I'm gone from here until after I come home...

[whottt]

As for me...

I own a car but only use when it going out of town or if clients need a ride. I put about 3000 miles per year on my car.

I don't own a bike because the creation of tires also pollutes the environment and the alloys they are made from create a lot of hazardous waste.

I am not a meat eater. And the only fruits and vegetables I eat are those that have dropped harmlessly from the mother plant to the grown. Thus I ensure that I don't hurt a plant by picking food from them.

I then throw what's left of the acorns, fruits, vegetables or berries I have picked out in the back yard to the insects who I relucatantly had to deny food when I picked their up off the ground are able to still get something to eat.


I recycle everything and drink only filtered tap water(the process of making the plastic bottles for bottled water is extremely toxic). My home is entirely powered by solar and win power. I use nothing but rechargable batteries and am always sure to recycle those.

I haven't pissed indoors in 8 years because it's a tremendous waste of water for something that can easily be done oudoors. (5 gal per flush)

Piss kills vegetation so I piss on weeds and use my own urine as weed killer.

I do often feel guilt for taking the lives of innocent weeds but let's face it, no one eats weeds, not even insects and weeds kill other plants. It's a necessary evil and would I had the guts to give my own life so as not to kill that poor weed...but I'm weak and a hypocrite and can't bring myself to choose the life of the weed over my own.

Because of these habits I generate almost no waste or even recycling materials.


Basically the only thing I do that pollutes the environment in the slighest is use the internet...but I made my PC from an enviro pc kit, it's powered entirely by batteries I charge with solar energy and I only use dialup.

Plus...even on the internest I serve as a mod and do my part to delete bandwidth polution causing threads and to discourage over posting idiots who pollute the net, by calling them stupid and harrasing them.



That's me...

[whottt]

Let's face it...the only reason you guys are surprised to know what an enviro freak I am is because is because of my stance on nukes...


Just goes to show how trully detatched ya'll are from nature and the origin of life.


God is the atom...God is in everything, so are Atoms.

The Universe was born by a big nuclear explosion.

Every living thing on earth is given life by a big nuclear reaction.

Light is a nuclear reaction...so when God said let their be light...how do you think he did it?


Man rose as the dominant speieces on this planet as a result of a big nuke...


Noah probably got to go sailing because of some type of similar nuclear flare from the sun.


Jesus, being the son of god, was probably by his mother being exposted to some kind of raditation that mutated her into a virgin birth and likely caused her son to be born with the power to manipulate atoms(his miracles can all be attributed to this.

The son of god returned when nukes were invented in the early 20th century and since then America has been his chosen country...


When the apocalypse comes...IE when God comes...what exactly do you guys think is going to be happen?

Nuke city baby...IE god. Those that embrace god will die painlessly and be scattered back across the cosmos amongs the atoms from which they came...

Those that run from it, try to avoid it, and try to survive, will be left to live in a caused by a lack of god...IE solar light, radiation and warmth, and the nuclear fallout left in it's place.



So tell me again...who is more in touch with nature?


To me most enviro freaks look to be a bunch of people with a guilty conscience about thing they have no control over and who about likewise...never getting the true connection and violent, radioactive nature of....nature.


Radiation is organic...just becasue it s humans up doesn't mean it's not....Cynaide is organic based as well...and it s us up too.

[Yonivore]

No lies about who I am.

Really? So your parents gave you the name ChumpDumper and you bear a striking resemblance to the guy from the Breakfast Club about to puke?

Too bad Yoni can't do the same.

I'm not lying, I'm stealing. This forum doesn't pay enough for me to craft my own answers when people I respect are doing such a good job.

Trust me, if there were anyone on the Left that could do the same, you'd be plaigerizing them. Unfortunately, for you, bullet point memes (Bush Lied, There were no WMDs, Iraq and al Qaeda had no relationship) become so widespread, their origins are lost in the static.

How about some in depth critical thinking on the war. Go ahead, steal something from a leftie blogger that I can sink my teeth into.

Bushie has two more years to secure his legacy as the not-worst president ever.

Which leads back to the original point of what "noted" historian, in his right mind, that didn't have a political bias, would claim that Bush is the worst president ever and that there is "no alternative" to ranking him as such.

Sounds to me like this Foner is no different than the "noted" historian Barbra Streisand.

