Lincoln campaigned for restriction of slavery in any new territories
or new states. He was opposed by the Democrat Party.
The 1964 voting rights bill was supported by an overwhelming number of
Repub Senators and Congressmen and voted against by the majority of
Dems Senators and Congressmen. Things never seem to change.
It is the modern day Liberals that believe that people of dark skin
and women are not as smart as white males. That is the reason they
support affirmative action.

rhooker123@hotmail.com (bobbyhaqq) wrote in message news:<689922c7.0310220615.757900d6@posting.google.com>...

There were also many President who believed that while males were
smarter than females or dark skinned people of any kind. That did not
make it true.

Who were they?

Well lets see Wilson, Taft, Buchanian, Jefferson, Washington, Lincoln,
etc etc etc.

Can you give us a quote or statement in which they said white males
are smarter than females or dark skinned people?

Umm I don't know how ignorant you are but until the mid 1960s slavery
existed and most President publically oppose abolishion, even Lincoln
did not run on abolishion. As for women, they recieved the vote in
1920, just a life time ago.

Lincoln campaigned for restriction of slavery in any new territories
or new states. He was opposed by the Democrat Party.
The 1964 voting rights bill was supported by an overwhelming number of
Repub Senators and Congressmen and voted against by the majority of
Dems Senators and Congressmen. Things never seem to change.
It is the modern day Liberals that believe that people of dark skin
and women are not as smart as white males. That is the reason they
support affirmative action.

Perhaps you need to brush up a bit on your understanding of history.

I have a better understanding of American history than you have.

America is a very very religious nation. That turned out to be a
grave liability in the war on terror. Fighting religious
fundementalists puts our own brands of religious fundementalism in the
spotlight, and under strain.

Well if the atheists won't fight the terrorists somebodys got to do
it.

Tons of atheists and agnostics were ready to fight terrorists, but
Bush decided to invade Iraq instead. In so doing he was actively
doing what the Islamic radicals were saying he was doing, defining all
Muslims as terrorists.

All Muslims are not terrorists but most terrorists are Muslim.

The fight in Iraq has NOTHING to do with the war on terror. Bush has
lost the war on terror that less religious people would have actually
conducted and won. Bin Laden is free and the Jihad against US forces
and interests which is the force behind this terror is growing and
florishing under Bush war.

The fight in Iraq has a LOT to do with terrorism. Bush is winning the
war on terrorism. Who would be the leader of these 'less religious
people' who you believe would better conduct the war. Where are the
forces of terrorism growing and flourishing?

If it looks like it is the conservative Christians against he
conservatives Muslims, which the White House has gone to length to say
it is not but not done very much to prove it is not, than we lose.
Its that simple.

Maybe some atheists will join them. I doubt if all the atheists will
roll over.

We lose because all our allies, our important allies with money and
troops, are all a bunch of godless liberals living mostly in Europe.
Without their basic support a global war on terrorism is impossible,
since it is in Europe that links between the Arab world and the West
exist, noteworthy Paris and London but all over.

Europe didn't help much in WW2. Americans and Brits had to do most of
the heavy lifting. I suspect it'll be that way again.

Ever heard of a little place in Europe called Russia?

Russia? Don't you mean the USSR? The US did a lot to finance the
Soviet effort.
In the current war on terrorism the Brits and the US are doing the
heavy lifting. Russia is not helping much.

Do you know how many 25,000,000 people are?

Again, its this kind of view, utter mythology presenting itself as
reality, which is destroying the war on terrorism.

The big myth is that we are losing the war on terrorism. I'm sure you
would have believed that the US lost the war on the day after the
attack on Pearl Harbor.

It would be like a radical Hispanic group attacked Paris. They had
operations in the US. US government aid would be critical.

But most important we would lose because there simply is more
religious conservitivism in the islamic world than in the US, it has
less to lose, more people willing to die for the cause, and has a
massive population to call upon.

So you believe that Americans won't fight and die for a good cause?
Don't be too sure. History does not back you up.

For a good cause yes, for a stupid cause no.

