IlliniBob72

And he is viewed as a national hero in Romania. The Vlad story that makes me chuckle is the story about two foreign ambassadors who refused to take their turbans off in his presence as it was against their customs. So he had their turbans nailed to their heads.

I disagree with that 100%. Tell me, what effect did showing the American soldier dragged through the streets of Mogadishu have on the American public? We were out of Somalia within a week or so. Why did English kings put rebels' heads on the posts of London Bridge? As a warning to other rebels as to what their fate will be. Vlad the Impaler create a forest of corpses on Pikes for the Ottomans? Demoralize them. And it worked. I think the intended effectis just the opposite of what you think.

I thought so too. Was kinda getting at taking the sex the way you'd take the car. I wouldn't do it personally, but...

Before I get jumped on, I'm not advocating rape!! I'm thinking strictly in terms of a business transaction.

That's a tough one. If she offers to give the money back, it's definitely rape. If I give a salesman money for a car, then he decides not to give me the keys, do I have the legal right to hotwire the car and drive off with it? Actually, I would have to say just the opposite of the Nevada point. In Nevada, it would be a legal and recognized transaction, therefore she has to give what was paid for. Any place else, a prostitution payment would not be legally recognized, so it would be rape. Of course, good luck proving it was forcible sex. That is what I'd imagine.

I refuse to look at the pictures.

People who would burn, hang, and mutilate corpses don't do so because a newspaper was shut down. If the United States was a conquering power of historical times, Fallujah would be destroyed and salt sown into the soil. I wouldn't protest if that were to happen.

Economic = 0.75 Social = 1.44 Pretty centered, near Gerhart Schroeder.

Well, since it's been thrown out there that people have asked for Apu to be banned and that I have butted heads with him on a few occasions in the past, I feel I need to say that I have never suggested he be banned. And don't worry SS2K, I'll always be here advocating for truth, justice, and the American way. I, too, feel I can see the wrong done by the GOP. I don't understand the uproar about homosexual marriage. Why does anyone care, really? And there are other things that I don't want to waste time listing. I'm a history buff, so I have a hard time getting worked up by what others find outrageous. While others get their undies in a bunch over what they consider a war for oil, I realize that if it were the case (which it isn't), it certainly wouldn't be without historical precedent. Nations have waged wars over economical factors for centuries. Hell, the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor over an oil embargo. Apu also has listed many examples of American interventions in other countries affairs. Again, I yawn at this because I understand that that is what global power politics is all about. It may not be fair or ideal, but it is what it is. Again, it's been going on for centuries. Nations have supported other nations, no matter how odious their leaders or their policies, solely because it benefited themselves. I also believe in the inherent goodness of our leaders. Our worst presidents, like Carter, Hoover, or Buchanan, were guilty of incompetence, not malice. While I believe that Kerry is a jackass, I don't believe that what he wants to do as President is out of mailcious motives. To say that the war waged on Iraq was for the profits of Haliburton is accusing the administration of pure evil. The main characters of the accusation, Cheney and Rumsfeld, have served this country longer than some of us have been alive, and I think such an accusation is unfair and outrageous. If there comes to light incontrovertible (sp?) proof that the war was waged solely for profit, I will join the chorus calling for their ouster. I also try to put myself in the position of having to make the really important decisions. It's easy to sit in a dorm room in 2004 and spout off about how supporting the mujhadeen in Afghanistan in the 1980's was a royal screwup, but how did the idea of letting the Soviets take over Afghanistan unimpeded sound? Would Pakistan or India be next? Or how about letting radical Islamic government spread to Iraq? Then onto Jordan or Saudi Arabia? I try hard not to play Monday Morning Quarterback too often. Well, I'm rambling now and am having a hard time concentrating with the Michigan-Oregon game on right now so I'll wrap this up. Bottom line is that I don't feel I'm a Bush defender as much as a defender of a guy that's doing what he feels is best for the country under unprecedented circumstances. Unless I hear a better gamplan, which I haven't, I will continue to fight what I feel is unfair and really overboard criticism.

Dickie wants to write Volume II?

That's fine. Listen, I am not in favor of wearing a barcode so the feds can keep tabs on me. I just hate seeing a quote thrown around smugly from a guy that lived in a time where the threat to human life was infinitely less than it is now. For example, about 2800 lives were lost on 9/11. How many American lives were lost in combat in the entire Revolutionary War? About 4400. A certain context needs to be added to that quote.

What's your point? I never said things were great then. My point is that the potential for mass murder wasn't as great back then when the most dangerous weapon was a flintlock musket that could get off two shots per minute.

I realize that that quote has become the rage, but with all due respect, I wonder if you would tell that to the widows and children who lost parents on 9/11. I doubt they would find it a sage quote. Also, good old Ben didn't live in the era of airplanes flying into buildings, dirty bombs, or nuclear warheads.

