I have guns from my great grand father from a time when it was 2nd nature to kill for food. Now its no longer nessasary for us to kill for food (most of us) well if you got a CTD Id say all of us.

But its not the fact of shooting something that makes it enjoyable its the thrill of the hunt doing it like your gran pappy did you can feel those old roots taking hold when your pearched up next to a tree and you hear a wrussle in the bushes. its enjoying just the fact of being in the wilderness hearing the trees sway and little critters running around its the only real good thing thats left from the old days and when its threatend then people stand tall and make it known YOULL NEVER TAKE OUR GUNS........EVER .

PERSONAL PROTECTION is mearly a plea of what lays beyond the trees.

 

There are many reasons why americans feel the need to own firearms. Could be because this country was started by people who took up arms against what they thought was a tyrant. The people who wrote the constitution obviously felt it was important. Could be because we see other countries banning firearms, and don't want that happening here. Could be because the people who want to outlaw guns don't, and have never realized that you can outlaw every gun in america, but the bad guys will still have their illegal-gotten guns. Could be that many people have been around guns their entire life. Not people in L.A. or New York, but country people. Their great grand father had guns, they grandfather had guns, their father had guns, now they have guns, but now guns are supposed to be bad. Guns are ingrained in our society. Not as bad, murderous things, but as a good part of life, not negative.

 

Interesting story:

http://apnews.myway.com//article/200...D85J2MG80.html

 

Was this a mistake or was it deliberate?



Friday, October 8, 2004

COUNTDOWN TO ELECTION DAY
Prophecy? AP story
'reports' GOP sweep
TV news websites post test article announcing Bush victory

An Associated Press "test" article declaring President Bush the winner of the 2004 election and a Republican majority in the House and Senate was posted on the websites of at least five television stations yesterday, prompting calls from confused readers.

The article, bearing an AP copyright, had all indications it was a real story on the sites of KVOA in Arizona, KAIT in Arkansas, WBOC in Delaware, WBAY in Wisconsin and WQAD in Illinois.


Twenty-six days before the general election, the story on WBAY's site, under the motto "Coverage you can count on," read:


At this hour, President Bush has won re-election as president by a 47 percent to 43 percent margin in the popular vote nationwide. Ralph Nader has 1 percent of the vote nationwide. That's with 51 percent of the precincts reporting.
Bush has won 324 electoral votes in 33 states. He is leading in 4 states for a total of 43 more electoral votes.

Kerry has won 105 electoral votes in 8 states and the District of Columbia. He is leading in 5 states for a total of 48 more electoral votes.

Nader has not won any state and is not currently leading in any state.

In the 435 U.S. House races, the Republicans have won 173 seats and are leading in the races for 56 seats. The Democrats have won 145 seats and are leading in the races for 56 seats. Independent and other party candidates have won or are leading for 3 seats. If these trends continue, the Republicans will retain control of the House.

In the 34 races for the U.S. Senate, the Republicans have won 14 seats and are leading in the races for 4 seats. The Democrats have won 13 seats and are leading in the races for 3 seats. Independent and other party candidates have won or are leading for 1 seat. If these trends continue, the Republicans will retain control of the Senate and will gain 3 seats.

Later, WBAY-TV issued a correction, stating: "President Bush Did Not Win Election on October 7."

The station said the test article was picked up by WBAY.com's automated system.

"The headline of the AP story did not bear that all-important word for the automated filters ... 'test,'" the station said.

 

France is at it again - attacking America.

Chirac warns of risk from U.S. culture
Agence France-Presse Thursday, October 7, 2004
HANOI President Jacques Chirac of France warned Thursday of a catastrophe for global diversity if the United States' cultural leadership goes unchallenged.
.
Speaking at a French cultural center in Hanoi before the opening Friday of a summit meeting of European and Asian leaders, Chirac said France was right to stand up for cultural and linguistic diversity.
.
The French president warned that the world's different cultures could be "choked" by U.S. values.
.
This, he said, would lead to a "general world subculture" based around the English language. This, he maintained, would be "a real ecological catastrophe."
.
Citing Hollywood's overwhelming leadership in the movie industry as an example, Chirac asserted that only with government assistance could countries maintain their cultural heritage..
.
.
Vietnam is a former French colony, but only 375,000 of its 81 million people speak French. English is considered by most people a far more valuable and practical second language, particularly among those in business. HANOI President Jacques Chirac of France warned Thursday of a catastrophe for global diversity if the United States' cultural leadership goes unchallenged.

 

Kerry’s ‘U.S. Allies’ Myth

Whence cometh these ‘allies’ that John Kerry bases his hope for alliances that will ‘help us’ end the terrorist threat and make us more secure at home? Not to mention his assurances that these same ‘mythical allies’ will rush to his aid and leap into Iraqi war with him.

Will it be France and Germany? These two countries had sweetheart illegal deals with Saddam Hussein under the cloak of the ‘Oil for Food Program.’ They also sold Saddam Hussein military weapons and technology right up until the time our troops invaded—knowing full well that they would be used against us.

