President

[Loy]

Sorry...laughing my ass off as to how this thing tangented off into another retarded....hold on, let me rephrase that....FUCKING RETARDED argument on the non-issue of abortion. "Non-issue" some of you might be asking? Yes. Why do I say that? Simple-abortion has NOTHING to do with the way this country runs day to day, and is just something tossed out to get people all riled up, and divert them from getting shit done.

See, what's going on here is a simple misunderstanding of the concept of what is good for "life". Some people believe that we should be able to kill off the big coagulation of cells called a foetus (and remember folks, a foetus is not a human being...not until an animal is born can it truly be called a sentiant life form. It is still a part of it's host that has the potential for sentiance. Sounds cruel, I know, but hey, do we call a wombat a fucking wombat while it's in the womb? No, we wait until it's born. And please don't give me this "humans are above other species" BS because lately, we haven't done a very good job of showing it) when the carrier (i.e. mother) decides that it's best for her and/or the offspring. We also have some people that feel that this is murder, and want to wait until it's born before society starts fucking with the sentaince of the being in question with such things as taxes and the compulsory work...

And it's one of those things I prefer to stay out of. Not because I don't have an opinion on it (which follows-abortion is one of those issues that drives everybody into heated arguments, including friends of mine who are all extremely intelligent and compassionate. Some of my friends think these pro-life people are annoying idiots. The rest of my friends think that these pro-life people are evil fucks....thank you Bill Hicks.), but because it's simply a wedge issue that we'll get all riled up about, and after we spend all our energy on it, we have none left to take care of such minor issues as poverty...our failing school system...our fucked up health-care system...our deteriorating infrastructure...our out-of-control burocracy...the displacement of wealth in proportion to earning....(I could go on, BTW, but I'm really drunk, and don't have much time).

So as far as the abortion thing is concerned, two pieces of advice for everybody. 1-what business is it of yours? (and if you're having a hard time answering that simple question, I'll give you the answer-NONE of your fucking business), and 2-let's move on to REAL issues...can we, please?

and .battery.-If you wanna copy and e-mail me the last post, I can give a more detailed response, but here's the simplified one....are you familiar with the history of US foreign policy post-War of 1812, and how we have manipulated "leaders" of other countries to basically become our bitch-boys? If you are, then you cannot say that our imperialism in Iraq is a "new" form of imperialism. And it also reeks of the same hegonomical attitudes that the Spanish-American war did (which, BTW, has quite a few similarities to this one). I'd also, agin, like to reitterate that getting rid of Saddam just to replace him with a puppet leader is not really an improvement...ask the Chileans (ironically enough, September 11 is also the anniversary of a CIA/US-backed coup that overthrew the elected president of Chile and put Pinochet in power down there...something to think about). And before you say "the CIA doesn't neccesarilly represent the United States", I'd like to point out that the CIA does in fact hold diplomatic/representative repute as far as their dealings with foreign powers. When people deal with the CIA, they are (in effect) dealing directly with the US government. So when the CIA fucks over people, it is in fact the United States fucking people over. But your original post is, like 58 pages back, and I'm too drunk to figure out how to browse back properly without losing anything I've typed. My appologies.

[Soul_Immortal]

Presidente? :idea:


I would like Kerry to win, only because he had different not-so gung ho views on the situation in Iraq. Lemme do some looking and see what each wants to offer, as leaders, and which would better suit my taste as President. I don't want my vote to be one sided unless I have a really good reason.



Bio-dads leaving the nest, eh? And vice versa. I could say alot on this topic until I were blue in the face, actually. So blue, Smurf's would be jealous.


I kinda see where both you Maelstrom, and you Wolfmoon are coming from. My mom took me and left my dad when I was a wee little 4 months old. Yeah, theres alot I may not know like the stability of their relationship, whether they could stand to be in the same room or not.....I tell you one thing, my mom being 17 and him 19 didn't help too much either. Thank goodness they both had families that cared. Ok I went way off, heres an end note.....

