My messege to the terrorists

[mikhail]

If your scared twinkle toes just admit it time for talkin is over time we stuck it to them.

 

[Missouri Mule]

So are you then saying that you dont believe in freedom of the Press? for people to have a right to their opinion? to be able to openly critize the goverment? Sounds like you would be happy living in the M.E.....they play be the rules you desire

peace

That's nonsense and you know it, and you just made a great example of a strawman argument. I believe in a vigorous and fair minded press; not one that is largely composed of "group think" that passes for news right now. I want the news without an editorial attached to it.

You were making great progress; now you have regressed.

 

[Missouri Mule]

How are they more with us now then they were pre-Iraq invasion? Plus, as a government we continue to support them despite all of the 9-11 attackers coming from KSA (Kingdom of Saudi Arabia). Recall that in the KSA women have absolutely no rights, not even driver's licenses. The one and only reason we are "allies" with the KSA is OIL. Sociologically we have nothing in common. The people of the KSA consider Americans to be "infidels." They are anything but our "allies" IMHO yet Republicans and apparently you are OK with them despite your claiming "either your with us or against us." They are against us, so why do you tolerate them if you profess to not allow toleration for any country who is against us?

WIth all due respect I get very upset when someone writes what you just wrote. I consider it to be propaganda that has no semblence of truth, sorry. I mean, do you think that our Terrorist friends are honorably agreeing to only fight us "over there" and not "over here"? Ask ANYbody in the Rove Administration if they think we will not be attacked again here? Your statement is only valid to dreamers I'm afraid. The reality is not a dream, it's a nightmare, one that has the city that I live in under another attack. The nightmare will happen, we just don't know when.

Funny but my children were not taught that by the NYC Public School system? Ask them about WWII and you'll get an earful about the greatness of our entire nation's effort to defeat Hitler and Japan.

The difference is that WWII had defined countries that were our enemies. Terrorists cross borders and are not trying to defeat us, they are trying and succeeding to terrorize us. The damn war in Iraq has exasperated their hatred for us, allowed them to have a new recruiting tool that can be broadcast on TV 24/7 365 days a year. Not a day goes by now where new America hating terrorists are born.

Why can't you see that if we had put all the resources we've put into fighting terrorists instead of invading Iraq we would be much safer and the terrorists much weaker? It's painfully obvious, so why can't you understand?

I know your heart is in the right place, as is mine. Your posts sound like you think Democrats / Liberals are your enemy. That is very sad, and IMHO very misguided.

I'm not going to address the first part of your post but I will address the last part. First of all I grew up when Harry Truman was president. I happen to believe that he, FDR and JFK were great presidents and certainly had the interests of America at heart. After then and after Vietnam and Watergate the Democrats ran off the tracks. I even voted for McGovern and Carter and then I saw where their policies were leading this nation. We'll never know whether or not McGovern would have been a good president because he was never elected. Unfortunately, we were afflicted with the abysmal administration of Jimmah Carter who very nearly took this country down to oblivion. Can you remember 21% inflation, stagflation and 444 days of hostage taking? I can.

I support a lot of efforts to improve the lot of the average person. I come from folks who didn't have a pot to **** in. My grandparents were so poor they had to eat the bark off the trees and boil their boots to survive in the Great Depression. My dad had an seventh grade education and was on his own at 14. No one gave them a damn thing. Today's Democrats is just a big tent of welfare recipients, beggers and history revisionists who trash American and our ideals every chance they get. What would I possibly have to do with such a motly group of bellyachers. I'm like Ronald Reagan. I didn't leave the Democratic Party, the Democratic Party left me.

 

[26 X World Champs]

You talk as if we aren't fighting terrorism?


We fight terrorism by capturing suspects with IED-making material like Iraqi Soldiers (along side coalition soldiers) did on July 11th near Mansuriyah, in Diyala province, Iraq. We fight terrorism with the help of Iraqi civilians, you know, the ones that you think we killed recklessly, or become terrorists themselves. They help U.S. and Iraqi troops a great deal, like they did back on the 12th of July, when a civilian pointed a man with suspicious demeanor. The civilian led the security forces to a house and found raw C-4 plastic explosives, 20 hand grenades, one machine gun, a sniper rifle, an AK-47 assault rifle, a loaded 9 mm pistol with a silencer, and 500 to 700 rounds of ammunition.