So, again, got another "noted" historian and more than the recitation of a quote you heard on tv? After all, you did use the plural, "noted historians" in your original post.

Tick-tock.[/QUOTE]

[PixelPusher]

Basically the only thing I do that pollutes the environment in the slighest is use the internet...but I made my PC from an enviro pc kit, it's powered entirely by batteries I charge with solar energy and I only use dialup.

Plus...even on the internest I serve as a mod and do my part to delete bandwidth polution causing threads and to discourage over posting idiots who pollute the net, by calling them stupid and harrasing them.

I guess that means SpursTalk is the internet Chernobyl.

[TheSanityAnnex]

As for me...

I own a car but only use when it going out of town or if clients need a ride. I put about 3000 miles per year on my car.

I don't own a bike because the creation of tires also pollutes the environment and the alloys they are made from create a lot of hazardous waste.

I am not a meat eater. And the only fruits and vegetables I eat are those that have dropped harmlessly from the mother plant to the grown. Thus I ensure that I don't hurt a plant by picking food from them.

I then throw what's left of the acorns, fruits, vegetables or berries I have picked out in the back yard to the insects who I relucatantly had to deny food when I picked their up off the ground are able to still get something to eat.


I recycle everything and drink only filtered tap water(the process of making the plastic bottles for bottled water is extremely toxic). My home is entirely powered by solar and win power. I use nothing but rechargable batteries and am always sure to recycle those.

I haven't pissed indoors in 8 years because it's a tremendous waste of water for something that can easily be done oudoors. (5 gal per flush)

Piss kills vegetation so I piss on weeds and use my own urine as weed killer.

I do often feel guilt for taking the lives of innocent weeds but let's face it, no one eats weeds, not even insects and weeds kill other plants. It's a necessary evil and would I had the guts to give my own life so as not to kill that poor weed...but I'm weak and a hypocrite and can't bring myself to choose the life of the weed over my own.

Because of these habits I generate almost no waste or even recycling materials.


Basically the only thing I do that pollutes the environment in the slighest is use the internet...but I made my PC from an enviro pc kit, it's powered entirely by batteries I charge with solar energy and I only use dialup.

Plus...even on the internest I serve as a mod and do my part to delete bandwidth polution causing threads and to discourage over posting idiots who pollute the net, by calling them stupid and harrasing them.



That's me...

Yes.

[ChumpDumper]

Really? So your parents gave you the name ChumpDumper and you bear a striking resemblance to the guy from the Breakfast Club about to puke?

No one else is ChumpDumper. I never stole off of anyone's blog and called it my own work. I am not a liar and a plagiarist. you are.

I'm not lying, I'm stealing. This forum doesn't pay enough for me to craft my own answers when people I respect are doing such a good job.

You are a lying thief and a lazy one at that. I found the last thing you stole in 0.17 seconds and now you're trying to justify your lying and plagiarism and theft by saying you "respect" those you steal from and plagiarize and lie about. You have no respect for them at all or else you would give them their due credit. You are a liar and a thief and worthy of nothing but contempt.

Trust me, if there were anyone on the Left that could do the same, you'd be plaigerizing them. Unfortunately, for you, bullet point memes (Bush Lied, There were no WMDs, Iraq and al Qaeda had no relationship) become so widespread, their origins are lost in the static.

Bush chose to believe a lie, there are no WMDs and any weak-ass link you can find between Iraq and Al Qaeda is no justification for 3000 American lives and $300,000,000 a day, liar.

How about some in depth critical thinking on the war. Go ahead, steal something from a leftie blogger that I can sink my teeth into.

Nope, I gave you my indepth critical thinking, original and non-plagiarized. I don't play your liar's game, liar. You disgust me. You can't even own up to your own internet iden iy. You are pathetic.

Which leads back to the original point of what "noted" historian, in his right mind, that didn't have a political bias, would claim that Bush is the worst president ever and that there is "no alternative" to ranking him as such.

That's his opinion. I said it was premature, but he does have a point. Bushie has quite a hole to dig himself out of. Maybe the faith-based initiative will be much more historically important than anyone now thinks.

Sounds to me like this Foner is no different than the "noted" historian Barbra Streisand.

Go yourself. Or maybe read a history book. Or take the word of Karl Rove. Then you would know what a giant this man is.

So, again, got another "noted" historian and more than the recitation of a quote you heard on tv? After all, you did use the plural, "noted historians" in your original post.