ROCK THE VOTE 2004!!!



*Soul*

Originally Posted by Soul_Immortal

Presidente? :idea:


I would like Kerry to win, only because he had different not-so gung ho views on the situation in Iraq. Lemme do some looking and see what each wants to offer, as leaders, and which would better suit my taste as President. I don't want my vote to be one sided unless I have a really good reason.



ROCK THE VOTE 2004!!!



*Soul*

And that’s the first lucid and relevant statement. Look people, it’s crunch time and unless you are running for public office it’s time to start checking your boxes to find out which candidates best represent your own particular philosophy. The man or woman who best represents my brand of philosophy, who most closely mirrors what I’d like to see done or not done, will get my vote.

Keynote issues.

Abortion.
Stemcell research.
Medical coverage.
Prescription rates.
Retirement/Social Security.
Who’s more pro small business, and who is less likely to screw the people in favor of corporate interests.
National Security.
Fair rates and Wages.
Gay Marriage.

And I’d also like someone to address the issue of having to take my shoes off and having my nasty ass toes inspected for weapons while traveling on an airline. Look fucktards, my feet pose a greater threat to national security when unsheathed, sitting nice and comfortable in my shoes they are quite docile and nonthreatening. Don’t make me take my shoes off, you wouldn’t like me (Gamma rays activate) when I take my shoes off…

So go out there and research the issues, which candidate swings your way the most, and cast a vote accordingly.

And a big hand to Soul for pointing out the obvious.

[MrMaelstrom]

You're quite right Tstone, but I still have a bit of nitpicking to do (what do you want? I've been away).

Here's a quote from Bush's speech yesterday at the convention. I watched it live and got the transcript from their own page. The stuff between parenthesis is my own.

"Because family and work are sources of stability and dignity, I support welfare reform that strengthens family and requires work. Because a caring society will value its weakest members, we must make a place for the unborn child."

(anyone who can read between the lines sees what he means when it comes to abortion)

"Because religious charities provide a safety net of mercy and compassion, our government must never discriminate against them."

(Sure, I mean, religious organizations are never subjective in who they help or how they help)

"Because the union of a man and woman deserves an honored place in our society, I support the protection of marriage against activist judges. And I will continue to appoint federal judges who know the difference between personal opinion and the strict interpretation of the law. "

(I believe you know what this one is talking about. I mean, God knows that a union between two men and two women doesn't deserve an honored place in any society. I mean, it's not like they work, pay taxes and fight wars, do they?

Battery, do you still think gay rights will be furthered on any level by this administration? I think not.

Funny enough, it's because the law can't possibly cover everything that we still have courts and judges instead of something like a legal software handing out instant decisions and convictions. It's because the law can't be "strictly" interpreted that we have courts. Because the legal system exists to protect something a lot more sacred than law = JUSTICE).

Shit, I was really a naive kid. I never set foot in the american continent.
But I believed for a long time that the U.S. were the spearhead for the rest of the world. We absorbed and incorporated the ideals they herited from the french revolution and made true by the U.S. constitution = something I still, to this day, consider to be the most important piece of legal work in history of humanity.

I see why a lot of you misinterpret my criticisms. The same reason someone like M. Moore is misinterpreted.
I'm not objective when it comes to this. I never will be.

Because you gave the rest of us a dream. I can't give it up.

I still have a dream.

[Panther]

Looks like everybody else has stated my opinions.

I was against the war in Iraq. Even on septembet 12th.

I'm against what we're doing in Iraq now. Someone mentioned Chile. We also helped Castro get into power.

I'm pro-abortion. If the mother can't handle a child yet, or can't support it, or thinks she's unfit, then it's better for the child to not be born.

Stem Cell research is good. As long as it's used wisely.

Gay marriage is not that big a deal. Let them enjoy their lives, they pay taxes too.

National security is being used as an excuse to cow people into submission by telling them there's Middle Eastern monsters under the bed. We need tp be secure, but not at the cost of freedom. Because there's no point being safe if you're not going to be allowed to live. The security rating system is stupid.

