U.S. tourism may be casualty of war on terror

On Sun, 20 Feb 2005 18:32:15 -0700, miles wrote:

Tom Bellhouse wrote:
Liberal:
a. Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or
authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry.
b. Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and
tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad minded.
c. Of, relating to, or characteristic of liberalism.
d. Of, designating, or characteristic of a political party founded on
or associated with principles of social and political liberalism,
especially in Great Britain, Canada, and the United States.
e. Tending to give freely; generous: a liberal benefactor.
f. Generous in amount; ample: a liberal serving of potatoes.

Do you have a point to make? Some of your above definition does not
reflect the actual perceived definition in the USA. Liberalism as its
generally accepted by the public is not the same in the various
countries you listed.

Item E needs rewriting:

E: Tending to give other peoples money freely (can you say tax the crap
out of the wealthy?)

Given that the Republicans are the ones who are massively deepening
the debt of the US and spending collosal amounts of money on failing
foreign policy decisions, I just cannot see how you can believe this.
--
---
DFM - http://www.deepfriedmars.com
---
--

PTRAVEL wrote:
Just a reminder: 49% of us recognize the truth. Unfortunately, 51% didn't.

Heard the stupid Democratic senate minority leader on PBS last week
state that he supports Bush,s foreign policy on Syria and Iran.

How the hell can a country consider itself democratic when there is no
opposition party during 4 years and the sole opposition lasts a few
hours during televised debates on the 4th year just before an election ?

HOW STUPID CAN THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY BE ??????

Last time, they supported the Bush tactic of sending troups to the
vicinity of Iraq as a threath to force Saddam to comply with UN
resolutions. But when it became clear that bush was going beyond this
mandate, the democrats were caught with their previous support and did
not dare widthdraw support for Bush when it became clear that he never
had any intenstions of letting the UN process work and wanted only to invade.

Now, they are stating that they support Bush's stoking the middle east
fires in Iran and Syria, and when Bush succeeds in moving troups to
attack Syria, the democratic party will be stuck in the same situation
of damned if tyou flip flop , and damned if you support the war criminal.

All the idiot senate majority leader had to say was that he agreed that
Syria was not a good citizen in the region but did not agree with the
tactics used by the USA and though they would worsen the situation
instead of ease tensions.

Opposing a war criminal should be so obvious and easy. How come the
democratic party can't come to its sense and convince the red states to
open their eyes to the danger of leaving bush in office for 4 years ?
The war criminal needs to be impeached before he ruins the USA
financially, and ruins the world with middle east massive civil
uprisings against the USA.

How can a guy who presents a budget that doesn't include all military
spending be taken seriously ?

And of course, nobody finds it strange that a huge bombs explodes just a
couple weeks after Bush included Syria in its axis of evil speech during
state of the union. Bush has realised that he is too weak to take on
Iran, so he found himself a neat little countrty to invade, one that is
more it tos size: Syria. (It realised that the USA was too weak to take
Iraq, so now it has to pick smaller enemies).

Syria wouldn't have been stupid enough to plant such a bomb in Lebanon
so quickly after Bush had pointed fingers at it. Rumsfeld's private
pentagon version of the CIA did it.

Rumsfeld is on the same track with Syria as he was with Iraq. They
pretend to go diplomatic only etc tec, but they will ensure the
diplomacy fails to a point where sending troups will force Syrian
government to appear to want to negotiate, they will ensire those also
fail, and since their troups will be there, they may as well invade. And
they'll again do this in the february/march timeframe and use teh "if we
wait too long, it will be too hot to invade, we can't wait for the UN to
take another 6 weeks, we must invade now".

In article
,
alohacyberian wrote:

How wrong do some people have to be before they lose
their audience?

Apparently it doesn't matter how wrong you are. The re-election of
Dubya being a perfect example.

"Alan Street" wrote in message
...
In article HyTRd.18588$Tt.9633@fed1read05, miles
wrote:
? Alan Street wrote:
?
? Funny you should say that. The right's hatred of Clinton is the *only*
? thing that got Bush elected and re-elected. I expect it will be the
? left's hatred of Bush that unseats the republican party in 2008.
?
? Hatred of Clinton got Bush elected and then re-elected? Oh too funny.
? Bush ran against Gore and Kerry, not Clinton.