Glady.

He's only fifth worst!

Maybe Nixon is a little worse!

"Bush will be forever handcuffed to the bottom of the presidential ladder. The reason: Iraq."

There you go, Yoni, or whoever you are trying to pass yourself off as now.

You are a sad excuse for a liar. Now you can show me the post where you, although you deny it was you, claimed Bushie is going up on Mount Rushmore. I'm sure you can find several noted historians that agree with you.

Liar.

[Yonivore]

No one else is ChumpDumper. I never stole off of anyone's blog and called it my own work. I am not a liar and a plagiarist. you are.

There's nothing to steal on the Left. Y'all are complete void of any critical analysis of contemporary political issues. Y'all's is a vast wasteland of bumper sticker sloganism that only serves to antagonize and tear down. I completely understand why you're upset that I can find intelligent support for my arguments in here and, further, why you'd rather focus on my plaigerism rather than the lack of depth, in your arguments, my thefts expose.

You are a lying thief and a lazy one at that. I found the last thing you stole in 0.17 seconds and now you're trying to justify your lying and plagiarism and theft by saying you "respect" those you steal from and plagiarize and lie about. You have no respect for them at all or else you would give them their due credit. You are a liar and a thief and worthy of nothing but contempt.

Wow, I'm impressed.

And, actually, I typed too fast. I respect the opinions of those from whom I steal...I can't claim to know any of them well enough to form a personal opinion. But, the manner in which they frame an argument and support their positions is to be envied and respected.

Look if it bothers you so much, e-mail them...they all have e-mail addresses on their website. Tell them what I'm doing. When I get the cease and desist order from their attorneys, that'll probably end the charade.

We're unpaid players on a two-bit political forum. I seriously doubt anyone gives a flying about what you or I do here. We're both anonymous posters and poseurs...I seriously doubt you are anything like the asshole you portray on this board, just as I am nothing like Yonivore.

This is a diversion for me; to you, apparently, it's some kind of obsession. You're the Harriet Miers of all of Kori's Moderator appointments. No one can figure out why she would hand you the keys to a toilet, much less, give you control over the board; but, I'm sure she has her reasons, and well, who really gives a anyway?

Bush chose to believe a lie,

What lie? At worst it was a mistaken intelligence assessment but, we're still not sure that's the case. There are still former regime officers coming forward saying the stuff was moved from the country.

there are no WMDs

That's not true either and since you'll never let go of that Leftist article of faith, it is pointless to even engage in that argument for the umpteenth time.

and any weak-ass link you can find between Iraq and Al Qaeda is no justification for 3000 American lives and $300,000,000 a day, liar.

Well, it was more than weak-ass and the legitimacy of this war is a topic worthy of discussion. Reasonable people on both sides of the argument have made compelling cases for their positions -- none of which match your "in-depth" analysis.

Nope, I gave you my indepth critical thinking,

original and non-plagiarized.

No, just cookie cutter leftist dribble that could be pulled out of a monkey's ass.

I don't play your liar's game, liar. You disgust me. You can't even own up to your own internet iden iy.

Any idea how stupid that sounds. Internet iden y? You're pathetic. Hey, here's an idea. Ignore me if I disgust you so much.

You are pathetic.

Okay. Luckily, I don't place any stock in your characterizations of anything, much less me.

That's his opinion. I said it was premature, but he does have a point. Bushie has quite a hole to dig himself out of. Maybe the faith-based initiative will be much more historically important than anyone now thinks.

Yes, and the point of my stolen material was that it is not the opinion of anyone who would like to be characterized as a "noted" historian.

Go yourself. Or maybe read a history book. Or take the word of Karl Rove. Then you would know what a giant this man is.

Yeah, some giant. Historians don't normally go around predicting the future.

Glady.

He's only fifth worst!

Michael Lind is the Whitehead senior fellow at the New America Foundation.
This guy comes closer than the other two but, even his wikipedia entry lists him as a journalist first -- then, an historian. A "radical centrist" at that.

By contrast, George W. Bush has inadvertently destroyed only Baghdad, not Washington, and the costs of the Iraq war in blood and treasure are far less than those of Korea and Vietnam. Yet he will be remembered for the Iraq conflict for generations, long after tax-cut-driven deficits, No Child Left Behind and comprehensive immigration reform are forgotten. The fact that Bush followed the invasion of Afghanistan, which had sheltered al-Qaeda, with the toppling of Saddam Hussein, will puzzle historians for centuries. It is as though, after Japan had bombed Pearl Harbor, FDR had asked Congress to declare war on Argentina.

