[quote=Lexi;381278]Oh without a doubt, but the US is beginning to slip from the top bully spot..

Please specify which freedoms you have lost?
Law-abiding citizens face double, triple and quadruple penalties or taxes, why not have penalties for criminals?
Why should criminals get a break?

__________________
Drill offshore now

Because, as you've probably forgotten, there's the whole innocent til proven guilty concept that "used" to be enshrined as a pillar of american justice. Now, before you go to trial you can lose your house, car, whatever, even if the search was illegal, and the onus is on you to regain it. Searches have become much much more invasive with the war on drugs (let alone the war on terrah), and combined with the police dept's ability to confiscate (all) your property, one of the cornerstones of what the founders of america fought against britain to gain has gone the way of the dodo.

Criminals don't deserve a break, but they do deserve, like any other person accused of a crime, their turn in court, in front of a jury of their peers. If you don't find that important, well, I bet founding fathers are just thrilled at what you "patriotic" americans have become.

An often quoted Samuel Johnson said "patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel", and he also said "He that wishes to see his country robbed of its rights cannot be a patriot. "

Take it as you wish.

wibbly,

there's the whole innocent til proven guilty concept that "used" to be enshrined as a pillar of american justice.
Being innocent depends upon the defendant's skin color, gender, sexual orientation and wealth. The same goes for the jury or Judge now days!

police dept's ability to confiscate (all) your property, one of the cornerstones of what the founders of america fought against britain to gain has gone the way of the dodo.
If the cops find drugs, they will do these things.

Criminals don't deserve a break, but they do deserve, like any other person accused of a crime, their turn in court, in front of a jury of their peers.
A jury of your peers with the same skin color, gender, sexual orientation and wealth

An often quoted Samuel Johnson said "patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel", and he also said "He that wishes to see his country robbed of its rights cannot be a patriot. "
Sam is correct. The people that support Affirmative Action (loss of civil rights) can not be a Patriot, just like Obama has proven.

__________________
Drill offshore now

Thanks for the fisking..

NY POST EDITORIAL
NANCY'S IRAN NONSENSE

June 3, 2008 -- Democrats regularly express outrage at anyone they see as questioning their patriotism. But what's to be said when a top Dem is discussing the Iraq war - and minimizes the work of America's military while applauding Iran?

In an interview last week with her hometown San Francisco Chronicle, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi declared that recent success in Iraq is attributable not to Gen. David Petraeus' strategy of engaging local Iraqis to assist in expelling Al Qaeda in Iraq, nor even to Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's political skills.

Nope: She credited "the goodwill of the Iranians."

The goodwill of the Iranians?

Just before Petraeus testified on Capitol Hill in April, Pelosi declared that Congress didn't want to "hear any glorification of what happened in Basra."

Instead, she wants to downplay the role of Americans and Iraqis in improving conditions in Iraq - and glorify the role of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's regime.

In an Iranian news report yesterday, Ahmadinejad again made clear where he stands. Israel, he declared, "is about to die and will soon be erased from the geographical scene." He added: "The time for the fall of the satanic power of the United States has come and the countdown to the annihilation of the emperor of power and wealth has started."

Some "goodwill."

Pelosi should be ashamed.

First of all, you can't wage war on something as vague as "terror". It's an abstract concept based on nothing more than perceived danger. You could call it "The Boogy Man War" and it would have exactly the same meaning.
The only "axis of evil" that exists in the world today is the temple of lies; masonic. That's why it's not allowed in most countries. That's why they can't talk about it. That's why they can't name Jesus at their ceremonies.
"War on Terror" is a catchy slogan, but the only thing it seems to have done is provoke hatred towards those who have more oil than we do. As long as people believe in the boogy man, the "war" will continue, and oil companies will get rich.

Before you start naming off all the horrible things Muslims have done, think about all the things Christianity has done. Burning people alive at the stake seems a lot more crude and sadistic than cutting peoples heads off.

And before you start cussing and swearing about patriotism, patriots believe in a cause. Nationalists are those who wave their flags and never question why they are doing it. The Bush administration has very cleverly confused the two.

OBAMA VS. OSAMA
By RALPH PETERS
NY POST

June 19, 2008 -- NAME-BRAND journalists have let Barack Obama make any claim he chooses about Iraq, Afghanistan or coping with terrorism without pinning him down for details.

Yet many of his comments and positions seem stunningly naive about national security. Given that this man may become our next president, shouldn't he explain how he'd do the many impressive things he's promised?

This week, Obama claimed, again, that he'd promptly capture Osama bin Laden. OK, tell me how: Specifically, which concrete measures would he take that haven't been taken? How would he force our intelligence agencies to locate bin Laden? And he can't just respond, "That's classified."