Really?

Then please tell me why every right winger on Usenet and talk radio
immediately lapses into the "Bush didn't get a blowjob" mantra as soon
as they backed into a corner (much as you are now).


LOL! You just falsely accused him of doing what in actuality YOU did! That's
hilarious! At any rate, it's doubtful the Democrats will take back the White
House in 2008 if Hillary Clinton is their candidate. Even if she isn't their
candidate, it's still unlikely. KM
--
(-:alohacyberian:-) At my website there are 3000 live cameras or
visit NASA, play games, read jokes, send greeting cards & connect
to CNN news, NBA, the White House, Academy Awards or learn all
about Hawaii, Israel and mo http://keith.martin.home.att.net/

"miles" wrote in message
news:0C7Sd.18704$Tt.16443@fed1read05...

Ah yes, once again the lefts use of foul language or name calling as a form
of debate. Good grief. Why does the left always resort to such tactics
every time?
Lefties are commanded to do so, that is, engage in name-calling and foul
language, by the "Politically Correct Official Elitist Leftwing Liberal
Handbook" in articles #21, 30 and 45. It's not their fault. They're just
following orders. KM

"#21. You have to refuse to discuss the issues in a rational manner and
whenever someone attempts to do so, throw a 3 ring tantrum, rant and rave, go
into a lunatic rage and outshout them (preferably with profanity and
name-calling) and stick to personal slurs, smear tactics, slander and
building strawmen so you can knock down the strawmen (oops, sorry,
strawpersons) and hopefully sidetrack the conversation away from your lack of
ability to support your positions or refute the arguments of others. When you
can't think of anything plausible to say, and name-calling and personal slurs
are no longer working because people with IQs above ginger snaps can see
right through such childish tactics, an especially effective prepubescent
ploy that will at least convince other Elitist Leftwing Liberals, is to claim
your adversaries hate America, or if you're on the cowardly side, indignantly
ask them why they hate America even though it's obvious that its the Elitist
Leftwing Liberals who hate America and Americans. Uncles Lenin and Stalin
always urged us to accuse our adversaries of the very things we're trying to
hide. If you repeat this enough times, Elitist Leftwing Liberals will be
offering awards - they may not be candy bars, but, you will be sure to win
some snickers."
~ The Politically Correct Official Elitist Leftwing Liberal Handbook
~ http://alohahawaii.home.att.net/leftwing.html

--
(-:alohacyberian:-) At my website there are 3000 live cameras or
visit NASA, play games, read jokes, send greeting cards & connect
to CNN news, NBA, the White House, Academy Awards or learn all
about Hawaii, Israel and mo http://keith.martin.home.att.net/

"miles" wrote in message
news:ahWRd.18638$Tt.9032@fed1read05...
Alan Street wrote:

Really?

Then please tell me why every right winger on Usenet and talk radio
immediately lapses into the "Bush didn't get a blowjob" mantra as soon
as they backed into a corner (much as you are now).

Will you just listen to yourself? The above statement is your best effort
at debate? Yes, some ppl's kids. Amazing but predictable.

"If you can somehow force a liberal into a point-counterpoint argument, his
retorts will bear no relation to what you said--unless you were, in fact,
talking about your looks, your age, your weight, your personal obsessions, or
whether you are a fascist. In the famous liberal two-step, they leap from one
idiotic point to the next, so you can never nail them. It's like arguing with
someone with Attention Deficit Disorder."
~ Ann Coulter
--
(-:alohacyberian:-) At my website there are 3000 live cameras or
visit NASA, play games, read jokes, send greeting cards & connect
to CNN news, NBA, the White House, Academy Awards or learn all
about Hawaii, Israel and mo http://keith.martin.home.att.net/

"miles" wrote in message
news:vx7Sd.18701$Tt.3356@fed1read05...

Oh please. What a load of crap. The blue states are blue because of the
high number of people dependent on government services. How to **** off a
liberal: Work, Be Successfull, Be happy.

