LowerCaseRepublican

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detai...=glance&s=books For the Zionists, in the audience. The Nazi era is the most discussed period in history, yet most Jews and other Americans are unaware of the interaction between Zionism and Hitler and Mussolini. The reason is simple and stark: the Zionist record is dishonorable. This book brings to light, through the use of actual historic documents, the disservice that the Zionists did to Jews before and during the Holocaust. Some of these documents were published in English decades ago, but are only now seeing the light of day. Others are being translated into English for the first time. Included are documents from Propaganda Minister Goebbels' newspaper, Der Angriff, detailing an SS-man's visit to Palestine as the Zionists' guest. Readers will also learn about Adolf Eichmann's account of his personal dealings with the Hungarian Zionist Rezsö Kasztner, who was later assassinated in Israel as a Nazi collaborator who betrayed 400,000 Hungarian Jews. Also revealed is pro-Zionist propaganda put out by the Nazis, such as a medal for getting Jews to Palestine and a Nazi board game where the object is to move Jews to Palestine. The documents contained in this book were selected with due care so that a rounded picture of history emerges. The author concludes that Zionism betrayed the Jews; and the evidence that led him to that conclusion is contained in this book. This book shows that the consequences of Zionism demand exposure.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article....RTICLE_ID=30312 WND is traditionally a very conservative leaning paper that agrees with Bush a lot of the time but they usually stick to their traditional Republican guns of smaller government etc. instead of the neo-con ideology. Anyway, if this is true, it's quite a telling tale about Rove and the Bushies.

Rice? From North Korea?

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/internation...1136314,00.html That's the article I was talking about.

According to the Guardian and the Observer (two Labor Party leaning newspapers), the US knew 100% that it would not find any weapons of mass destruction by May. And according to some Brit newspapers, Blair is getting afraid that Bush will put all the WMD blame on him. Definitely a bad time to be a war criminal that lied for the premises for war.

