Thoughts Like Mine

and admit to "improper sexual relations" with Foley?

Who ever gets closest to the actual number will get 10 points!

What else do think the republicans are up too?

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/asiapcf/10/03/nkorea...

You don’t have to be very strong to push the weak around. "Iraq is a threat to democracy???" Please. They were not with in a decade of testing a nuclear weapon. America hasn’t faced a threat like this since the peak of the Soviet Union. If the North Koreans test is successful, guess who there target will be. We all heard administration's the tough talking rhetoric. Question: What will GWB suggest as a solution to this threat? Will mass troops on of the shores of N Korea. Or will he all of a sudden be come a liberal and want to talk?

My thoughts.

After the test, George W. Bush, will be the biggest liberal in America. He'll speak of santions. He'll move to negotiate. he will live to compromise. But all the tough talk about protecting americans??? he will be silent. Along with all the other cons.

Do you know why? Because it doesn’t take much strength to bully the weak.

Fascism

1. A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.

2. A political philosophy or movement based on or advocating such a system of government.

What in the world does this have to do with religion?

-----------------------------------------------

Certainly this this a phrase made up by the right wing scheme machine...

But even if there is such a thing as "Islamo-fascism"; there would almost certainly have to be group of a "christio-fascists" lurking about in the bushes somewhere.

What would these "christio-facists" look like?

Hmmm...

http://www.whitehouse.gov/president/

"Islamic Fascism???"

Are there actually people out there who accept this kind of rhetoric at face value???

There are at least 40 other dictators in the world. Several of them have human rights records at least as atrocious as Saddam. If you buy into the Bush National Security Strategy of “extending peace by spreading democracy and human rights across the globe” then whose is next? Where do you draw the line?

Clearly we started with the axis of evil in our sitghts, North Korea, Iraq & Iran. And we go out of our way to contain the great threat from Cuba (lol). But what about Hu Jintao in China or Bashar al-Assad in Syria. Since these are not democratic nations, shouldn't we invade them too?

And then there is the question of Mubarak in Egypt, or Sultan Khalifa bin Zayed al Nehyan in United Arab Emirates or Qaddafi in Libya. Is dictatorship okay if the dictator has a pro american stance? Certainly we have to eliminate them too in the name of spreading democracy? Dont we? Or deep down inside are we truely the hypocrites that the rest of the world claims we are?

black people congregating. Even though, There was no real reason for me to think this way; at a subconscious level I always thought they were probably up to no good. Like maybe the government should be watching them a little closer. My question is does any one else ever feel this way?

Women, mexicans, africans, asians, indians dont really seem to have a problem with the concept of being considerate of others. Sometimes you see the occasional exception but for the most part, the idea that you should respect the culture, gender, race or religions beliefs of others seems to be a reasonable position. Except to the angry white men.

I always here white men say, "YOU PEOPLE don’t have the right NOT to be offended?" It almost as if they are saying, "We've been free to insult, demean and embarrass other groups for the last 500 years. How dare you consider infringing on our right to do so?" Is having the right to be inconsiderate of others so important? If so, why?

Could it be that a nuclear weapon is the only gaurantee any nation has of avoiding a US invation? What do you think?

but someone you dont know would die, would you do it?

Based on everything you know today, If you couldnt be a christian any more and had to choose another religion, what would it be and why?

they created Ahmadinejad and Chavez. These DEMOCRATICALLY elected leaders are the progeny of the right’s doctrine of spreading democracy. Why don’t you stop crying and embrace the offspring of your bastardized version of democracy? Because these two are only the first of many that will be democratically elected by nations that hate the US.

the current situation in the middle east is our own fault. I've actually met people who believe that we (the united states) was minding its own business, doing nothing but good in the world when the world trade center was destroyed.

The people in the towers may not have been combatants, but innocent??? Like everyone else in america (including myself) they were certainly complicit.

Why is it so hard to accept the fact that the chickens have come home to roost.

Our government and other conservatives love to imply that we were attacked without cause by people who hate without reason.

But the truth is, WE'VE made our bed. What I don't understand is why so many of us are having so much trouble lying in it.

Nature absolutely abhors a straight line. Nature works to bend, break, block, refract, reflect and skew all manner of lines segments that aspire for straightness. Every one live is familiar with line segment. But no one alive as ever seen a straight line. The purist will argue that y=mx+b is a straight line. This isn't a line. This is the representation of a line. Its a description of something that no one has ever seen. Why do we waist time teaching it to elementary kids?

the universe is curved

What would be his first 3 tasks?

This is a hypothetical question. Not intended in anyway to construed as threatening to any former or SITTING president...

People must believe it because they continue to forward them. How can some people really be that superstitious?

U. N. General Assembly Resolution 181 - This was the worst political decision of the 20th century. This is at the core of the issue. Over the last 60 years thousands of people have lost their lives on both sides as a result. Trying to get people after the fact, to agree to a resolution on which that did not participate is crazy. You can bomb them forever but they are never going to agree because of the way it was initially done. Wouldnt it just be easier to admit that creating Israel was wrong and move forward?

Israel is under attack on two fronts. Im betting that the syrians will soon make it three. With Israel's greatest benifactor, the US, embroiled in two other wars that are stretching its resources thin. With at least half of the us population weary of the current situation, have the arabs assumed the the us has neither the resouces nor the stomach for a wider conflict in Israel. I think they they have figured out that this is the best time to attack Israel. Do you think that they have assumed correctly?