Income tax should be in porportion to income. Medicine should be available to everyone. The government should try to help small business, and leave religion to the churches.

No real radical ideas here. Just a bit of commons sense. Which, honestly, George Bush doesn't seem to have much of.

[MrMaelstrom]

Originally Posted by Panther

No real radical ideas here. Just a bit of commons sense. Which, honestly, George Bush doesn't seem to have much of.

Common sense is never common. Kind of like military inteligence or fighting for peace.

[Sandmanhero]

Originally Posted by MrMaelstrom

"Because religious charities provide a safety net of mercy and compassion, our government must never discriminate against them."

No No NO No!!!!NO!

He doesn't get it and that's what scares me. Your Religious charitties should have nothing to do with the policies of this country!

SEPERATION OF CHURCH AND STATE!!!!!

Just because you believe in smoe God doesn't mean that everyone else has to follow what that god says! What about the Muslims, the Buddhists, the Pagans, the Jews, the Hindus, etc? They don't believe in your Christian God. Why should Your God be the one that everything is based on?

SELF_RIGHTOUS ASSHOLES, that's why.

This is not the fucking 12th century. We are not in a goddamn crusade to bring the word of God to the heathens! LIVE AND LET LIVE!

go pray in your church, i don't care. I respect a persons right to their opinion and their own religion. but stop trying to force YOUR God and HIS policies down my throat! I'm a Pagen and could give a flying fuck about what the bible says is right or wrong! What is Holy and what is sinful!

See what i mean?! He's going to be voted for because of his Religious policies, not because he can actually do anything for this country!

(rant directed at bush, not you, Mael)

Originally Posted by Tstone

Keynote issues.

Who’s more pro small business, and who is less likely to screw the people in favor of corporate interests.

Well that doesn't take a genious to find out. We all know Bush to be a corporate Bitch boy!

Well that's all well in good, but come down to it you are stating opinions you all have accuired though reading up on the issues. I don't want anyone voting based on my opinions or your opinions or anyone elses opinions.

I say...quit being fucking lazy people (those who are waiting for someone to tell them who to vote for) and go out there and make some educated opinions for yourself.

It's time to seperate the facts from the fiction from the reheortic, and if you don't know who you want to vote for or why...don't fucking vote.

Elections are not a popularity contest.

[TeapotScar]

I agree- too many votes are mistakes because of people voting for who their friends are voting for or who they think has the best smile. It's policies that should matter, not word-of-mouth.

[MrMaelstrom]

Originally Posted by TStone

I don't want anyone voting based on my opinions or your opinions or anyone elses opinions.

Sorry Tstone, but you're somewhat wrong. We don't always agree, and it's through your reasoning out your opinions and arguments that others might evolve as well.

For example, I go and read up on an issue. It usually is either blatantly subjective or made not to upset anyone. I filter the message through my own opinions and character, which are different from yours.
I might more easily change my opinion on an issue when being confronted by an oposing argument by someone whose opinions I respect (meaning you) than by a bunch of political or business lobbyists.

You and Secretboy have made me more often than not soften my speech on things like U.S. military intervention abroad (where the fuck is Gypsy?), for example.

Fuck it, maybe I'm just stoopid.

No, it’s not that. I’m all for sharing opinions and growing in knowledge, hell it’s that kind of shit that makes me get up and research. Thing is, election time is fast approaching and I know people are going to go out there and vote based on someone else’s opinion, or because they like the way someone looks, talks, wipes his or her ass in a left to right manner (I go straight down the middle) and it’s to those people I’m addressing.

Perhaps I didn’t put that over as eloquently as I possibly could?

We can sit and talk politics all day long and I’d not get tired, but at the moment people are scrambling trying to figure out who to cast a ballot for, and I’d like them to be as knowledgeable on the issues as possible. I haven’t got a problem with anyone voting their hearts, and that is in fact what I am championing.