Why did Bush do it? Did he really believe that Hussein had weapons of mass destruction? Was it about oil? Israel? Revenge for Hussein's alleged attempt on Bush's father's life? The war will join the sinking of the USS Maine and the grassy knoll among the topics to exercise conspiracy theorists for generations, and the photos of torture at Abu Ghraib will join images of the napalmed Vietnamese girl and executed Filipino rebels in the gallery of U.S. atrocities.

Like all presidents, George W. Bush wants to be remembered. He will get his wish -- as the fifth-worst president in U.S. history.

This is the only discussion of Bush in the article to which you linked. Frankly, there are many who aren't puzzled about the invasion of Iraq. But, that this clown is doesn't make George Bush the fifth worse president.

Most of his article is spent explaining why Bush isn't the worst.

Noted Historian? Nope. Try again.

Maybe Nixon is a little worse!

David Greenberg teaches history and media studies at Rutgers University.

From his homepage:

Prof. Greenberg has written for numerous scholarly and popular publications, including The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Atlantic Monthly, The New Yorker, Foreign Affairs, The Journal of American History, Reviews in American History, and Daedalus. He is a regular contributor to the online magazine Slate, where he writes the "History Lesson" column and other occasional reviews and essays. Before pursuing his PhD, he served as Acting Editor and Managing Editor of The New Republic magazine and, early in his career, as the assistant to author Bob Woodward, on The Agenda: Inside the Clinton White House (Simon & Schuster, 1994). Prof. Greenberg holds a BA in History from Yale University (Phi Beta Kappa, summa laude, 1990) and a PhD in History from Columbia University (2001).

So, he was a flunky for Bob Woodward. And, aside from publishing papers in a couple of history journals -- which makes him published but not "noted," I can find nothing on his own webpage that would qualify him as a "noted" historian.

There are a lot of history teachers that aren't "noted." This, as far as I can tell, is one of them.

"Bush will be forever handcuffed to the bottom of the presidential ladder. The reason: Iraq."

Douglas Brinkley is director of the Roosevelt Center at Tulane University.

Here's what Slate had to say about him in 1999:

"Douglas Brinkley is the William Ginsburg of the Kennedy death circus. Before the crash, the boyish, gap-toothed Brinkley was known primarily as a Michael Beschloss-in-waiting, a telegenic historian fielding calls from the cable news networks. Now the University of New Orleans professor has parlayed a contributing editorship at George and a friendship with Kennedy into a job as a necropublicist. Between Saturday and Tuesday, Brinkley appeared on MSNBC, Late Edition, Meet the Press, Good Morning America, Dateline, Today (twice), and NPR (twice). He also penned columns about his relationship with Kennedy for Newsweek and the New York Times, and was quoted everywhere else ink touches paper.

Once again, the words "noted historian" aren't used.

There you go, Yoni, or whoever you are trying to pass yourself off as now.

Abysmal effort. Care to go another round?

You are a sad excuse for a liar. Now you can show me the post where you, although you deny it was you, claimed Bushie is going up on Mount Rushmore. I'm sure you can find several noted historians that agree with you.

I don't deny I said that. I still believe George W. Bush will eventually be remembered as one of the greatest presidents of all time. Yep, even to Mount Rushmore standards.

Liar.

Insufferable prick.

[johnsmith]

There's nothing to steal on the Left. Y'all are complete void of any critical analysis of contemporary political issues. Y'all's is a vast wasteland of bumper sticker sloganism that only serves to antagonize and tear down. I completely understand why you're upset that I can find intelligent support for my arguments in here and, further, why you'd rather focus on my plaigerism rather than the lack of depth, in your arguments, my thefts expose.


Wow, I'm impressed.

And, actually, I typed too fast. I respect the opinions of those from whom I steal...I can't claim to know any of them well enough to form a personal opinion. But, the manner in which they frame an argument and support their positions is to be envied and respected.

Look if it bothers you so much, e-mail them...they all have e-mail addresses on their website. Tell them what I'm doing. When I get the cease and desist order from their attorneys, that'll probably end the charade.

