the shore of Vietnam and he didn't volunteer for service until he was about to be drafted. Besides, who in their right mind would believe that Kerry would volunteer to risk his life in a war he adamantly opposed?
He either perjured himself in his antiwar testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in admitting to committing atrocities or he actually committed those atrocities, which is worse. POWs have said their Communist captors used his slander of our troops against them.
He was present at a meeting of the VVAW where assassinations of public officials were discussed. Whether or not he voted against them or left the meeting, he has never explained why he associated with such a group of sadistic thugs.
He admitted to being in Paris and having "talked with both delegations at the peace talks, that is to say the Democratic Republic of Vietnam and the Provisional Revolutionary Government …" Under whose authority? For what possibly legitimate purpose?
He castigates President Bush -- preposterously -- for having no plan to win the peace in Iraq. But he's never explained how he would be qualified to plan for any peace, given his disastrous predictions of no bloodbath or refugee problem upon U.S. withdrawal from Vietnam.
He was rated the most liberal senator in 2003 by the nonpartisan National Journal. And that doesn't even begin to tell the story of his egregiously anti-defense and anti-intelligence record for his entire 20 years in the Senate.
He has failed to denounce Michael Moore's deceits, but demands that President Bush denounce the Swiftees' truths.
He insists Iraq isn't part of the War on Terror yet claims that we've lost 1,000 people in the War on Terror.
He hasn't explained how his Silver Star citation was signed by Navy Secretary John Lehman years after the fact when Lehman denies signing it. He also hasn't explained how a "combat V" was affixed to the citation when such designations never accompany a Silver Star. Where's Dan Rather?
He refuses to release all his military and medical records and hides behind his biographer Brinkley, who contradicts him, saying Kerry alone possesses authority over his records.
He brutalized Vice President Cheney for saying America would be safer under Bush-Cheney but in the next breath, said he would make America safer.
He swears he voted for the Iraq war resolution because President Bush promised he'd attack only as a last resort. Since there were no such conditions in the resolution and no one else corroborates his claim, are we to assume Bush gave Kerry these assurances confidentially based on their close friendship?
He says he won't delegate our national security to other nations, but never stops complaining, essentially, about Pres. Bush's failure to delegate our national security to other nations.
He claimed that foreign leaders prefer him for president. What was he doing talking to them, under whose authority and about what?
He has been ducking the press for over a month after excoriating President Bush for hiding from the press. He won't answer "hypotheticals" about what he'd do on fundamental issues as president.
He says he has a plan to withdraw troops, but when pressed, admits he won't know enough about the conditions on the ground until he's president.
He admitted that life begins at conception, but is pro-abortion anyway.
He has made incredibly destructive and bogus claims about GOP plans to disenfranchise a million black voters.
He has said President Bush isn't being tough on North Korea, when before, Democrats were mortified at his "reckless" saber rattling against that nation.
Are you dizzy yet?
|
|
|
Post by kats on Sept 15, 2004 19:02:56 GMT -5
Melon;
yes, you might view what bush did as brave. but, considering most countries in the world don't...wouldn't that be a good indication of how this whole thing is going to be viewed in 20-30 years? considering most of the other countries aren't fighting a personal fight, they surely have a bit more objectivity.
|
|
|
Post by melon1 on Sept 15, 2004 19:27:25 GMT -5
yes, you might view what bush did as brave. but, considering most countries in the world don't...wouldn't that be a good indication of how this whole thing is going to be viewed in 20-30 years? considering most of the other countries aren't fighting a personal fight, they surely have a bit more objectivity.
kats,
It seems as if they would for that very reason, but for the most part other countries do not view the U.S. with quite as much objectivity as you would give them credit for. Anti-American bias is widespread because the U.S. is a Christian nation. We are the strongest, most prosperous, and most blessed nation for that very reason, because of our country's foundation on Christian principles. That is my view anyway. When I look at a map of the United States I am convinced that we are being protected by God alone through the leadership that God designed and that hordes of demons coming from outside of our country and from within our country are doing all they can to destroy it.
|
|
|
Post by Proud on Sept 15, 2004 19:57:08 GMT -5
You said I'm gonna buy a gun and start a war If you can tell me something worth fighting for Oh and I'm gonna buy this place is what I said Blame it upon a rush of blood to the head
|
|