If someone wants to follow an opinion and research the factuality of it, all well in good. But, don’t take my word for it. Don’t believe I’m right about my choice of candidate, because it wouldn’t be fair for anyone to vote more than once.

Remember we had that problem here in FL four years ago…


But that's a perfect world scenario where all people think for themselves, and I may be putting too much credit in the populace...I think I'll start with the shutting the hell up now.

[WolfMoon]

Originally Posted by Loy

Sorry...laughing my ass off as to how this thing tangented off into another retarded....hold on, let me rephrase that....FUCKING RETARDED argument on the non-issue of abortion. "Non-issue" some of you might be asking? Yes. Why do I say that? Simple-abortion has NOTHING to do with the way this country runs day to day, and is just something tossed out to get people all riled up, and divert them from getting shit done.

Oh look,Loy thinks his opinion matters........ :P

[CptSternn]

Well, if anyone has been following the news lately, Bush and his administration, namely Carl Rove, has once again come out and personally attacked the Irish people..

Kerry was quick to respond and defend Irish and Irish American's, and point out the falacies in the statements made by the Bush campaign.

This is on top of the fact the Bush campaign blew off the questions posed by the IAUC (Irish American Unity Conference) while Kerry addressed each issue privately in a personal letter and later during a few speeches he refered to the letter (showing he not only made genuine responses, even months after he quoted those responses in non-related speeches and debates).

For those who wanna see the questions and responses:

http://www.iauc.org/camp2004.htm

And for those who missed the Rova comments, I'll sum it up in a line or two. Basically Rove said that the 'War On Terror' is going to be alot like Northern Ireland conflict with the British. I along with all other Irish men and Irish Americans have always made that comparison, but until now no one has said it. Thats not where the problem was.

The problem was when asked to extrapolate on that comment Rove said 'The Bush campiagn knows there will never be a true peace with Al Queda, like the IRA, and the only way to win is through force, like the Brish have done for the past 10 years which is why they won the war.

Well, for those who know nothing of 'The Troubles' in Ireland, first, the IRA is still active. There are actually 3 major factions now, more than ever before. On top of this, people are dying on an almost daily basis in a country that only takes four hours to drive across. Because it's not a big event like a plane crash, it never makes the news in the states.

Also, the reason the major fighting has ended is because of the Good Friday Agreement, which is when the British government sat down with the IRA and agreed to stop all fighting and work towards a common goal, allowing the RIish peopl to rule themselves, on a slow plan as not to disrupt the status quo.

The Bush Administraions statements are not only wrong, but offensive to the fact they have no idea whats going on. It also should bother the people of the USA that if thats what they are aiming for, then they plan to sit down with AL Queda and give them their land back and aloow them to govern themselves as an offcial political body.

If the N. Ireland conflict shows anything, it shows that 800 years of fighting has led to peace talks between the government and the rebels. It would have been easier and less costly to start with discussions rather than having the British use military force for 780+ years. Only now, they sit down at the table.

Bush appears to want to start the same thing, and only time will tell how long the people of this country will allow a war without boundaries against an ememy that is of the people will last. You can kill people, but you can NEVER kill an idea.

Slan

[.BatteryPoison.]

Originally Posted by Loy

are you familiar with the history of US foreign policy post-War of 1812, and how we have manipulated "leaders" of other countries to basically become our bitch-boys?

Yep yep yep... this is exactly what got us all tangled up in Vietnam. The only bitch-boy we had to run South Vietnam was a complete tyrant who the people all hated. Instead of keeping the government alive and just having him replaced with a more suitable, but not U.S.-friendly, candidate, we kept the tyrant in power until the people had enough of his, and our, shit.

If you are, then you cannot say that our imperialism in Iraq is a "new" form of imperialism. And it also reeks of the same hegonomical attitudes that the Spanish-American war did (which, BTW, has quite a few similarities to this one).