The problem with your argument as I see it is that had we never invaded Iraq none of the events you wrote about would have been necessary. Had we invested our money into fighting terrorists around the world instead we would not have terrorists in Iraq today. There were zero terrorists in Iraq under Saddam. Saddam was not a threat to the USA.

We're fighting terrorism in Iraq, no doubt. It's just so fukced up that the terrorists we're fighting we gave birth to through our invasion of Iraq.

Had we not invaded Iraq what would the war on terrorism be like today? Any thoughts?

 

[cnredd]

Hey Tetracide!

I hope this site is your new home....You got admirers here.

Keep on testifying!

 

[Surenderer]

That's nonsense and you know it, and you just made a great example of a strawman argument. I believe in a vigorous and fair minded press; not one that is largely composed of "group think" that passes for news right now. I want the news without an editorial attached to it.

You were making great progress; now you have regressed.

Bro you called people on the left treasonists......thats not supporting freedom of the press or thoughts....thats a very serious charge......you say they are going against country just because they dont agree with you...your statements remind me of another one made in 1947:


Nazi Herman Goering on Military Recruting

"Why of course the people don't want war. Why should some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece? Naturally the common people don't want war neither in Russia, nor in England, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country."

Hermann Goering



peace

 

[cnredd]

"Why of course the people don't want war. Why should some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece? Naturally the common people don't want war neither in Russia, nor in England, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country."

Hermann Goering

Absolutely true statement....But...

Just because the leaders tell you that you are being attacked doesn't mean that it's NOT true.

You can't automatically say that everytime the leaders say that we're being attacked, you can think "I remember that Goering" quote...so this MUST be a lie."





peace[/QUOTE]

 

[Tetracide]

The problem with your argument as I see it is that had we never invaded Iraq none of the events you wrote about would have been necessary. Had we invested our money into fighting terrorists around the world instead we would not have terrorists in Iraq today. There were zero terrorists in Iraq under Saddam. Saddam was not a threat to the USA.

We're fighting terrorism in Iraq, no doubt. It's just so fukced up that the terrorists we're fighting we gave birth to through our invasion of Iraq.

Had we not invaded Iraq what would the war on terrorism be like today? Any thoughts?

I respectfully disagree.

Your statement that no terrorists were in Iraq before the invasion is wrong. The Abu Nidal organization (ANO) moved to Iraq in 1998, and received financial aid from Saddam. The State Department stated that this organization holds a “few hundred members.” Mujahedin-e Khalq Organization (MEK or MKO) were also active during Saddam’s regime; created in the 1960s, the organization was a strong supporter for the dictator. They assisted in the suppression of the Shia and Kurdish uprisings and hold about 3,800 members. Abu Nidal organization (ANO) relocated to Iraq in 1998 as well. That organization holds another few hundred members. Palestine Liberation Front (PLF) has also been based in Iraq since the 1990s.

So, yes, there were terrorists in Iraq before the invasion.

 

[26 X World Champs]

Today's Democrats is just a big tent of welfare recipients, beggers and history revisionists who trash American and our ideals every chance they get. What would I possibly have to do with such a motly group of bellyachers.

When I read posts like this I can't help but feel that some of the people in this community make their points by making vast generalizations that are born in prejudice, not fact. Please prove to us all that "Today's Democrats is just a big tent of welfare recipients, beggers and history revisionists who trash American and our ideals every chance they get."

Your statement is quite nasty, and I take offense from it. As far as I can see my tax dollars have equal value to yours, unless I'm mistaken? I also really find it nasty to write that because Democrats disagree with your view of the world that we are "trashing" America. Would you be offended if I wrote something like "Republicans are all White Christians who pollute the world and steal from the underclass"? Sounds nasty and pretty damn awful, don't you think. I feel your attack is equally nasty and awful, not to mention untrue.

 

[Missouri Mule]

Bro you called people on the left treasonists......thats not supporting freedom of the press or thoughts....thats a very serious charge......you say they are going against country just because they dont agree with you...your statements remind me of another one made in 1947:

Nazi Herman Goering on Military Recruting

"Why of course the people don't want war. Why should some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece? Naturally the common people don't want war neither in Russia, nor in England, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country."