We're unpaid players on a two-bit political forum. I seriously doubt anyone gives a flying about what you or I do here. We're both anonymous posters and poseurs...I seriously doubt you are anything like the asshole you portray on this board, just as I am nothing like Yonivore.

This is a diversion for me; to you, apparently, it's some kind of obsession. You're the Harriet Miers of all of Kori's Moderator appointments. No one can figure out why she would hand you the keys to a toilet, much less, give you control over the board; but, I'm sure she has her reasons, and well, who really gives a anyway?


What lie? At worst it was a mistaken intelligence assessment but, we're still not sure that's the case. There are still former regime officers coming forward saying the stuff was moved from the country.


That's not true either and since you'll never let go of that Leftist article of faith, it is pointless to even engage in that argument for the umpteenth time.


Well, it was more than weak-ass and the legitimacy of this war is a topic worthy of discussion. Reasonable people on both sides of the argument have made compelling cases for their positions -- none of which match your "in-depth" analysis.


No, just cookie cutter leftist dribble that could be pulled out of a monkey's ass.


Any idea how stupid that sounds. Internet iden y? You're pathetic. Hey, here's an idea. Ignore me if I disgust you so much.


Okay. Luckily, I don't place any stock in your characterizations of anything, much less me.


Yes, and the point of my stolen material was that it is not the opinion of anyone who would like to be characterized as a "noted" historian.


Yeah, some giant. Historians don't normally go around predicting the future.


Michael Lind is the Whitehead senior fellow at the New America Foundation.
This guy comes closer than the other two but, even his wikipedia entry lists him as a journalist first -- then, an historian. A "radical centrist" at that.


This is the only discussion of Bush in the article to which you linked. Frankly, there are many who aren't puzzled about the invasion of Iraq. But, that this clown is doesn't make George Bush the fifth worse president.

Most of his article is spent explaining why Bush isn't the worst.

Noted Historian? Nope. Try again.


David Greenberg teaches history and media studies at Rutgers University.

From his homepage:



So, he was a flunky for Bob Woodward. And, aside from publishing papers in a couple of history journals -- which makes him published but not "noted," I can find nothing on his own webpage that would qualify him as a "noted" historian.

There are a lot of history teachers that aren't "noted." This, as far as I can tell, is one of them.


Douglas Brinkley is director of the Roosevelt Center at Tulane University.

Here's what Slate had to say about him in 1999:


Once again, the words "noted historian" aren't used.


Abysmal effort. Care to go another round?


I don't deny I said that. I still believe George W. Bush will eventually be remembered as one of the greatest presidents of all time. Yep, even to Mount Rushmore standards.


Insufferable prick.

Possibly the funniest post ever on this site.

[Yonivore]

And now for some truly in-depth, critical analysis, of the current global war on terrorism and why this President's efforts will eventually be remembered as great.

Vasko Kohlmayer, writing in the World Defense Review makes this startling observation:

In one of the most startling incidents in our history, America's sworn enemy used the term 'brotherly' when referring to one of our major political parties. The remarkable pronouncement came amidst the celebrations that erupted in the terrorist ranks after the democratic victory in the latest elections.

Given all that the democrats have done, the affection in which they are held by our foes is neither unjustified nor surprising. They have more than earned it by systematically subverting this country's war effort while simultaneously proffering assistance to those who have pledged to destroy us.

Democrats' devious deeds are too numerous to be fully recounted, but here at least are some of the highlights:

-They have tried to prevent us from listening on terrorists' phone calls
-They have sought to stop us from properly interrogating captured terrorists
-They have tried to stop us from monitoring terrorists' financial transactions
-They have revealed the existence of secret national security programs
-They have opposed vital components of the Patriot Act
-They have sought to confer unmerited legal rights on terrorists
-They have opposed profiling to identify the terrorists in our midst
-They have impugned and demeaned our military
-They have insinuated that the president is a war criminal
-They have forced the resignation of a committed defense secretary
-They have repeatedly tried to de-legitimize our war effort
-They want to quit the battlefield in the midst of war.

To see just how bad things really are, ponder this question: If the terrorists were represented by a party in our political system, how would their foreign policy program substantially differ from that of the present-day democrats?

By effectively becoming a political arm of our sworn enemy, the Democratic Party has staked out a position that is unparalleled in our country's history.

Kohlmayer suggests that the inability to grasp the motives of the Democrats, sprurred on by their leftist base, has made Americans reluctant to believe in their essential treachery.