This is the article: Negotiating with terrorists is bargaining with the devil. The Israelis know this, of course, but sometimes they believe they have to. The hazard in doing so, though, surfaced immediately last week in Israel's prisoner exchange with Hezbollah. The terrorists declared victory in winning freedom for 400 Palestinian and 23 Lebanese prisoners and proclaimed a campaign to kidnap Israelis. The next day another terrorist gang, Hamas, said it too would abduct Israelis to gain release of thugs and murderers held in Israeli jails. This would mark a dangerous escalation of the conflict. But history does repeat itself. In 2000, Israel, for its own reasons, withdrew its forces from Lebanon, and Hezbollah declared it had driven them out. The Palestinians bought that nonsense, and Yasser Arafat, who was never interested in a negotiated peace anyway, torpedoed the Camp David summit, rejected the most generous peace offer ever made by Israel and launched the current terrorist war. The best impulses led Prime Minister Ariel Sharon to the prisoner exchange. The bodies of three slain Israeli soldiers were returned. A businessman kidnapped a couple of years ago was freed. And an opening maybe has been secured for getting information about an Israeli flier captured 18 years ago. Still, the prisoner exchange brought no letup in terrorism. Dozens of attacks are attempted daily, but most are foiled. Unfortunately on Thursday a human bomb -- one of Arafat's policemen no less -- exploded on a Jerusalem bus, killing 11 people and wounding 50. Here is blood- stained evidence of why Israel needs to complete the security fence to separate its people, its communities, its buses from the murder and mayhem a sick Palestinian culture exalts. Graphic images of this atrocity will be exhibit A at an international court session set Feb. 23 to hear Palestinian complaints about the fence. The charred, mangled hulk of a bus may also be transported to the Hague. Hopefully this will be persuasive, but it will be swimming against rising European anti-Semitism. The Bush administration has rightly observed that the court has no jurisdiction over measures of self-defense. Sharon plans a trip to Washington to try to win President Bush's support for his plan to disengage unilaterally from the Palestinians if they don't -- and Arafat won't -- root out terrorism and negotiate in good faith. We don't know the details of what he will propose. But given the lessons of dealing with Hezbollah, we wouldn't be surprised to hear Sharon say that disengagement doesn't mean an end to Israeli army operations in the disputed territories. For the simple truth is that a unilateral pullback behind the security fence would be seized by Palestinian radicals to claim an Israeli retreat and defeat. Such is the lure of self-delusion in the Palestinian world, but, as Thursday's bombing demonstrates, it is a delusion the Israelis can't allow to stand. ---- My commentary: This article has quite the Zionist slant. The Int'l Criminal Court should have jurisdiction over these events. The only reason Bush got out was so he could invade Iraq. The article claims that what Israel is doing is "self defense". However, this is not the case. Since 1967, Israel has maintained tens of thousands of heavily armed troops outside its borders for the purposes of stealing land from the Palestinians and forcing them to live as non-citizens under a foreign military dictatorship. Seized Palestinian land has been used to build Jewish-only settlements linked by a network of Jewish-only roads, in flagrant violation of UN Security Council Resolutions and the Fourth Geneva Convention. This colonization is, and can only be, carried out by the violent suppression of any and all Palestinian resistance to the occupation. Throughout the years of the "peace process" during the 1990s, Israel continued to construct settlements, doubling the number of settlers in the West Bank from about 100,000 to 200,000 according to the Israeli group "Peace Now." At least 34 new settlements have been built since Sharon took office. The settlement colonization policy is, and can only be carried out by the violent suppression of any and all Palestinian resistance to the occupation. Throughout the years of the "peace process" Israel continued to construct settlements, doubling the number of settlers according to the Israeli group "Peace Now." The entire international community has recognized that Israel's military occupation must end, and that its continuation, along with the settlement policy, and the massive repression they entail is a guarantee of continued bloodshed. Israel's brutal actions in the occupied territories are designed to consolidate and entrench the occupation and expand Israeli colonization, and are therefore, by definition, not defensive in nature. As for Arafat claiming he doesn't want peace, perhaps the author didn't see these: On Palestinian TV, on 28 March 2002, at 20:08 GMT, Arafat stated in Arabic: "On this occasion, I would like once again to reiterate our condemnation of yesterday's operation in Netanya, in which a number of innocent Israeli civilians were killed and wounded. This operation constitutes a deviation from our policy and a violation of our national and human values. I affirm our commitment to working toward an immediate cease-fire, as we informed General Zinni. We highly value his efforts. We informed him that we are ready for the immediate implementation of the Tenet's work plan without conditions, and without prejudicing any of its articles. Also, we have informed him of our readiness to implement the Mitchell Report recommendations in cooperation with the four-way US-Russian-European-UN committee headed by Gen. Zinni." On December 16, 2001, in a speech on the occasion of Id al-Fitr in Ramallah (Gaza Palestine Satellite Channel Television, in Arabic, on 16 December 2001 at 16:00 GMT) Arafat stated in Arabic: "Today, I emphasize once again the complete and immediate halt to all armed operations. Once again, I call for a complete halt to all operations, especially suicidal operations, which we have always condemned. We will punish all those who carry out and mastermind such operations. This also applies to the firing of mortar shells, which have no objective but to provide an excuse for the Israeli attacks on us, our people, our children, and our women. Any violation of this decision will be considered an attempt to harm the higher national interests of our people and of our Arab nation." Israel and its supporters claim that while Palestinian suicide bombers deliberately target Israeli civilians, Israel tries to avoid harming Palestinian civilians and that those who have died are "collateral damage." Hence, they argue, there is no moral equivalence between the killing of civilians by Israel and Palestinians. This defies both common sense and all the available evidence. On the one hand, Israel wants us to believe that 400 of its own civilians were deliberately targeted, while more than three times as many dead Palestinians all somehow just got in the way of what Israel claims is its humane and disciplined army. It is, in essence, an argument that 1,500 people all died by accident. Every human rights group that has examined Israel's practices has documented systematic and deliberate use of violence targeted at unarmed Palestinian civilians by Israeli forces. Physicians for Human Rights USA which investigated the high number of Palestinian deaths and injuries in the first months of the Intifada, concluded that: "the pattern of injuries seen in many victims did not reflect IDF [israel Defense Forces] use of firearms in life-threatening situations but rather indicated targeting solely for the purpose of wounding or killing." [source: PHR USA, 22 November 2000] This finding was based on "the totality of the evidence" the investigators collected about: "the high number of gunshots to the head; the volume of serious, disabling thigh injuries; the inappropriate firing of rubber bullets and rubber-coated steel bullets at close range; and the high proportion of Palestinian injuries and deaths." The findings of Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch confirm this pattern. Israeli human rights group B'Tselem has documented and condemned the targeted use of violence against Palestinian civilians and has found evidence of systematic torture of thousands of Palestinian detainees, including children. What has been confirmed by human rights groups has also been observed directly by journalists. What has been confirmed by human rights groups has also been observed directly by journalists. In October 2001, Harper's magazine published the "Gaza Diary" of journalist Chris Hedges. Hedges' entry for June 17, 2001 provides even more shocking evidence of the wanton and deliberate killing of Palestinian children by Israeli soldiers at Gaza's Khan Yunis refugee camp. Hedges writes: "I sit in the shade of a palm-roofed hut on the edge of the dunes, momentarily defeated by the heat, the grit, the jostling crowds, the stench of the open sewers and rotting garbage. A friend of Azmi's brings me, on a tray, a cold glass of tart, red carcade juice." "Barefoot boys, clutching kites made out of scraps of paper and ragged soccer balls, squat a few feet away under scrub trees. Men in flowing white or gray galabias -- homespun robes -- smoke cigarettes in the shade of slim eaves. Two emaciated donkeys, their ribs protruding, are tethered to wooden carts with rubber wheels." "It is still. The camp waits, as if holding its breath. And then, out of the dry furnace air, a disembodied voice crackles over a loudspeaker." ""Come on, dogs," the voice booms in Arabic. "Where are all the dogs of Khan Younis? Come! Come!"" "I stand up. I walk outside the hut. The invective continues to spew: "Son of a b****!" "Son of a whore!" "Your mother's c***!"" "The boys dart in small packs up the sloping dunes to the electric fence that separates the camp from the Jewish settlement. They lob rocks toward two armored jeeps parked on top of the dune and mounted with loudspeakers. Three ambulances line the road below the dunes in anticipation of what is to come." "A percussion grenade explodes. The boys, most no more than ten or eleven years old, scatter, running clumsily across the heavy sand. They descend out of sight behind a sandbank in front of me. There are no sounds of gunfire. The soldiers shoot with silencers. The bullets from the M-16 rifles tumble end over end through the children's slight bodies. Later, in the hospital, I will see the destruction: the stomachs ripped out, the gaping holes in limbs and torsos." "Yesterday at this spot the Israelis shot eight young men, six of whom were under the age of eighteen. One was twelve. This afternoon they kill an eleven-year-old boy, Ali Murad, and seriously wound four more, three of whom are under eighteen. Children have been shot in other conflicts I have covered -- death squads gunned them down in El Salvador and Guatemala, mothers with infants were lined up and massacred in Algeria, and Serb snipers put children in their sights and watched them crumple onto the pavement in Sarajevo -- but I have never before watched soldiers entice children like mice into a trap and murder them for sport." There can be no doubt that Israeli troops have been targeting innocent Palestinian civilians for death from the beginning of the uprising. This understanding was also reflected in UN Security Council Resolution 1322, passed on October 7, 2000, which: "Condemns acts of violence, especially the excessive use of force against Palestinians, resulting in injury and loss of human life." In making the moral superiority claim, Israel's apologists are either shamelessly denying the irrefutable evidence cited above and are simply lying, or they are asserting that some forms of murder are morally superior to other forms of murder.