We have also discovered that at this moment, Germany is selling hardware and technology to Iran that can be adapted to help them quickly advance in the their quest for nuclear ballistic missiles. U.S. official for arms control, John Bolton “sharply criticized Germany for trading with Iran, which Washington suspects of covertly developing nuclear weapons.”

Or per chance Kerry is counting upon the U.N. to become stalwart allies of the U.S. Maybe for the first time in it’s history the U.N. will actually help us in our fight to enforce U.N. resolutions and to dethrone villainous dictators.

Kerry appears to place boundless hope upon the intervention of the U.N. in our cause. But he should remember that it was the Kofi-Anan-led-U.N. that allowed illegal deals with Saddam Hussein under the “Oil for Food Program.”

In fact, Kofi Anan’s son allegedly made millions of dollars administering this program, which enriched Saddam, helped him circumvent the effects of U.N. sanctions and never helped the average Iraqi.

In fact, this is the main reason these ‘would-be-Kerry-allies’ did not want to invade Iraq in the first place. They did not want to loose the money, nor have it revealed what they had done.

Well, let's see now – maybe Mr. Kerry is counting on China to come to our aide. Intelligence is now documenting that China is one of the worst offenders in supplying hardware and technology to aide rogue nations in developing nuclear weapons. We have evidence that they did help Libya and now Iran.

Or maybe Kerry is referring to Pakistan. President Pervez Musharraf is already helping us to the extent that he can. He has nearly been assassinated for his help to us several times. And the father of the Pakistani nuclear weapons, Dr. Abdul Qadeer Khan, is one of the worst offenders in passing on nuclear technology to Muslim nations – including Iran.

The Christian Science Monitor reported, “Khan confessed to sharing nuclear technology with Iran, Libya, and North Korea in a 12-page document presented to President Pervez Musharraf, according to a briefing given by government officials to Pakistani media in Islamabad.”

As for Jordan, Egypt, et al. No Muslim country would ever join us in a coalition to bring in Democracy to another Muslim nation. That threatens all Muslim regimes because none of them are democracies. Islam sees Democracy as a threat to the Islamic faith, which has an entirely contrary concept of government that is based on the Koran.

Mr Kerry cannot expect much help from Russia. They have their hands full trying to deal with Chechnya. Besides, they furnished most of the Muslim world with the weapons we now face. And Russia is the backbone of the nuclear program in Iran. They sold Iran almost anything they wanted to get the hard currency they desperately needed.

So who of any consequence is left? The rest of the nations in the EU are not going to be of any help, even if they were willing.

President George W. Bush put together the best coalition possible, given the current world attitude. The United Kingdom, Spain, Poland, Italy and Australia joined in with us in a brave gesture of support.

But since Mr Kerry has called them, “the coalition of the coerced and the bribed", he is not likely to get very enthusiastic support from them. Nor will he be able to get much support from the courageous interim Iraqi Prime Minister Allawi, whom he branded as “a puppet of the Bush administration.”

I pray that Americans wake up and stop buying into style and sound bites without critically analyzing whether the things being promised are true, much less possible.

Mr Kerry is promising to do things that buy into the hopes of Americans to get things done the easy way without sacrifice. He even contradicted himself several times within the debate, but because he was promising what people want to hear – most didn’t even notice.

Leadership that shifts with the winds of what is popular to promise at the moment will not stand up under the rigors of dangerous realities that require steadfastness and courage when the going gets tough.

May God save America.

Author: By: Hal Lindsey

 

Ya know, for a guy who doesn't live in this country, you sure post a lot about it. Might I add that maybe you troll a little bit as well? I'm not sure why you post all of this stuff unless you like strong reactions. It doesn't make sense to me. You seem to be more worried about what happens here then where you live.

I'm not trying to be insulting, but I am curious.

 

I post about America because I am worried about her survival. Sure, some of my posts get some strong reactions but all I am trying to do is wake some of the Americans up that are blind to what is happening to your wonderful country. I DO NOT want to see America the Great sliding down like it is and gathering speed daily.
As my political posts appear to be offending so many of you perhaps I should just lay low and watch from a distance with a heavy heart.

 

I'm not offended. Just wondering the purpose. You're fine.

 

Hang in there Stan!

Some of the stuff you find is enlightening to a conservative like me.

CR

 

I'm conservative too, but I'm just curious. Do you worry about the country you live in this much as well?

 

I AM worried about some of the things happening here as well, but can't do much about it. All I can do is talk privately to some of the locals and attempt to educate them re the garbage some of them are being fed politically. I also teach conversational English part time to executives in local international companies and it is amazing how some of them have believed the past garbage. When I show them actual facts about some of the things happening here there is often a sense of anger at how they have been hoodwinked for years by the past politicians. This country is starting to change and many of the changes, although slow, are for the better.