That's all very well and good; and I applaud Americans who are so fair-minded, but from a psychological perspective, their motives are not at all hard to understand. Just hard to believe.

The Democratic Party leadership is in thrall to the lunatic left, and like the terrorists they support, the political left these days makes no bones about their agenda. They are completely upfront about it, in fact.

If you have doubts about this, take James Taranto's quiz. It's a tough one.

The Democratic Party is no longer on the side of America. They are no longer on the side of freedom. It is time that the American public begin to appreciate what is so very obvious to the enemies we are fighting.

And before the trolls deride these remarks and cry foul, they should first take a long hard look at the list Kohlmayer has above. Is it just a coincidence that the left's rhetoric sounds remarkably like Ahmadinejad? Some cosmic joke, perhaps? Or (now this is the tough question) is it that the beliefs and agenda that you so mindlessly support has merged with those whose only goal is the destruction of America and its values?

Charles Krauthammer has an excellent post that should be read by all you "reality-based" realists:

Now that the "realists'' have ridden into town gleefully consigning the Bush doctrine to the ash heap of history, everyone has discovered the notion of interests, as if it were some new idea thought up by James Baker and the Iraq Study Group.

What do people think we've been doing for the last five years? True, the president's rhetoric has a tendency to go soaringly Wilsonian, e.g. the banishing tyranny stuff in his second inaugural address. But our policies of democratization in Iraq and Afghanistan and Lebanon have been deeply rooted in the most concrete of American interests.

If we really had been in the grip of "idealism,'' we'd be deep in Chad and Burma and Darfur. We are not. We are instead trying to sustain fragile democracies in three strategically important countries -- Afghanistan, Iraq and Lebanon -- that form the geographic parentheses around the principal threat to Western interests in the region, the Syria-Iran axis.

We are trying to bring democracy to Iraq in particular because a pro-Western government enjoying legitimacy and popular support would have been the most enduring means of securing our interests there. Deposing Saddam & Sons was essential because they posed a permanent strategic threat to the region and to U.S. interests....

Very hardheaded realist terms: interest, stability, regional powers. But stringing them together to suggest that Iran and Syria share our interests in stability is the height of fantasy. In fact, Iran and Syria have an overriding interest in chaos in Iraq -- which is precisely why they each have been abetting the insurgency and fanning civil war.

Supporting liberty and the development of free societies in the middle east is not a utopian fantasy or even a Wilsonian dream--but a reasonable policy and expression of our national values AND national interests. September 11th taught us that we can no longer ignore the tyranny and fanaticism that deliberately brought death and destruction to our shores and declared war on everything our country stands for.

Consider this: we could have (and still can) completely obliterate the entire problem with the use of overwhelming force that is at our disposal. There are some who argue that is precisely what we should do; and that our primary target should be the source of Islamic totalitarianism since 1979. I don't even necessarily disagree with this approach.

But, Dr. Sanity discussed in this post the strategic question of our time is whether or not Islam itself--not just the Islamic totalitarians who have taken over that religion--is compatible with freedom and free societies. President Bush has bet everything on the idea that it is, and that democratic reform can salvage that beleaguered religion and prevent the incredible loss of life that answering "No" to the question will entail.

In contemplating these pieces of a larger puzzle, it strikes me that more and more people (from the conservatives who now question the value of the Iraq war; to the ordinary citizens who are fed up with the antics of flying imams and the islmaophobic accusations of CAIR; to independents like myself who have resolutely supported President Bush) are beginning to inch slowly toward a negative answer to the strategic question. While many muslims are decent, tolerant and yearn to be free; Islam itself does not appear to be compatible with a free society. This ultimate conclusion is breathtaking--and heartbreaking-- in its implications. And if you doubt the seriousness in which I say this, see this post. And, if you have not read this post from September, 2003 from The Belmont Club, then you should do so.

It may eventually be the case that the West becomes convinced that Islam is unable to change and is completely incompatible with freedom. We are well on our way to that eventuality, sadly. Time and again there have been opportunities for the moderates in the religion to pull it back from its suicidal historical course.

Personally, I am not convinced that Islam can change, but I hope it can, given time.