He also claimed that fighting terrorism is a law-enforcement problem, not a military one (should we send the NYPD to Mosul and Kandahar?), and that the answer to terrorism is the approach taken after the 1993 World Trade Center attack, featuring conventional trials and prison terms.

That flaccid post-'93 response only encouraged terrorists - who are unfazed by the prospect of a US prison, where the quality of life's better than it was at home. The Clinton administration's hesitancy and softness gave us the subsequent attacks on the Khobar Towers housing complex in Saudi Arabia, on our embassies in East Africa, on the USS Cole and, ultimately, the events of 9/11.

The senator needs to tell us why it would be different now.

Obama has also said he'd send our troops into Pakistan, although he'll withdraw rapidly from Iraq. His unwillingness to discuss the consequences of a hasty retreat from Baghdad is one thing - but invading Pakistan would be an order of magnitude worse.

A substantial number of Iraq's 26 million citizens did welcome us. In Pakistan, with its 170 million Muslims and some of the most rugged terrain on earth, anti-Americanism prevails. Any US military incursion would be greeted with outrage and demands for a military response.

Nor does Obama appear to grasp that armies need fuel, ammunition, food, spare parts and other supplies. Nearly everything for our troops in landlocked Afghanistan, from bottled water to medical supplies, now comes via Pakistani ports, roads and railroads. If those long, difficult routes were cut, how would President Obama supply our troops? And no, it can't all be done by air.

Oh, Pakistan has nukes, too.

Also this week, Obama's advisers stated that, if apprehended, Osama bin Laden should be tried in a conventional US courtroom. My fellow Americans, do you believe that?

Do you believe that this arch-terrorist, publicly proud of his responsibility for 9/11, should be given all the rights of a US citizen and a public platform to engage in propaganda?

What the full-rights-for-terrorists advocates fail to comprehend is that our judicial processes - so dear to us - are viewed by terrorists as a means to advance their cause, to embarrass us, to reveal our intelligence methods and to perpetuate their martyr myth.

Harsh as it may sound, a dead terrorist is dead, but an imprisoned terrorist is a cause (and not just for his fellow radicals). Abu Musab al-Zarqawi is forgotten, but our Guantanamo prisoners are pop stars.

Obama appears out of his depth on all this, but the gushingly friendly media have given him a pass on every groundless claim or gaffe. It's time for journalists to start asking him tough questions - to press him when he doesn't give serious answers. Isn't that their job?

Those who knew Obama in his university days claim that he couldn't be persuaded to study history. It shows. And his lifelong lack of interest in the military is self-evident.

The response that "he has knowledgeable advisers" isn't enough. Obama's military and counterterror "experts" compose a unique collection of the dismissed, the discredited and the dysfunctional. Most appear to be out to settle personal grudges rather than to advance our nation's security.

Let's hope that just one high-profile journalist pushes Obama on the following questions:

* How would you find Osama bin Laden? What, specifically, would you do differently?

* What would be the rules for capturing or killing Osama?

* How would you manage the consequences of the military incursion into Pakistan you've threatened? Are you willing to go to war with Pakistan?

* What would be the specific results of a swift troop withdrawal from Iraq?

* Why would a judicial approach to defeating terrorists work this time when it failed to protect us in the past?

* Do you truly believe that self-admitted terrorists, when captured, deserve the full legal privileges of US citizens?

If this highly talented candidate has glaring gaps in his understanding of the world, voters deserve to know. If his campaign promises have no substance, we deserve to know that, too.

I support John McCain for president, but I live by the values that guided me as an Army officer: I will support my commander in chief as chosen by the American people, no matter who he (or, one day, she) may be. But until the people make their choice, both candidates should be held to the same tough standards of truth in advertising.

Sen. Obama, tell us how.

Ralph Peters' new book, "Looking for Trouble," will be published in July.

First off, the Crusades were a direct result of Muslim expansion through warfare. Muslim armies conquered nearly 2/3 of the Christian nations before the Christian nations fought back for their very survival. The Crusaders only attacked those lands that were Christian. They never went into Saudi Arabia or invade Mecca, etc.
Also, more people are killed each year by Muslims than in all 350 years of the Spanish Inquisition.
Secondly, using the "other religions kill" defense in defending Islam just shows your ignorance.....because they don't. Islamic terrorists have staged nearly 12,000 deadly attacks since 9/11 all over the globe. In contrast, there may have been maybe a dozen attacks carried out by religious fanatics of all other faiths combined during the same time period. No other religion kills like Islam does.....period! It's not even close.

__________________
"Fight them until all opposition ends and all submit to Allah." ~ Qur'an:8:39

Muslims aren't dying from war....they're being murdered by members of their own cult.

Check me on this but I recall reading something that said Muslims controlled most of Europe at one time.

__________________
Drill offshore now