No, it's not. Ever since we pulled our asses out of isolationism, we've been solely imperialistic by nature of policy. Our businesses are. Our government is. It's the way it will continue to be (doesn't matter who's in office).

I'd also, agin, like to reitterate that getting rid of Saddam just to replace him with a puppet leader is not really an improvement...

This is an issue you and I will never see eye to eye on. It's not so much who Saddam is replaced with, as much as it is what... and that's the form of government. Do you remember the Iraqi soccer team getting all the press coverage durring the Olympics? Did you hear what happened to them when they lost in the past while Saddam was in power? They were tortured. Now... if they don't win, who cares? They don't have to worry about getting off the plane and getting on the rack in Iraq (yes... FEEL the pun).

And before you say "the CIA doesn't neccesarilly represent the United States", I'd like to point out that the CIA does in fact hold diplomatic/representative repute as far as their dealings with foreign powers. When people deal with the CIA, they are (in effect) dealing directly with the US government. So when the CIA fucks over people, it is in fact the United States fucking people over.

Exactly why we disavow all knowledge of CIA agents who are found out.. and again, why there were policies the US government set up that stated the CIA was never to be directly involved in the training or supplying of the Mujahideen durring the Soviet-Afghan war.

But your original post is, like 58 pages back, and I'm too drunk to figure out how to browse back properly without losing anything I've typed. My appologies.

LOL... s'ok. I've been there. :D

[TeapotScar]

Bush is sick... all of that stuff Cpt informed me about his Iraq/IRA stance... it just shows that he isn't learning from history, he's just using it to make his reign of terror just that much more terrible.

Battery Poison... I wish there was an option so that everytime you posted, I got immediately alerted. You are extremely well-informed.

[MrMaelstrom]

Originally Posted by TeapotScar

You are extremely well-informed.

She's got an internet connection and reads up on issues. Then she thinks about things, separates fact from fiction and makes up her own mind. That's how she does it.

How are we supposed to compete with that?

[.BatteryPoison.]

Originally Posted by CptSternn

The Bush Administraions statements are not only wrong, but offensive to the fact they have no idea whats going on. It also should bother the people of the USA that if thats what they are aiming for, then they plan to sit down with AL Queda and give them their land back and aloow them to govern themselves as an offcial political body.

*double-take* What!?

They had land? Where? And when you answer that... when? Al-Queda never had a permanent "base" (second pun of the day) set up. They just bounced all around the Middle East ever since they set-up operations in Afghanistan. Basically, they're an international organization set on a wide variety of political affairs that take place all over the world (Russia, America, Britain, Spain, etc..). So unlike the IRA, it doesn't have a real nation to call home.

Secondly I'm interested in where you got that conclusion from? As good of an idea as it is*, the Bush Administration would never consider it, as Al-Queda has a vast number of political enemies all over Europe (including Russia, who the White House is trying hard to suck up to at the moment). Even if the U.S. backed this idea (which we wouldn't because we'd lose TONS of foreign political support), the U.N. would never approve it... ever. We'd be the only nation to recognize it. Al-Queda have been offically black-listed as terrorists and recognized almost world-wide as such..

(Why would it be a good idea? Put all your fish in one barrel and drop a grenade in)

Originally Posted by MrMaelstrom

She's got an internet connection and reads up on issues. Then she thinks about things, separates fact from fiction and makes up her own mind. That's how she does it.

How are we supposed to compete with that?

5 cups of first-hand literature
2 teaspoons of History Channel
3 ounces of Associated Press coverage
1/2 cup of internet coverage (the worst kind)
1 pound motivation

:P

Thing is, I could have given a shit less about most the stuff I'm now talking about 6 months ago.

[CptSternn]

First, I didn't make the comparison, Carl Rove did. I pointed out the same thing, so thanks for re-stating the obvious.

As I said before, that was what the Bush administration said, and what the Irish are laughing about. I pointed out why it was a bad comparison as you did. I just thought most people would get the obvious points you re-interated without having to re-type them and then make it appear as I somehow drew that conclusion.

