Comment history

Hamas tries to drag Israel into a trap

just another bozo:Where'd you find that definition of terrorism? Seems as though, given that rather loose definition, it could include almost any nation with a military...Maybe we should caveat that with, "... except for American action..."Remember: One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter."I think violent acts of the most heinous and indirect (therefore COWARDLY) sort (i.e. 9-11) should be considered terrorism, as repurcussions are so difficult to deliver...

January 18, 2009 at 9:56 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Hamas tries to drag Israel into a trap

As you can see, the government is providing welfare not just to the poor and lazy (which is NOT to say that about 5% of these recipients do merit temporary aid...) domestically, but also the hostile and unnecessary overseas!?! That's just great.All or none, folks.

January 17, 2009 at 7:36 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

2nd defendant convicted in Bonner Springs murder case

The death penalty, however, does NOT drive down the crime rate.Besides, do you really think a judge or jury or any other social group should have any say over whether a supposed perp lives or dies? Let God sort them out; let the surviving family members have a say; hell, just about anything would work better. Public mutilation may not be humane, but after the cruel and unusual do the cruel and unusual, what do they deserve?Don't get me wrong: I understand desperation... but I stand by personal accountability.

January 17, 2009 at 2:23 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Stabbing conviction brings probation

Hmmm... a 32-year-old at a bar with a knife and the lack of foresight to consider that he MIGHT be a little too old for a bar fight, and that there MIGHT JUST BE consequences for STABBING another person in the abdomen...I don't suppose that's any more difficult than attempting to comprehend a judge that would permit a would-be killer (Silly me! I guess I'm of the opinion that stabbing a person in the guts = attempted murder!) stay on the streets with the ethereal slap on the wrist!

January 17, 2009 at 2:10 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Hamas tries to drag Israel into a trap

Let's face it: You've many groups and nationalities that have been fighting for centuries over there, rallying for the upper hand, each insisting that its social regime (whether legel, religious, or otherwise) is the one, and imposing it against all in near-enough proximity!How IS this EVER going to end? Brain-washed folks? Probably no more than folks here... Only over there, dying for a cause, no matter how poorly we understand it, seems fairly popular. Who says it's America's place to get involved at all?

January 17, 2009 at 1:57 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Real Bush got lost in presidency

Reminds me of the man who's having a hard time with depression, and goes to see a wise man. Hearing the man's complaints of poverty and downtrodden times, the wiseman says, "This shall pass."Two months later, the man is overwhelmed with happiness. His perspective and attitude has changed, and he couldn't believe he was ever so down in the dumps. He goes back to the wiseman to share his rejoicing. "This, too, shall pass," said the wiseman.uhadmeatsmellthis (I LOVE that name, by the way!), when you have people thinking that Obama is going to pay their mortgages for them (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P36x8r...), and others that voted Obama in for his pro-life, pro-war, Palin-as-VP stances (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GqAiar...), one really has to ask, WHAT THE HELL?I pose this question: What's the difference between duty and responsibility? I think it's this: It is one's DUTY to vote; but it's one's responsibility to vote WELL. Let me further my thought by saying this: Voting on someone based on a demographic (including their political affiliation) is faulty reasoning. I can't tell people which way to vote, and I WON'T tell them how to use their vote... but when you have people voting FOR AND AGAINST a man based on the color of his skin... that's just absurd...

January 17, 2009 at 8:57 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Real Bush got lost in presidency

Aah, I see your thoughts are more aligned with mine than I thought...Honestly, it was kind of a toss up come voting day: Does on vote to the right or the left, or vote for one of the better but less-likely-to-have-a-chance-of-winning-AT-ALL candidates... and run the extremely likely risk of wasting a vote?That's the thing: Any candidate put forward by either the R or D party is likely to be an extremist, despite the fact that a moderate would probably appeal to the greater number of voters... so a third option would be nice. But with THREE candidates, a close race would still leave about 2/3 of the voters unsatisfied.Oh, what to do? If only a liberal Republican or conservative Democrat would step forward AND garner the support of his (or her) respective party!

