Originally posted by PDXSVT:
Hip Hip Hooray! My fiance got a part time job paying $8.50 an hour with no benefits this week too. She'd been making $35K/yr until 7/02.



Even when an economy is a strong as it can be, people lose jobs, plants close, companies move plants, etc. I am not diminishing your pain or situation, but good people lose jobs all the time. I am sure there is a job with similar pay somewhere. Often your choice is $8.00 here or better pay somewhere else. I've worked in NY, CT and NJ. I go where the work is. It is inconvenient, but it doesn't mean a good job doesn't exist.
Originally posted by PDXSVT:
So the economy may limp back into employment just in time for Iraq to blow up in Bush's face.

Employment is better now then it has been for the last ten years. I realize if unemployment is at 00.1% and you are in the 00.1%, it makes no difference.




Originally posted by PDXSVT:
...ingnored rant... ---
Anyway, our show of force did not exactly turn the tide in Vietnam, but here we are again, needing to "win the peace," to "win the hearts and minds." Do you really do that by turning the Middle East into a sea of glass?

Enjoy your jobs and contemplate how many MORE enemies we have NOW, swearing to kill us all, than we did one year ago. Between 9/11/01 and 3/03, we had allies newly eager to share intelligence on terrorists. Now we have former allies who are convinced we're liars on a deluded power trip. Thanks George, I feel safer already.



Vietnam is not a comparable situation. We lost because the Democrats ran the military by public consensus instead of good military tactics. It was the Democrats who started the police action (JFK) and escalated the war (LBJ). It was a republican who ended the war (Nixon). Hopefully, Bush won't fall into the trap of trying please everyone (especially you).

As far as more enemies, I think you are wrong. The enemies remain the same. We have no new enemies. The same people bombing our embassies and ships just addded targets. They were sworn to kill us before Iraq and I don't see that changing. They want to kill us because we exist. Whether we attack, hide, cower, it doesn't matter, they will want to kill us. There is no "Live and Let Live" policy from them. There is no negotiation with them because the only acceptable outcome they want is our death, Iraq or not.

Which allies shared intelligence before but now are former allies? France? Germany? they weren't are allies before this war in the sense that they didn't share intelligence and were in fact supporting Saddam even during the buildup before the war. As far as intelligence, the democrats gutted intelligence funding years ago so no wonder we were caught sleeping. However, because of our actions, Libya has given up all it's nuclear research and potential and places such as Syria are becoming concerned about our possible actions. If cleaning up Iraq causes our enemies to worry and possibly change there positions, it is a good thing.

Are we Safe? no. Are we as safe as could be? no? would we be safer if Kerry was running things? I believe we would be less safe with Kerry in charge.

Whether we went into Iraq or not, the terrorism would be with us. Had we not attacked Afghanistan and Iraq, the terrorist would have continued to believe we would do nothing as we did nothing in the past.

Those responding against my point of view, see if you can explain Kerry's plan against terrorism to me. I haven't heard anything yet. Tell we why Kerry would be better instead of why Bush is bad. (If you can!)


My name is Richard. I was a Contouraholic. NOW: '02 Mazda B3000 Dual Sport, Black BEFORE: '99 Contour SE Sport Duratec ATX Spruce Green PIAA 510's, Foglight MOD, K&N Drop-in