Feel free to forward those comments to the Bush administration, as they are the ones who said that was their goal.

http://www.irishecho.com/newspaper/story.cfm?id=15170

Slan

[.BatteryPoison.]

Originally Posted by CptSternn

I just thought most people would get the obvious points you re-interated without having to re-type them and then make it appear as I somehow drew that conclusion.

What conclusion? Oh, that the Bush administration was set on a political path that is aimed at giving land back to Al-Quaeda (which makes no sense and is stated nowhere in that article)?

http://www.irishecho.com/newspaper/story.cfm?id=15170

Check out www.stretch.com ... Oh that's physical stretching, nevermind.

The article was either specifically reffering to policy with the IRA, or made bad indirect inferences that policy geared towards one terrorist organization would be the same for all (especially a lenient one). That or the writer didn't understand what Bush meant when he said we couldn't win the war on terror. Somewhere along the line something was lost in translation. Personally I didn't pull the conlusion I quoted you on after reading it.

[CptSternn]

Ok, since yer missing the pointhere, I'll sum it up and cut the main points out fer ya ta read.

"During an interview with Associated Press about the war on
international terrorism, Mr Rove said: "This is going to be
more like the conflict in Northern Ireland, where the Brits
fought terrorism, and there's no sort of peace accord with
al-Qaeda saying, 'we surrender'."

Tis where the rake against the grain begins.

And the response from various organisations, as summed up nicely by a speaker fer the Kerry campaign.

A spokesman for Democratic presidential contender, John
Kerry, rebuked Rove for the clumsy analogy.

"Karl Rove's comments to AP today suggest there was no peace
accord between the British and the IRA. We'd like to inform
Mr. Rove that in April 1998, the Good Friday Agreement,
negotiated by Senator George Mitchell, with the tireless
assistance of President Clinton, was in fact a peace accord.
Unfortunately these comments are very unhelpful to the
current peace process and come on the very day critical
talks designed to lead to the restoration of the Northern
Ireland Assembly and a devolved government are commencing.
I guess we now know why the president has failed to engage
in the peace process for the last four years."

"This comment also demonstrates once again the Bush
administration's fundamental misunderstanding of the threat
posed by al Qaeda and likeminded groups who seek to destroy
our entire way of life. We deserve a leader who understands
the threats we face and has a real strategy to fight them,"
the Kerry spokesperson said.

Not only were the comments incorrect, they were bigoted and designed to disrupt current peace talks going on as we speak over the re opening of Stormont.

I've spent the last 15 years working for Irish political organisations. To see this sort of trite hit the news, and then see that most yanks don't even undertsand why its offensive is quite painful.

As put by Fr. Sean McManus of the Irish National Caucus...

Fr. McManus said: "Karl Rove's recent statement comparing
the IRA to al-Qaeda is, above all else, stupid, but it also
may reveal the true colors of some anti-Irish Catholic
elements in the Republican Party."


Slan

[Panther]

Great! So what have we lea here?

Polticians are assholes.

They know nothing about other countries.

And they don't check their resources.

. . .

Since when has that not been obvious?

I understand being mad about what was said. And I'm glad that you're not quite as ignorant about our politicas as we are about yours.

But the real issue is not whether something was taken out of context or whatever. Our worldwide image is being tainted by things like this. People abroad think Americans have their heads so far up their asses, they don't want to talk to us.

As Eddie Izzard said "One thing you can do is pretend you're Canadian. That always helps (when traveling in Europe)."

Who gives people such a bad idea of us? Mostly the government.

I'm not saying that any one candidate is going to sway our image. But Kerry's at least trying to look like he knows what's going on.

[.BatteryPoison.]

Oh, ok. I guess I just missed the part in history where the IRA said, "We surrender" to the British.

[CptSternn]

There was no surrender, just a peace agreement. And the agreement was only between the pIRA and the British government.

Good news is, under the GFA which the US is a part of, members, former members, and supporters of the pIRA are NOT terrorists as the pIRA is not on the State Dept. FTO (Foreign Terrorist Organisation List).