Hermann Goering

peace

A good many people on the left are clearly treasonous, but certainly not all leftists are. What this means simply is the giving aid and comfort to the enemy. Clearly Churchill, Chomsky and Clark have stepped well over the line into treason. That's not even debatable because it is so obvious. Merely disagreeing with a foreign policy initiative is fine and good and in keeping with our American right of freedom of speech. But lying (as they have done; misrepresenting the facts, as they have done; going about the world to trash the U.S. as they have done) and going out of their way to derail our government as they have done is clearly and without question treason.

You present a false argument and yet again another strawman argument to bring up Goering. Now, I wish you would stop that.

 

[Missouri Mule]

When I read posts like this I can't help but feel that some of the people in this community make their points by making vast generalizations that are born in prejudice, not fact. Please prove to us all that "Today's Democrats is just a big tent of welfare recipients, beggers and history revisionists who trash American and our ideals every chance they get."

Your statement is quite nasty, and I take offense from it. As far as I can see my tax dollars have equal value to yours, unless I'm mistaken? I also really find it nasty to write that because Democrats disagree with your view of the world that we are "trashing" America. Would you be offended if I wrote something like "Republicans are all White Christians who pollute the world and steal from the underclass"? Sounds nasty and pretty damn awful, don't you think. I feel your attack is equally nasty and awful, not to mention untrue.

Well, let me restate it more clearly, then. The Democratic activists that control the nominating process are clearly well outside the mainstream of American society and are possibly into outer space. Is that better? The gullible yellow dog Democrats follow this bunch because they don't know any better or are too uninformed to get the facts.

As far as Republican are concerned, some do pollute and exploit the underclass. What makes you think I am a Republican? In point of fact, I supported and voted the for the Libertarian candidate in the last presidential election. I voted for a good number of Democrats at the local level. But the national Democratic party is a disgrace to our American heritage.

 

[26 X World Champs]

I respectfully disagree.

Your statement that no terrorists were in Iraq before the invasion is wrong. The Abu Nidal organization (ANO) moved to Iraq in 1998, and received financial aid from Saddam. The State Department stated that this organization holds a “few hundred members.”

So, yes, there were terrorists in Iraq before the invasion.

With all due respect, I think you're spinning the truth to justify a weak argument, sorry.

This is what the US Navy website says about the ANO:

Location/Area of Operation
Al-Banna relocated to Iraq in December 1998, where the group maintains a presence until Operation Iraqi Freedom, but its current status in country is unknown. Known members have an operational presence in Lebanon, including in several Palestinian refugee camps. Authorities shut down the ANO’s operations in Libya and Egypt in 1999. The group has demonstrated the ability to operate over a wide area, including the Middle East, Asia, and Europe. However, financial problems and internal disorganization have greatly reduced the group’s activities and its ability to maintain cohesive terrorist capability.

Source: http://library.nps.navy.mil/home/tgp/abu.htm

Plus Abu Nidal himself died in 2002! Supposedly he was killed by an Iraqi intelligence agent, so how can it be said that Sadaam supported them?

In the August of 2002, the leader of Abu Nidal Organization (Sabri al-Banna) was killed in Baghdad, Iraq. While the authorities claimed it was a suicide, it is widely believed that Sabri al-Banna was killed by an Iraqi intelligence agent.

Source: http://www.iraqinews.com/org_abu-nidal.shtml

Do I need to further rebut your claims? It should be obvious that the ANO was no longer any type of threat as a terrorist organization in March 2003 when we invaded. They most certainly were not a threat to Americans!

 

[Tetracide]

Your statement was "There were zero terrorists in Iraq under Saddam," which turned out to be false. The argument about their threat to the U.S. is a complete different one. Admit you are wrong, and then we can discuss the threats of terrorists.

 

[26 X World Champs]

A good many people on the left are clearly treasonous, but certainly not all leftists are.

Please define "good many." It is outrageous for you to suggest that Liberals are treasonous. I find remarks like yours to be completely based in prejudice and ignorance, sorry.

But lying (as they have done; misrepresenting the facts, as they have done;

You mean like Rove and his cronies did about WMDs in Iraq and the grave threat to America? Or do you mean like saying that Iraq was buying Yellow Cake in Niger like Rove did? Or maybe you mean like Colin Powell did during his outrageous presentation to the UN in Feb. 2003? Or were you referring to Cheney's recent comment that the "insurgency is in it's last throes"?