January 17, 2009 at 8:20 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Real Bush got lost in presidency

I wonder what Beobachter would've said to President Truman? Would he have applauded the saving of hundreds of thousands of American lives, despite the more than 200 thousand Japanese deaths?Concerning the American deaths in Iraq, the numbers are considerably lower than those in Viet Nam, Korea, World War II, World War I... Need I go back any further? Was Saddam NOT a turd to be flushed? Fact is, Saddam Hussein was a threat to justice; the majority of Iraqis are HAPPY to have us there (in fact, they're as ungrateful for the (essentially) welfare as our own indignantly unabashed DOMESTIC leeches, so well are they treated that they EXPECT the US government to do everything for them); and the majority of US deaths in Iraq have been linked to Al Qaeda or other "terrorist" idiots.I will say this, however: America just can't win. We're damned if we do, we're damned if we don't. If we attempt to "help" another country, we're "butting in" and "pushing" Americanism on that country (Serbia, for example, is VERY pissed); if we DON'T attempt anything in order to help, we're "remiss of our obligation". It sucks.But, then, isn't that always the way? Many a person wants the Government to stay out of his or her personal business UNTIL he or she needs the Government to fix a personal problem he or she caused!Luckily, Americans against the wars have learned their lesson (in Viet Nam), and won't be spitting on returning veterans this time around.I do wonder, however, how many folks would have appreciated and respected George W. Bush if he had said something to the tune of, "We're going over in an attempt to keep close contact with another significant fuel source," or "We wish to expand and solidify our reach in the Mid-East." Should we take on the stance of neutrality, like Switzerland? They don't pick sides, their economy is flourishing...C'mon, already! Everyone likes to talk in absolutes! Shall it be ALL... or NONE?

January 16, 2009 at 11:13 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Real Bush got lost in presidency

Jonas Opines, ever hear of the War Powers Resolution? I've heard (in the past, of course) that this was a means for Congress to absolve itself of blame in the event of the President declaring war. HOWEVER, even then, Congress has the ability to STOP this action. See my previous comment regarding their permission for similar action in 2002. It is not my attempt to blame (or absolve of blame) W... however, it is not reasonable to blame only him, which so many are doing without reason or thought SIMPLY BECAUSE IT IS THE POPULAR THING TO DO.Just don't be surprised if Obama isn't popular in four years... just as it shouldn't surprise you that there are folks that voted for him even though they had no idea what his stance was on things:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GqAiarOhC2U.

January 16, 2009 at 9:33 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Real Bush got lost in presidency

Anyone who solely blames President George W. Bush for the war in Iraq is giving in to pop culture. Political morons like Eminem and Sean Penn have charisma, to be sure... but they don't have much in the way of personal accountability when it comes to wielding this charisma...Face facts: the President only has so much power, which is to say, there isn't much he can do that Congress can't veto... and Congress may not have "Yes! YES!! GO INTO IRAQ!"... but being complacent has the same effect as being supportive... so why not blame Congress, too? The entire Republican Party?If YOU want to hold people responsible, you could ALSO blame the voting public, who elected W into his SECOND term in '04. Blame the common American for actually thinking going into Iraq was a GREAT idea in 2003. Again, blame Congress for (according to some sources: http://www.fas.org/man/crs/RL32267.html) actually saying "Aye!" to this in 2002.Heck, if you really think he was all to blame, SURE, BLAME W! BUT, if you're jumping on the bandwagon because you're an unquestioning liberal or democrat (the two descriptions ARE potentially mutually exclusive), and suffering from identity foreclosure (the unquestioning compliance with one's parents or social group), please, start thinking for yourself, you crazy, self-loathing sycophant!

January 16, 2009 at 9:27 a.m. ( | suggest removal )