I agree that the Patriot Act, in theory, can be dangerous, But I personally don't understand the hubbub. Just looking for info here, but are Stormtroopers swarming the cities and countryside ramming down doors and dragging people away? I've heard over and over again that we don't have the resources to keep track of illegal aliens and such, but is Average Joe Citizen being dragged from his home in the wee hours and getting wisked off and never heard from again? I just ask because I hear all this angst about the PA, both here and elsewhere, but have never once heard of any abuses of it. I'm not saying it isn't happening, just that I haven't heard of it and am not worried about it. I just kind of think of this as I do about flag burning. People want an amendment forbidding it, but is there an epidemic of people running around burning flags?

What are you talking about? That column is talking about both Clinton's and Bush's administrations, making the same points for each. There is no right or left wing slant to that story. The only reason you would think so is that it doesn't villify your nemesis GWB.

Dubya is no looker, IMO, and isn't a ball of fire personality-wise, but Kerry is death warmed over! He looks like an extra from Dawn of the Dead and has about as much going for him in personality. Maybe he's a great guy when no one is around, but what I've seen makes me wonder why Theresa Heinz couldn't have done better. But I've yet to see her, so maybe she did pretty well for herself.

I am nowhere near rich, but I have never understood the concept that the "rich" are not entitled to as much of the money that they earn that I am. Tex, I think you had said that the bulk of federal taxes came from the middle class. I thought I had heard somewhere that the top 10% pay like 90% of the taxes. If I'm wrong, that's fine, but I am pretty sure it was something like that.

I'm sorry, but where is this coming from? I have never once heard of a soldier or officer refusing to do anything. The military does what the Commander-In-Chief wants it to do. Had the military gone on strike during the Clinton years and I didn't realize it? Has a strike been threatened if Kerry wins the election? If not, lets jump off the treason bridge when we come to it.

I never said it was political. It is wartime policy. The cost of the war is not being hidden. There is no doctoring of casualty reports as happened during Vietnam. You can find out the name of every soldier killed in action. Doing things for the morale of the troops and the people at home has been going on for centuries. s***, in the Civil War actual battles were fought to make up for a disaster or slow going. Progress against Vicksburg was slow going, so they took 30,000 troops and captures Arkansas Post, held by a few thousand. Why? To help morale and make the people at home think progress was being made. Besides, the policy to not televise caskets being unloaded is a policy that predates GWB and was kept in place by Clinton. As for the Vietnam troops being supported, so all I've read about soldiers returning home to being spat upon and called baby killers and such is bulls***? Everything I've read says that the treatment of American soldiers on their return was truly shameful.

No, I don't. I'm sure when a budget is proposed it is based on specific things, i.e. OK 10 new Apache helicopters at $10,000,000 a pop leads to a $X billion budget. I can only assume that Kerry's votes cutting funding was because he felt they were spending too much. Maybe he felt we didn't need so many spies or analysts or maybe he didn't feel we needed to spend $500 for pencil sharpeners, but at any rate, he felt that branch was getting too much money.

No they shouldn't and I've never said they should. But giving the military less money would inevitably lead to not having the same resources, no? I'm sure a cut in welfare benefits, environmental funding, social security benefits, etc. does not get the same "Should they have their own bank account?" question from you. Kerry votes to cut defense spending: Should the military have a blank check? Bush wants to cut education spending: My God, will we ever be rid of this Satanic madman!? But seeing as this thread originally began as a discussion of which candidate is better suited to protecting the United States from her enemies, I'd choose the one that is for increasing defense spending over the one that has historically been for cutting defense spending.

I guarantee you that Abraham Lincoln did not attend 360,000 funerals for soldiers that died fighting for the Union. Bush is in a no-win situation with people that will find any reason to bash him. He is criticized for not attending funerals, and then he was criticized for visiting the soldiers in the warzone. If he attended 25% of the funerals, he'd be ripped for not attending them all. Do I believe that Bush does not care about the sufferings and sacrifices made by our soldiers? Not for a second. There are complaints that we don't get to see the flag-draped coffins being brought back home. My first thought is why do people want to see them? But that's for another time. Can we all agree that looking back on the way the people at home handled the Vietnam War was not good for the country or for the soldiers at the front? Why else would everyone be so adamant that they "support the troops"? Because that didn't happen during Vietnam. Part of the problem with public morale was the fact that the public was constantly bombarded with images of bodybags and coffins. Also, you know damn well that whatever we see here the soldiers will end up seeing there. I can't imagine anything worse for morale.

I was hoping for a win, obviously, but was more fearful of an embarrassing blowout. Last thing the program needed was a 20 point loss on national TV. They put up a great fight. Just needed a few of those open jumpers to fall in the second half and some of those bunnies to drop in the first half. Can someone convince Nick Smith to transfer???

The Big Ten should be pretty strong next year. The Illini and Wolverines will be back intact, Indiana is supposed to have a great recruiting class coming in, and Michigan St. will be good. Is Paul Davis going pro, Steve? Devin Harris will probably go pro though.