Treason is quite a strong word, and to use it in the context that you're using it is very, very weak, and very, very wrong.

 

[26 X World Champs]

Your statement was "There were zero terrorists in Iraq under Saddam," which turned out to be false. The argument about their threat to the U.S. is a complete different one. Admit you are wrong, and then we can discuss the threats of terrorists.

I was wrong write that there were zero terrorists in Iraq. OK? However, the number is so insignificant it no way justifies any type of action against them.

Your posts make it sound like terrorists were thriving in Iraq, supported by Saddam, and were plotting against us. That is what I wholeheartedly disagree with.

How's this for a statement?

"There was not any terrorist threat against the USA from terrorists in Iraq before we invaded." Furthermore "Since we invaded Iraq the amount of terrorists in Iraq that threaten the USA has increased exponentially."

 

[Tetracide]

I was wrong write that there were zero terrorists in Iraq. OK?

See? That wasn't so hard.

"There was not any terrorist threat against the USA from terrorists in Iraq before we invaded."

Correct, but the War on Terror is a war on terrorism in general, whether they threaten the U.S. or not. All elements under the definition of terrorism have at some point in time committed a terrorist act, killing innocent people. You out of all people should appreciate that since you believe Iraq was a diversion from the real War on Terror.

"Since we invaded Iraq the amount of terrorists in Iraq that threaten the USA has increased exponentially."

That cannot be backed, and is originated from opinion. My opinion is we are giving an alternative way of life to the people of Iraq by giving them freedom via democracy. I believe the only reason we are seeing an increase in the number of terrorists is because we are much easier to attack. Flying planes into buildings requires a lot of coordination. With troops in Iraq and elsewhere, it only takes a down syndrome child to kill dozens.

 

[26 X World Champs]

Well, let me restate it more clearly, then. The Democratic activists that control the nominating process are clearly well outside the mainstream of American society and are possibly into outer space. Is that better?

Sorry, I do not find your statement to be factual in the least. I don't even know what you mean by "Democratic activists that control the nominating process..."

How come people here feel it necessary to attack Democrats in general? You wrote that you're a Libertarian and that we should not judge your beliefs, but you're the one making blanket generalizations of the nastiest kind about Democrats. Isn't that hypocritical?

I see Democrats in this community attacking / disagreeing with Rove and his evil henchmen, not with Republicans in total. It's not that way with the people who disagree with Democratic policy or politicians, instead your colleagues attack all of us. That really sucks, sorry....

 

[Surenderer]

Absolutely true statement....But...

Just because the leaders tell you that you are being attacked doesn't mean that it's NOT true.

You can't automatically say that everytime the leaders say that we're being attacked, you can think "I remember that Goering" quote...so this MUST be a lie."





peace

[/QUOTE]




I agree 100%....but there are those who exactly use this tactic which is why I brought it up to the poster




peace

 

[26 X World Champs]

See? That wasn't so hard.

Admitting I'm wrong is something I've had a lot of practice at. :lol:

Correct, but the War on Terror is a war on terrorism in general, whether they threaten the U.S. or not. All elements under the definition of terrorism have at some point in time committed a terrorist act, killing innocent people. You out of all people should appreciate that since you believe Iraq was a diversion from the real War on Terror.

The "real" terrorists that threaten us every day were not in Iraq. The war in Iraq has severely depleted our war against our real enemy, and that is a gigantic blunder that history will record as one of the legacies of the Rove Administration.

That cannot be backed, and is originated from opinion. My opinion is we are giving an alternative way of life to the people of Iraq by giving them freedom via democracy. I believe the only reason we are seeing an increase in the number of terrorists is because we are much easier to attack. Flying planes into buildings requires a lot of coordination. With troops in Iraq and elsewhere, it only takes a down syndrome child to kill dozens.

No, no , NO! We've created a farm team of terrorists. We've created countless new terrorists against us that would not have been created had we not invaded Iraq. We're creating our nightmare. We're dooming ourselves to years and years of future terror.

Rove blew it by not putting everything we have into fighting terrorism. You cannot possibly believe that if we spent $5 billion per month fighting terrorism instead of the war in Iraq that we would not be safer today. C'mon, please be realistic and objective?