Time is not on Islam's side, however. Leaders like the Mullahs and Ahmadinejad in Iran and Hamas in Gaza are acting in ways that will facilitate a confrontation. They foolishly believe that the West will back down--if not because of a belief in the superiority of Islam; then from doubts about the superiority of Western values and from a reluctance to act decisively and ruthlessly.

The psychopathic elements in Islam believe this is our fundamental weakness; but they are wrong. This is actually our fundamental strength. President Bush has bet that Islam can be changed if it is infused with some democratic opportunities and freed from some of the political and religious tyranny that has dominated the Middle East. If such a democratizing process had been started--and carried through-- a decade or two earlier, well who knows how much the situation might have changed by now?

And, contrary to the infantile imaginings of the antiwar and so-called "peace" movements, Bush's strategy actually represents the Best. Possible. Hope. For. Peace.

It is a strategy that faces the grim reality of Islamic contradictions and historical brutality; yet has enough optimism and goodwill in it to be genuinely worth the price we are paying. If it works, millions of deaths might be prevented. And if the peace crowd really cares about peace, then they would do well to reconsider their own antics.

It is surely possible that I place too great a hope in the idea of freedom; or that I have unrealistic expectations of how much time is needed for its moderating effects to be realized. My primary concern has always been to minimize the loss of life--our own and those who yearn for freedom but who are in the grip of Islamic totalitarianism; and the only option that seemed to me to do that was the Bush Doctrine. But there has always been the possibility that it would not work in time, implemented some 30 years too late.

SC&A have this to say:

Freedom supports righteousness and make the world a more civilized and moral place. Notwithstanding the reality that much of the world doesn’t care about those ideals, that truth about freedom is unassailable. Those that resist and resent our involvement in helping to secure freedom for others, may at times, seem to prevail, but in the end, even that is illusory. Evolution, political and otherwise, has always meant that man was empowered and free to reach greater heights, unen bered by the tyranny of other men asserting their dominion over his freedom, property, ideas or beliefs.

There are those that will go to great lengths to keep us from bringing freedom to others. They excoriate us, berate us, laugh at us and even support violence against us. They take great pleasure in our trials and tribulations. There are those who align themselves with evil so as to hurt us- and then rejoice in our pain. There are those that would support the propaganda and ideologies that would demoralize and weaken us. With all their might, deceit and hatred, they would relentlessly attack us- but in the end, it will all be for naught. Americans will defend freedom, from all enemies, foreign and domestic.

They may at times kill or harm the messenger, but they cannot kill the message. Freedom, in the end, will prevail.

Despite the ongoing and systematic subversion of freedom's message from within by those whose rhetoric mindlessly supports freedom, but whose actions have exactly the opposite effect, the courageous Democrats and ever-so-brave lunatics of the left have managed to foolishly convince themselves that the "real" enemy of freedom is Bush. They strut around convinced by their own smug, self-righteous slogans that they are defending freedom, even as they kiss up to any two-bit despot or tyrant in the world; even as U.S. military personnel confront the true enemies of freedom and civilization in Iraq and Afghanistan.

And, despite their strident wails and transparent attempts to consolidate their own power and influence no matter what the cost, they are only becoming increasingly irrelevant.

Because, in the end--one way or the other--I have no doubt that freedom will indeed prevail.

Now, all of this is stolen. And, whether or not any of these people are "noted" historians, I haven't a clue. I do know they are smart professionals who can formulate an argument and support it like nobody I've seen...particularly the "noted" historian ChumpDumper marched in here after hearing a quote, with which he happened to agree, on his idiot box.

I still challenge you to come up with some in-depth analysis of our current global cir stance, written by someone on the left, that is worth reading.

[Yonivore]

I just noticed my new "tagline." Cool!

[01Snake]

You're the Harriet Miers of all of Kori's Moderator appointments. No one can figure out why she would hand you the keys to a toilet, much less, give you control over the board; but, I'm sure she has her reasons, and well, who really gives a anyway?

[clambake]

Predictions of the future aren't needed when the present is crystal clear. Go ahead and try to salvage whats left of his Iraqi mauled ass. The true sadness of this is the fact that they hatched this little plan back when they were flying around the country in Enron jets in 2000.

This thing has always had "plane crash" written all over it. I can't think of a more fitting sponsor, can you?

[ChumpDumper]

Hit a nerve, didn't I? I've never seen so much blog vomited up in one post. Your finger must be cramped from cutting and pasting so much. I give the opinions of a couple of historians I don't agree with and you have a plagiarism meltdown.