"Conservatives believe in the idea of 'Give a man a fish and you feed him for
a day; Teach him how to fish and you feed him for a lifetime.'
Liberals/Democrats, on the other hand, are determined to enslave the masses,
especially minorities, by promoting dependence on handouts from government.
I believe their political philosophy to be 'If you rob Peter to pay Paul, you
can always count on Paul's support.' Liberals still believe in an
aristocracy, and want to be part of the elite class."
~ Kyle Word

"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only
exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from
the Public Treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the
candidate promising the most benefits from the Public Treasury with the
result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy always to
be followed by dictatorship. The average age of the world's greatest
civilizations has been 200 years. Those nations always progress through the
following sequence:
From bondage to spiritual faith,
from spiritual faith to great courage,
from great courage to liberty,
from liberty to abundance,
from abundance to selfishness,
from selfishness to complacency,
from complacency to dependency,
from dependency back into bondage."
~ Alexander Fraser Tytler (1748-1813), "The Decline and Fall of the Athenian
Republic", Scottish historian at Edinburgh University
--
(-:alohacyberian:-) At my website there are 3000 live cameras or
visit NASA, play games, read jokes, send greeting cards & connect
to CNN news, NBA, the White House, Academy Awards or learn all
about Hawaii, Israel and mo http://keith.martin.home.att.net/

"Deep Foiled Malls" wrote in
message ...
On Sun, 20 Feb 2005 18:32:15 -0700, miles wrote:

Given that the Republicans are the ones who are massively deepening
the debt of the US and spending collosal amounts of money on failing
foreign policy decisions, I just cannot see how you can believe this.

Anyone who sees the national debt as being all-bad is only illustrating his
ignorance of basic economics. As a percent of the GDP the national debt was
historically the highest under the Reagan Administration (much higher than it
is now) and the Leftwing was screeching to the heavens about the horror of it
all - while they doled out dire doomsday warnings foretelling cataclysmic
economic chaos and catastrophe! They couldn't have been more wrong. The
American economy began the longest period of expansion in the history of the
United States. And the screeching about the current national debt is again
ill advised and wrong. How wrong do some people have to be before they lose
their audience? Or do they live for hysterical melodrama? KM
--
(-:alohacyberian:-) At my website there are 3000 live cameras or
visit NASA, play games, read jokes, send greeting cards & connect
to CNN news, NBA, the White House, Academy Awards or learn all
about Hawaii, Israel and mo http://keith.martin.home.att.net/

"miles" wrote in message
news:GS9Sd.18714$Tt.15076@fed1read05...
PTRAVEL wrote:

How about "leftist" for starters. I'm a moderate. I always have been
(I've even voted for a couple of Republicans in my time).

In the scope of your comments here, you are a leftist. Thats name calling?
Heck you just called yourself a name, moderate. Good grief.


Why is it that Leftists get their hackles up when being called what they
really are? Granted, they must be ashamed of being Leftists (which is
certainly understandable) but, why all the insistence they be called
something else such as "centrist", "moderate", "progressive"? Or does that
just go along with a natural avoidance of fact and truth? KM
--
(-:alohacyberian:-) At my website there are 3000 live cameras or
visit NASA, play games, read jokes, send greeting cards & connect
to CNN news, NBA, the White House, Academy Awards or learn all
about Hawaii, Israel and mo http://keith.martin.home.att.net/

wrote in message
...
On Sun, 20 Feb 2005 17:24:07 -0700, miles wrote:

Are you for real? Networks such as CBS are about as biased as they
come. Just because that bias agrees with your views does not make it
journalism.

Just ask Dan Rather. He is effectively finally being canned for just
this. Along with a bunch of others.


Or read the book _Bias_ by Bernard Goldberg, a lifelong Liberal, who worked
for CBS for 27 years and was certainly in a position to know about the bias
there. KM

"If I've learned anything after all these years as a network newsman, I know
this much: _never_ - _never_ underestimate how low news executives, and TV
people in general, will go in pursuit of higher ratings."
~ Bernard Goldberg, _Bias - A CBS Insider Exposes How the Media Distort the
News_, page 78
--
(-:alohacyberian:-) At my website there are 3000 live cameras or
visit NASA, play games, read jokes, send greeting cards & connect
to CNN news, NBA, the White House, Academy Awards or learn all
about Hawaii, Israel and mo http://keith.martin.home.att.net/