Kucinich 100% Sharpton Kerry Dean Clark Edwards Lieberman Bush 3% See, you guys can no longer say I don't agree with Bush on anything because I obviously do if it scored 3%

"They hate us because of our freedoms? George, no they don't. They just want us to stop f***ing with them. They're not jealous. f***, they're not jealous. The US is like that fat, unwashed whore on Ricki Lake who is like 'You're just jealous!'" --Doug Stanhope

Well, he's been painted in the media as the angry anti-war candidate. And we all know how the majority of America doesn't read newspapers but rather watches the drivel of O'Reilly Factor and other talking heads of the mainstream press. So, I know he's been talking about other issues, just the majority of Americans doesn't think so since they haven't been notified via the mainstream media. Or as the Daily Show put it yesterday, "Dean is no longer the angry guy. He's the creepy guy. He's the weird uncle everybody tries to avoid at family reunions."

I think Dean just need to start bowing out. In a lot of the polls done in Iowa, New Hampshire and the states coming up in Super Tuesday, more people are concerned with the economy & health care than the war which the Bush adminstration is not really addressing. And I think Dean might be suited for another job (see my signature)

I just find it amusing that everybody is b****ing about Russia and France possibly giving weapons to Iraq when we're fighting the war about how underhanded it is...yet we did the exact same thing in the 1980s when Russia was fighting in Afghanistan giving Osama and the Moujhadeen weapons, money and training. If we get to do stuff like that and think it's alright, then why is it so underhanded that other countries do the exact same thing? And hey, I could even go all the way back to WW II and discuss how guys like Henry Ford built tanks for the Nazis and the Allies.

I guess they ran out of the stuff stamped MADE IN THE USA And YASNY, none of my left wing sources have an owner who claims to be the Messiah like Mr. Moon does. So there's a bit of a difference.