 

[Tetracide]

I am being realistic. Don't accuse me of otherwise.

Terrorism as an ideology is being challenged in more way then one. Not only are we killing or capturing terrorists on the streets killing innocent people, we are also giving terrorists a reason to drop their weapons and join the democratic process. Why can't you see that?

We are not creating terrorists. Terrorists are coming from other nations such as Syria, Iran, Sudan, Libya, etc.

The bottom line is you would rather believe we are failing, and that we should stop what we are doing and give up. I would rather believe we stay true to our promise to the Iraqi people and help defend them until they can defend themselves.

 

[Missouri Mule]

Please define "good many." It is outrageous for you to suggest that Liberals are treasonous. I find remarks like yours to be completely based in prejudice and ignorance, sorry.

You mean like Rove and his cronies did about WMDs in Iraq and the grave threat to America? Or do you mean like saying that Iraq was buying Yellow Cake in Niger like Rove did? Or maybe you mean like Colin Powell did during his outrageous presentation to the UN in Feb. 2003? Or were you referring to Cheney's recent comment that the "insurgency is in it's last throes"?

Treason is quite a strong word, and to use it in the context that you're using it is very, very weak, and very, very wrong.

I don't intend to back off my treason assertions whatsoever. In fact, I believe the evidence is quite overwhelming. It really doesn't take great numbers of treasonous Americans to do great damage to our national security. Of course most liberals don't believe this or know that in point of fact the secret to the atomic weapon, in spite of incredible security, was known to Stalin before Truman told him after WWII. You see, his spies had breached our security measures.

The names I provided you, Churchill, Chomsky and Clark are people of your partie's persuasion. These creeps blame America first and foremost and your party embraces them or acquieses to their hateful speech. The party activists that control your party doesn't condemn them or even make a pretense of condemning them. No, instead they make excuses for their statements and actions explaining if not for our policies these poor benighted people wouldn't be making these statements. This is not unlike the British Muslims (some 25%) of whom make excuses for the bombers. The bottom line is that they are all of the same ilk. We've swept this under the rug for far too long. These people should not merely be thrown in jail, they ought to be thrown UNDER the jail where they belong.

And if you don't agree with me, well, that's your problem. I'm exercising my American right of free speech. That's the way I feel and I can assure you that most REAL Americans agree with me and you can't deny that.

 

[26 X World Champs]

I don't intend to back off my treason assertions whatsoever. In fact, I believe the evidence is quite overwhelming.

And if you don't agree with me, well, that's your problem. I'm exercising my American right of free speech. That's the way I feel and I can assure you that most REAL Americans agree with me and you can't deny that.

I do not agree with you, but I would never try to censor you. However, it appears from your posts that you want to censor me?

I must admit that when someone writes about "REAL Americans" I consider it complete and utter bullshit. IMHO only someone who is insecure with their own beliefs must call themselves "real Americans." It reads like the person saying it has a great amount of insecurities.

You talk about far left Liberals as if they represent the party, and that too is bullshit. If I used your rationale then I can accuse all Republicans of being like Ann Coulter, Pat Robertson or Donald Wildmon.

For example Ann Coulter said this, remember:

My only regret with Timothy McVeigh is he did not go to the New York Times Building.

Pat Robertson said this, remember:

Over 100 years, I think the gradual erosion of the consensus that's held our country together is probably more serious than a few bearded terrorists who fly into buildings.

Donald Wildmon said this, remember:

Now the Bush Administration is opening its arms to homosexual activists who have been working diligently to overthrow the traditional views of Western Civilization regarding human sexuality, marriage and family… AFA would never support the policies of a political party which embraced the homosexual movement. Period. (4-16-01, AFA Press Release)

Based on what I believe to be your line of thinking these people are mainstream Republicans, or actually are they treasonous statements too?

After all, when someone comes out for the bombing of the New York Times building, what does that make them? When someone thinks the terrorists who flew into the WTC & Pentagon are not as dangerous as judges in our judicial system doesn't that smack of treason?

It is simply stupid to accuse Liberals of thinking like Churchill and supporting him. Your logic means that you support Coulter's statement re bombing the NY Times, so are you treasonous?