To Liberal/Leftists any fight for freedom is considered a stupid
cause. I'm sure you would be quite pleased if Saddam Hussein were
still in power. Am I right or have I misjudged you?

After 9-11 we had a good cause and the American people were ready to
fight, but Bush converted it in to a stupid cause: Iraq. Iraq is the
defeat in the war on terror. Sorry but we lost that war already. By
invading Iraq Bush did precisely what Bin Laden was hoping he would
do.

Iraq is a step on the way to our victory over terrorism. You have a
defeatist attitude. We will win this conlict as we did our other
battles for freedom, regardles of what people like you say to disuade
us.

rhooker123@hotmail.com (bobbyhaqq) wrote in message
news:<689922c7.0310220615.757900d6@posting.google.com>...

There were also many President who believed that while males were
smarter than females or dark skinned people of any kind. That did not
make it true.

Who were they?

Well lets see Wilson, Taft, Buchanian, Jefferson, Washington, Lincoln,
etc etc etc.

Can you give us a quote or statement in which they said white males
are smarter than females or dark skinned people?

Umm I don't know how ignorant you are but until the mid 1960s slavery
existed and most President publically oppose abolishion, even Lincoln
did not run on abolishion. As for women, they recieved the vote in
1920, just a life time ago.

Lincoln campaigned for restriction of slavery in any new territories
or new states. He was opposed by the Democrat Party.
The 1964 voting rights bill was supported by an overwhelming number of
Repub Senators and Congressmen and voted against by the majority of
Dems Senators and Congressmen. Things never seem to change.
It is the modern day Liberals that believe that people of dark skin
and women are not as smart as white males. That is the reason they
support affirmative action.

Kinda stretching it there, aren't you ? The premise
was that Iraq was doing business with terrorists
and/or were well located and financed to do so.
Their religion was irrelevant - and indeed the
mostly sunni government were very 'secular' moslems,
enough so to annoy bin-Laden.

rhooker123@hotmail.com (bobbyhaqq) wrote:

oldlib@MailandNews.com (oldlib) wrote in message news:<1b86df64.0310211416.4a0cadc5@posting.google.com>...

There were also many President who believed that while males were
smarter than females or dark skinned people of any kind. That did not
make it true.

Who were they?

Well lets see Wilson, Taft, Buchanian, Jefferson, Washington, Lincoln,
etc etc etc.

Umm I don't know how ignorant you are but until the mid 1960s slavery
existed and most President publically oppose abolishion, even Lincoln
did not run on abolishion. As for women, they recieved the vote in
1920, just a life time ago.

Perhaps you need to brush up a bit on your understanding of history.

America is a very very religious nation. That turned out to be a
grave liability in the war on terror. Fighting religious
fundementalists puts our own brands of religious fundementalism in the
spotlight, and under strain.

Well if the atheists won't fight the terrorists somebodys got to do
it.

Tons of atheists and agnostics were ready to fight terrorists, but
Bush decided to invade Iraq instead. In so doing he was actively
doing what the Islamic radicals were saying he was doing, defining all
Muslims as terrorists.

Kinda stretching it there, aren't you ? The premise
was that Iraq was doing business with terrorists
and/or were well located and financed to do so.
Their religion was irrelevant - and indeed the
mostly sunni government were very 'secular' moslems,
enough so to annoy bin-Laden.

Of course, Hussein had been working the past couple
of years to endear himself to the fundamentalists
and radicals in the region, so it's hard to say how
LONG bin-Laden would have stayed 'annoyed' enough
to avoid doing business with Hussein.

Now if we were mad at moslems-in-general we would
have immediately invaded Saudi Arabia ... maybe
carpet-bombed Mecca while we were at it. In terms
of helping terrorists and spreading violent rad
islam, there are plenty of high-ranking Saudi
officials and citizens involved.

Alas, politics. As the geographical core of islam,
it's important that we stay friendly with the Sauds
for sake of appearances. So long as they do not
openly forsake us, it looks as if we have their
tacit approval to zap their fellow moslems. It's
a "SEE ! We're nice to THESE moslems !" thing ...