 

Sorry to post so many things one after the other, but I have been too busy all week to do much on DTR except read a few things here and there. (Hey! What's that huge sigh of relief I hear from so many of my worthy opponents) I have a little time today and have been catching up on my reading, hence the many consecutive posts on this thread. Sure hope that some of these are of some interest to a few of you. Here is another somewhat thought provoking story I have just read:

On Iraq, It's Important to Ask the Right Questions
By David Horowitz
FrontPageMagazine.com | October 8, 2004

A favorite slogan of the antiwar crowd is, “War is not the answer.” Yet everyone, except extreme pacifists would agree that whether war is in fact the answer depends on the question. In some contexts, war is the answer.

The same may be said for the two questions that dominate the current presidential campaign. Are we safer now than we were on 9/11? Was the war in Iraq a mistake? Supporters of President Bush will answer yes to the first and no to the second; supporters of Senator Kerry will take the opposite view.

As a supporter of the war and of the president, I have noticed a common omission in the arguments of the naysayers: This is their failure to look at the side of the equation that our enemies control.

Defending Senator Kerry’s contention that this was “the wrong war, in the wrong place, at the wrong time,” William Saletan writes in a recent Slate.com: “How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake? That’s what it all comes down to – this debate, this war, this election.”

As Saletan shows, it’s easy to argue – if one looks simply at the costs of the war and at its present status – that it was. The war has not been won. A thousand Americans, and many more Iraqis have died. Iraq is a mess. The price tag for the mess is $200 billion. How can it not have been a mistake?

This calculation, however, omits two crucial ledger columns: the cost of having not fought the war at all and the gains that can be achieved by continuing the war until it is won.

If we had not invaded Iraq, Saddam Hussein would still be in power; Abu Musab al-Zarqawi would be in command of an al-Qaeda army in northern Iraq; the UN’s, 17th resolution ordering Saddam to comply or else would have been successfully defied, the largest chemical weapons factory in the Third World, in Libya, would still be humming along with an advanced nuclear weapons plant (both now shut down). And what would the forces of terror – the Zarqawis and Zawahiris – be doing in the face of another toothless appeasement by the world community? That, of course, is the question that Saletan and Kerry – and those who agree with them – cannot answer.

To be fair, they have made a stab at one. In the first presidential debate Kerry said that the Iraq war was a “diversion” from the War on Terror (though he did not explain how Zarqawi, who is based in Iraq, could be hunted down by a war in Afghanistan). As for Iraq, “We would have had sanctions. We would have had the UN inspectors. Saddam Hussein would have been continually weakening.” But the only reason there were UN inspectors in Iraq was because the Bush administration put 200,000 troops on the Iraqi border in preparation for a showdown and that forced Saddam to allow them in. Does anyone really imagine that we could have kept 200,000 American soldiers in the desert indefinitely while Saddam Hussein played the same cat-and-mouse game with the inspectors that he had been playing since in 1991? Or that he would have been weakened by our failure to act on a deadline the Security Council had unanimously endorsed? Can anyone really believe that sanctions were a feasible stick with which to weaken Saddam Hussein when he was able to breach them by getting the UN to support a $50 billion “Oil-for-Food” program that undercut the sanctions’ effect while allowing him to illegally skim 20 percent of the entire program for his personal uses, including the bribing of French, Russian and German politicians to protect his deadly assets?

Was the Iraq war a diversion? Senator Kerry thinks we should have put all our troops into the effort to hunt down Osama bin Laden. But bin Laden is probably dead, and three quarters of his top leadership has been decapitated. Bin Laden hasn’t been visible since his alleged escape from the caves of Tora Bora. He hasn’t been able to mount an attack inside the United States in three years. The most recent al-Qaeda threat comes in the name of Al-Zawahiri his second in command. The most important and destructive terrorist alive today is Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. And he’s in Iraq.

Yes, we are safer today because of the wars conducted by the Bush administration than we would have been had our troops stayed home or only in Afghanistan. It is true as the opponents of the president point out, that there is a lot of mayhem in Iraq, and there are a lot of threats in the world. But the mayhem in Iraq is the disarray of the terrorist forces, which is good, and the war itself is the only language they understand. The Shi’ite imam, Moqtada al-Sadr, is now seeking to lay down his arms and become a candidate in the upcoming elections. That is the victory we seek. That is the persuasive power of military force, and the argument for staying the course, and for keeping this president in office.

 

Kerry/Edwards 04/08
Hillary 12/16

 

"On Iraq, It's Important to Ask the Right Questions
By David Horowitz
FrontPageMagazine.com | October 8, 2004"

Good article. I have thought all along that if the bad guys are not in Afghanistan, where would they be?
Iran..no, they have their own agenda.
Syria..no, Momar saw the writing on the wall.
Pakistain..no, most of them are not radical enough and too many of them endorse the "pleasures" of western life.
Iraq....why not? Saddam had lots of money and oil and was all for seeing the Americans suffer. Al Quieda would probably be there, be well organized, and have all the money and resources they needed to rain more destruction on the western world.