My work here is done. Mission accomplished.

You're still a liar and the course isn't being stayed anymore.

[Yonivore]

Hit a nerve, didn't I?

Nope.

I've never seen so much blog vomited up in one post. Your finger must be cramped from cutting and pasting so much.

Took all of about 3 minutes.

I give the opinions of a couple of historians I don't agree with and you have a plagiarism meltdown.

You don't agree with 'em? Why would you forward their opinions? I thought the discussion was about "noted" historians anyway.

My work here is done. Mission accomplished.

Don't forget your paycheck on the way out the door.

You're still a liar and the course isn't being stayed anymore.

You're still a dumbass and we'll see what unfolds.

[ChumpDumper]

You don't agree with 'em?

I said they were premature. You were so busy working yourself into a neocon lather that you missed that. Bravo.

Don't forget your paycheck on the way out the door.

Still mad, I see.

we'll see what unfolds.

Gee, that's what said. I'll start a conservative blog so you'll actually read what I post, dip .

And steal from it.

And lie about it.

[Yonivore]

I said they were premature. You were so busy working yourself into a neocon lather that you missed that. Bravo.

I didn't miss it; it was irrelevant to the whole discussion about why a "noted" historian would make such a premature conjecture and then, stake his reputation on the assertion that nothing in the coming two years can change it.

That's a stupid historian...well, maybe that's for what he is noted. Hmmm...hadn't thought of that.

Still mad, I see.

About what? You're the one declaring you're done, mission accomplished. Yet, you keep coming back.

Gee, that's what said. I'll start a conservative blog so you'll actually read what I post, dip .

And steal from it.

And lie about it.

Yeah, that'll happen. Look, just because you don't have the balls God gave this idiot historian to step out on a limb and actually agree with him -- even though every post you've ever made regarding President Bush's legacy screams that you believe he is the worst president ever -- don't blame me.

[ChumpDumper]

I didn't miss it; it was irrelevant

of course it's relevant, you just don't think it is since it wasn't on a neocon blog.

Look, just because you don't have the balls God gave this idiot historian to step out on a limb and actually agree with him -- even though every post you've ever made regarding President Bush's legacy screams that you believe he is the worst president ever -- don't blame me.

I don't believe he's the worst president ever, but he's pretty ing horrible. he's got two years to clean up his act -- something I also posted and you stupidly ignored. I'm going to see if neoconsarestillrelevant.com is registered so you can google it to actually read what I write.

[Yonivore]

of course it's relevant, you just don't think it is since it wasn't on a neocon blog.

No, I don't think it's relevant because it came from your keyboard and had nothing to do with the discussion of why this idiot is a noted historian.

I don't believe he's the worst president ever, but he's pretty ing horrible. he's got two years to clean up his act -- something I also posted and you stupidly ignored.

I didn't ignore it, I discounted it. There's a difference.

I'm going to see if neoconsarestillrelevant.com is registered so you can google it to actually read what I write.

Well, you'd better have the type of traffic, trackbacks, and references those from whom I do steal have, or you'll be stuck with me reading your crap in here.

[ChumpDumper]

"I read, but I discount."

[Yonivore]

"I read, but I discount."

Yeah, as do most people with what you write.

[ChumpDumper]

Yeah, you're doing a heckuva job ignoring me, Yoni.

[Yonivore]

Yeah, you're doing a heckuva job ignoring me, Yoni.

Okay, once again, "ignore <> discount." I actually think it's kind of amusing ing with you.

[ChumpDumper]

Gee, you don't remember your solemn pledge to ignore me?

I don't blame you. That turned out to be another lie.

[Yonivore]

Gee, you don't remember your solemn pledge to ignore me?

I don't blame you. That turned out to be another lie.

I don't remember it being "solemn." But, oh well, your crap just begs to be smacked down.

[RuffnReadyOzStyle]

whottt is even crazier than I suspected (yes, let's all embrace nuclear apocalypse! ), and this thread was hijacked into a shouting match between the extremes of left and right. Really, what is the point of the ST political forum? No-one listens, and thus no-one learns anything, there are no compromises or resolutions of problems, are acceptance of new ideas, so why bother? I guess its only real value is to work off some hatred, to throw some vitriol at the shiny screen...

I think I'm gone for good. There are other places I can better spend my time. This place has become a bad habit.