Can we really trust a notoriously right wing newspaper run by the Moonies? Just saying is all. David Brock worked for them for years and goes into much detail about how it's a very biased paper. Just saying...I mean, it could very well be true, but I tend to doubt the information from a source owned by a guy who thinks he is the Messiah.

My new signature. Woot.

I've been called a lot of things before but never that.

It's by Thomas Friedman, so I'm ready for a pretty conservative slant to the subject.

That reminds me of the episode of The Apprentice where the black woman made a snide remark about another person and this girl said "It's the pot calling the kettle black." and the black woman railed about it being a racist remark.

She's saying that what he does in his life is his business and it's not yours. If you disapprove of non-procreational sex then please, condemn all couples that cannot have children due to medical problems. Or elderly couples that fall in love but are past menopause. Or couples that do not want children. If you are going to assert the false premise that she wants everyone to be gay, then you, sir, might want to make an appointment with a proctologist so they can find your head. I don't hear you railing against Sylvester Stallone for making pornography films. Is that because you have a double standard about sex or you're just a homophobe?

The guy making a sex tape in college isn't any of ESPN's business or anybody's business. There are certain aspects of personal life that need to be kept from the scutinous media spotlight. Now, if he pulled a Ray Carruth and killed his girlfriend so he wouldn't have to pay child support then I could see all the hoopla over it. Hell, the guy did this in college. I'm sure most MLB players have interesting, to say the least, stories about their exploits in college. The media just needs to go back to what it's best at: covering Michael Jackson and shark attacks.

Commissioned by President Nixon in 1972, the National Commission on Marihuana and Drug Abuse concluded that "Marihuana's relative potential for harm to the vast majority of individual users and its actual impact on society does not justify a social policy designed to seek out and firmly punish those who use it. This judgment is based on prevalent use patterns, on behavior exhibited by the vast majority of users and on our interpretations of existing medical and scientific data. This position also is consistent with the estimate by law enforcement personnel that the elimination of use is unattainable." And modern science has just shown more medicinal usages for marijuana that make this entire war a complete failure of federal funds.

Same can be said with ignorant conservatives. Just change the labels to "tree huggers", "dirty hippies", et al. There are knee-jerk reactionaries on both sides. Unfortunately, they are the ones that are popular (i.e. Hannity, O'Reilly, Moore, Coulter, etc.) Unfortunately this makes the ones like Joe Conason and Ron Paul drowned out from the political debate on television. But hey, America and the Constitution, in the words of Madison is to "protect the minority of the opulent from the majority." (This was after the 1787 Shays' Rebellion...the anniversary of which was Sunday, I believe)

I think given the time to read it and everything there would have been more opposition. But in the weeks after 9/11, sanity wasn't something on the menu.

Well, firstly...the language of the Patriot Act doesn't say exactly what it's going to do. The majority of it is just things like "Removal of subsection © of..." and lots of other jargon. It's the main reason that nobody read the bill when they voted on it because even if they sat down to do so, they couldn't unless they had a bunch of other laws on hand to refer to. And honestly, do you think Bush reads? I mean he has his reports READ TO HIM. As Mark Twain said, "Loyalty to the country always. Loyalty to the government only when it deserves it."

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles...tensive?mode=PF What are the first words that come into your head when you hear the word "Republicans?" For me it has to be "ethics" and "integrity." Don't you agree? Sure you do. So I expect you will be shocked - shocked - to learn that the GOP have been up to some very dirty tricks in the Senate for the better part of a year. Apparently members of the Senate Judiciary Committee Republican staff exploited a glitch in the Senate's computer system which allowed them to access "restricted Democratic communications," according to the Boston Globe. Yup, while they were out there preaching morality and responsibility, behind the scenes the GOP were breaking into their opponents' computer systems and as well as simply stealing files were "monitoring secret strategy memos and periodically passing on copies to the media." How ethical. The impropriety goes all the way up to Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, who had one of his servers impounded last week as part of an investigation into the GOP's backdoor shenanigans. Their defense? They say a computer technician told the Democrats of the glitch back in the summer of 2002 and they did nothing. The Democrats say they weren't informed until November 2003, but it's kind of a moot point. Are the GOP really suggesting that if I tell my neighbor his back door is unlocked and he doesn't lock it, it's okay for me walk in and steal all his furniture? Yup, whenever I hear the word "Republicans", I immediately think of ethics and integrity - and their complete and utter lack of either.

I've been told that, with glasses on, I look sorta like Rivers Cuomo (lead singer of Weezer) or some pictures of Orlando Bloom when he has really short hair (since my hair is usually really short)