Intellectually I find that your stated argument is ridiculous and without any validity whatsoever, sorry. That doesn't mean you're that way, just your point of view that Liberals are traitors.

 

[Missouri Mule]

I do not agree with you, but I would never try to censor you. However, it appears from your posts that you want to censor me?

I must admit that when someone writes about "REAL Americans" I consider it complete and utter bullshit. IMHO only someone who is insecure with their own beliefs must call themselves "real Americans." It reads like the person saying it has a great amount of insecurities.

You talk about far left Liberals as if they represent the party, and that too is bullshit. If I used your rationale then I can accuse all Republicans of being like Ann Coulter, Pat Robertson or Donald Wildmon.

For example Ann Coulter said this, remember:

Pat Robertson said this, remember:

Donald Wildmon said this, remember:

Based on what I believe to be your line of thinking these people are mainstream Republicans, or actually are they treasonous statements too?

After all, when someone comes out for the bombing of the New York Times building, what does that make them? When someone thinks the terrorists who flew into the WTC & Pentagon are not as dangerous as judges in our judicial system doesn't that smack of treason?

It is simply stupid to accuse Liberals of thinking like Churchill and supporting him. Your logic means that you support Coulter's statement re bombing the NY Times, so are you treasonous?

Intellectually I find that your stated argument is ridiculous and without any validity whatsoever, sorry. That doesn't mean you're that way, just your point of view that Liberals are traitors.

If you can find in any of my posts where I said ALL liberals were traitors I would certainly appreciate your pointing that out. Certainly the three I pointed out fit that category and I'll add another: Michael Moore. And furthermore the Democratic Party has a certifiable lunatic as its party head -- Howard Dean. He needs to be put in a strait jacket for his own good.

My point is why would any REAL American want to be associated with such riff-raff? I can't think of any.

 

[26 X World Champs]

If you can find in any of my posts where I said ALL liberals were traitors I would certainly appreciate your pointing that out. Certainly the three I pointed out fit that category and I'll add another: Michael Moore. And furthermore the Democratic Party has a certifiable lunatic as its party head -- Howard Dean. He needs to be put in a strait jacket for his own good.

My point is why would any REAL American want to be associated with such riff-raff? I can't think of any.

Here's a bit of reality.....all Americans are REAL Americans. The fact that you don't like them or vehemently disagree with them does not make them any less American than you are.

As far as your statements about Democrats & Liberals here's what you've written in the last 24 hours:

Today's Democrats is just a big tent of welfare recipients, beggers and history revisionists who trash American and our ideals every chance they get.

A good many people on the left are clearly treasonous

Well, let me restate it more clearly, then. The Democratic activists that control the nominating process are clearly well outside the mainstream of American society and are possibly into outer space. Is that better? The gullible yellow dog Democrats follow this bunch because they don't know any better or are too uninformed to get the facts.

I don't intend to back off my treason assertions whatsoever. In fact, I believe the evidence is quite overwhelming.

 

[Missouri Mule]

Here's a bit of reality.....all Americans are REAL Americans. The fact that you don't like them or vehemently disagree with them does not make them any less American than you are.

As far as your statements about Democrats & Liberals here's what you've written in the last 24 hours:

It seems to me that you have difficulty understanding the English language. Perhaps you ought to arrange a course in logic where they discuss how to think logically. Because I named liberals as having traitorous elements among them does not mean that all liberals are traitors. It means that SOME liberals are traitors. It also implies that most traitors are more likely than not to come from liberal ranks. It does not mean that conservatives cannot be traitorous. If someone who is conservative should reveal national secrets because he or she believed that our government was derelict in prosecuting the war on terror that would be an act of treason. I don't offhand know what Johnathan Pollard's politics are but he is now rotting in federal prison because he turned over national secrets to Israel. For all I know he might have been an arch conservative.

But having said all this, no one can deny that Churchill, Chomsky, Clark and Moore are anything other than traitors. Do you disagree? They certainly can't be considered as anything as except on the far left. Am I wrong?

I will amend my statement to this extent. "Democrats" should have been worded as the National Democratic Party that is now run almost exclusively by the far left. On that I am not backing off. For proof, just look at Howard Dean. He is clearly out of his ever loving mind. Even Democrats (decent ones, anyway) know this to be true. He is the gift that keeps on giving to the Republicans.