the debate: part ii

Brak: Howdy,

Good to hear from you. As always, you have found a way to shut out from your mind any piece of information that could shed light on the dark abyss of liberalism. But I can't blame you for that, Hillary and Dean, Pelosi and Boxer, and all other libs are working overtime to polute the minds of populist idealists. As always however, I still stand by my opinion that anything written in a purely bias manner, usually construes the facts to brighten their side. Unfortunately, becuase of this "false painting" it is hard if not near impossible to draw conclusions independently. I agreed the article was written in a bias manner, however, I also agree that many points are worth accepting.
1) WWII would not have been won without the US. This is not to say our allies, including Russia, were of no import. It was Russia who fought so sternly against Hitler's army during the winter months that allowed the British to hold their ground. Many say it was Hitler's worst mistake to split his forces. But I will also remind you that it was the US that discovered, and had the "balls" to drop the bomb on Japan. Without that the war in Europe could have, and most likely would have turned out differently.

2)I agree with that giving Afghans weapons during the 80's to fight the Russians turned ugly on us. However, in defense of the "savior President Reagon" he did not enjoy the blessing of foreseeing the future. He did what he thought best knowing what he knew and unfortunetly that wasn't the best decision looking back. The big difference between what you pointed out is that the French, Germans, and Russians are all supplying weapons knowing the results. There is nothing right about giving weopons to a dictatorship that suppresses freedom unless you yourself are against freedom. The afforementioned countries don't have the best track records recently for defending freedom.

3)I agree, as do all others including the President, that we never predicted what happened in Iraq. However, we did pick Iraq to fight terrorism. We chose it to fight a dictator who supported and used terrorist tactics to rule his country. The direct link between Saddam and bin Laden has not been made, however I hope you would agree that given the chance, Saddam would have jumped to endorse anything that would cripple the US. That sounds like a serious threat to me. Having known the aftermath, which as I stated we did not, I would still chose Iraq becuase as you pointed out the terrorist have chosen to come together and fight there. It sure beats chasing them around the world. The Iraqis are paying a price to have there freedom and part of that price is to the US. The US is putting the soldiers and money into their independence as a way to win a war against the terrorist. France helped the US in its independence not becuase they cared so much about the right to representation (remember the French revolution came after the war had ended) but rather becuase they were fighting Britain and that gave them a chance to fight the British.

4)About Afghanastan, if you recall, the US gave the UN the dominion over Afghanastan after the Taliban was removed. Have you looked lately out how well they are doing? About as well as one would expect a body of corrupt countries could do.

5)There is indeed other dictators like Castro and Chavez that are a serious problem. I agree that we must watch them carefully. Cuba is a whole different issue that I won't get into (I'm not sure about the sanction idea, I think it probably only hurts the people and raises anti-american sentiment). Venezuela on the other hand i know a little about. One reason we don't attack is Chavez was supposedly elected. I don't know how true that is but for diplomacy purposes we have to agree. It's one thing to go to war against a person the world over agrees is a dictator (Saddam), its another to go to war against someone who was elected. That's awfully un-democratic.

6)Weapons in Iraq is a large threat. Weapons in Iran is a large threat. Weapons in Venezuela, or anyother anti-american country is a large threat to us. I agree, the more weapons we have, the more of a threat we are to Iran and N. Korea. That is a good thing for us to threaten them with our weapons. I would rather them threatened and behave than to have to prove that we really can beat them. It wasn't just the weapons in Iraq, it was the reason a dictator who hates America has so many weapons.

Lastly,

I agree the United States will never be run by the Mulluhs. However, if the Middle East is then more attacks like 9/11 would be much more likely if not inevitable from a group that believes we must die becuase we are a christian nation. I don't want that and I don't think the world, especially the middle east would ever want that. There are a few extremist that want to rule the world. To them, Bush, Blair, and all other democratic leaders that believe in liberty and peace, are those extremist. My vote goes to the extremist of democracy.

Sorry if this long and boring but quite frankly, what else would you expect from me? By the way we are finding out the sex of our baby tonight. I'll text you and let you know.


end quote.

okay, so i just have to get this on the record. no disrespect to all the real victims of columbine, but the whole ‘we are columbine’ thing is retarded and has been for seven years now. i’m sure there are a bunch of meanings we can twist it into so that the slogan works for the community or other students, etc., but none of those reasons come to mind whenever i hear(d) it and saw it on the back of every car in colorado. i’m sure people might know other people who were part of it. and i’d like to think i’m different when it comes to columbine because we all lived 30 minutes away with no traffic when it all went down. but i’m not different. just another stupid high school student in ’99. and i’m definitely not columbine. i’m sure i could network myself in somehow because i know this one guy who was doing this chick who goes to columbine, etc. it’s weird to think that these guys added a new day to the unofficial american calendar. actually, they gave the day a second reason for remembrance. that’s a lot of power though. so i’ve never met anyone who was actually at columbine when it happened. there’s a lot of phonies out there i can tell you that. and did you know that april 20 is also hitler’s birthday? that’s so weird.

Fun With Dick and Jane (2005): not the funniest movie of his. not by a long shot. it was made for the 35 and up crowd. the jokes are either really funny or kinda cheesy and dry. seems like they just wanted to make some movie where jim carey could exploit his physical comedy and his ego. the best performance came from alex baldwin as the top ceo exec that ruins the company. his part was really funny. the story is too unbelievable and tea leoni’s character was so fake. it’s pretty average. not worth seeing though.