There is actually quite a bit of basic scientific evidence that supports this theory. But I can understand that is your view since science education in America sucks pretty bad.
I understand that since you are a non-believer. Unless you ever know God and his truth, I would not expect you to understand trying to uphold his laws.
Is government supposed to represent us? Do the people of any city or town, whose money funds all government buildings, have rights to those buildings? I think they do, and that if the public wishes to have the 10 commandments on a building, they should be allowed. It's their building. Unless you can find something so horrible in the them, I don't see what the problem is.
You are basically saying that a Hindu might be offended by "you shall not murder?" Or don't lie? Or don't commit adultery? Is there something unfair about these? Don't steal?
As I've said before, our economy is growing. When Clinton left, it was in recession. This is established fact. So you might have 'felt' the economy was better under him, but in reality, it is better under Bush.
Like I said, it was the republicans in 1994, that curtailed over spending, and held the democrats in check. And in case you missed it, the democrats passed massive over spending bills. How can you entirely blame Bush for things the democrats passed? Can I blame you for things Shaman said? Or perhaps blame Obama for Fannie Mae failing, when it was Franklin Raines who drove it into the ground?
There is no indication that the intel was bad. Both the rockefeller report, and the post-war Iraq commission, both indicate that the unconventional weapons were moved, or destroyed without being told. Even the UN had a report from UNSCOM that they were concerned that the WMDs were not recovered. How could they be concerned about things the American left claims never existed?
Further, Iraq did buy uranium from Niger, as stated. This was not made up, and it was widely supported. Iraq had purchased uranium from Niger before. See, you bought into some left wing lies. They are not true when you simply do some research on the topic.
This is true. The administration did claim that it would be a quick and clear cut defeat. I grant you that. The people in charge were looking at the short term victory over Saddam. The troops were demoralized. The public fed up. His internal chain of command, ready to give up at a moments notice. In 2003, prior to the war starting, a group of Iraqi military heard some explosions, and assuming the war had started, marched to a British bunker and surrendered. The Brits sent them back, because they were not ready.
From this angle, the administration was absolutely correct. The war against Saddam was over in one month. However, what the administration misjudged was the post-saddam iraq. The power vacuum was not filled by a quickly formed remains of the government. Instead everyone was at a loss as to the next step, and infighting sprang up. To complicate matters, Iran and Al Qaeda began pushing their influence.
That said, taking out Saddam was clearly and obviously a needed thing. Clinton said it had to be done, but didn't have the guts to do it. All the democrat leadership said the same. Hillary said the same. Bush said the same. The other nations said the same. Again, you have to assume the half the planet was lying, in order to claim it was all made up. Well... it just wasn't. Sorry.
Which is why it is so important that we keep at it. That's the whole point. We can't pull out before the mission is complete. If we leave before they are able to stand, they will fall, and then not only will we have made a mockery of all those who died for this cause, but we also will have doomed the entire country which will not forgive our treachery for leaving them high and dry.
Well let's see.... When Obama first heard about us going to Iraq, he was against it. Then when we captured Saddam, and the people were dancing in the streets at his capture, and the rest of his government had been killed or fled the country... he was for it. Now that his parties base is against the war, he's against it and demands a time table for withdrawal. When his polls showed he was losing on the issue, now he just wants a specific plan for leaving Iraq.
Point being... Obama has taken a number of stands on this issue, to align with whatever is the most politically advantageous. When it will benefit him to be for it, he's for it. When it will benefit him to be against it, he's against it. When a time table gains political points, he'll support it. When a time table will lose him points, he's against it.
So yes... I question his patriotism. Especially when he came from a church saying "g-d damn America". If that offends you, sorry, but I have good clean documented evidence for my views, and I stand by them.
Well, I hate to tell you this... but I know many democrats who actually believe being unpatriotic is a plus. To some it's a badge of honor. Now, apparently you do not. I respect that. But the fact is, there are many democrats who actually hate the USA and what it stands for. They hate the things that made America great. They support the enemies of the US.
I'm sorry you are being lumped into that group by republicans, but if you had heard half the things I've been accused of, being called unpatriotic is the least insulting. That isn't to minimize it to you, just maybe you should see what leftist call republicans.