Since '98 when it was signed, the pIRA have been on cease fire.

Heres another new problem, Bush and his administration have now violated the GFA, and even though the pIRA is not on the offical terrorrsit list AND the GFA is an outisde treaty which gaurtantees asylum to pIRA members, Bush has broken more than one of the treatys bounds since he took office.

The Bush admin is trying to pump their terrorist statistics. One way is finding former pIRA members who came for asylum and to live in the US legally and arresting them and deporting them.

This has happened almost a dozen times now in the past 12 months. Some of the men deported were American citizens. Not only did they deport the these men, but their families as well - most all born and raised in the USA and never even been to Ireland.

One of the men who has been recently caught up in this new travesty of justice is Ciaran Ferry.

http://www.freeciaranferry.com

Ya won't see these names or incidents on TV, but you will see them grouped in the terrorist statstics as Bush pumps his record. Americans don't want to see nice blonde hair Christian men who were accused of fighting for independence from the British being hauled away by jack boot thugs.

Too bad it's happening.

[.BatteryPoison.]

I'm going to elaborate a little on what I had previously said:

Originally Posted by CptSternn

"During an interview with Associated Press about the war on
international terrorism, Mr Rove said: "This is going to be
more like the conflict in Northern Ireland, where the Brits
fought terrorism, and there's no sort of peace accord with
al-Qaeda saying, 'we surrender'."

What Rove said in that statement is that our struggle will be like that of the British, where the conflict will never end in peace with Al-Qaeda/( the IRA) surrendering the effort. The fact that there's a peaceful resolution had nothing to do with that. He's not saying there was no peace deal, but rather that peace didn't come in the form of an IRA surrender. It's a vague analogy and didn't compair the conflicts by any other means.

As for Kerry; the man sticks his ass in front of a camera and criticises everything the Bush administration says and does. That's been his campaign since he found out people would rather have Bush out of office then Kerry in. So he'll twist shit around and try to divert attention away from what's really being said. The democratic party actually has a war-room type setup of nothing but a dozen or so people who work round the clock documenting everything the Bush administration says and tries to counter or twist that around somehow for Kerry or Edwards to leap in front of a camera and yack about.

It's unfortunate that the Irish community is buying this shit.

[CptSternn]

Originally Posted by .BatteryPoison.

I'm going to elaborate a little on what I had
It's unfortunate that the Irish community is buying this shit.

Buying this shite? How many of your mates have been rounded up by the Bush administration and incarcerated without being charged and held for two years for no apparent reason?

These are American citizens, being held in American jails, for over 2 years with no charges. Thats just one man. Currenlty 5 others are being held for no apparent reason.

http://www.irishdeportees.com/

That list has yet to be updated to include John Coyle, 31, of County Tyrone, Northern Ireland, was arrested at Philadelphia International on July 27 after arriving on a flight from London. He was charged with failing to reveal on a customs form that he had been convicted in Belfast in 1996 for throwing a petrol bomb at a police vehicle. Coyle's case is pending.

Black was just released, as were the three from Belfast (after almost a year of detention).

The three listed on the site have been in the States for over 20 years. Good jobs, families, and home owners - now after 20 years picked up by SWAT teams in the middle of the night and drug away to detention centers for alleged crimes that occured in Ireland over 30 years ago, crimes that were wiped away under the GFA.

Kerry even as a Senator has worked with various Irish orgranisations for some time. I know, as former chairperson of Virginia for Noraid, we had many meetings with many Senators as did our lobbyists. Kerry was always supportive and ALWAYS followed through with any promises he made to our organisation.

Bush and his administration has shunned ALL Irish organisations, not had the decency to respond to any letters, and personally attacked the peace process in Ireland on more than one occassion.

Tis not shite. You yanks need ya get out of your house and visit the world and see what these policies are doing to actual people in other countries, not just whats spoon fed to you through the mainstream media.

Slan