Peg:

Peg:

"He's not the one declaring war and threatening to attack the U.S"

I already knew that, but if he gives two bowel movements about the UN why isn't he there? Or do only people that are declaring war (or being sued for not declaring war) have to show up? Maybe the ones violating 16 or so UN resolutions do not have to show up and the ones seeking to enforce the 16 resolutions need to show up.

"perhaps he could not spell "liberty."
We have him submit to a spelling test immediately to prove or disprove your point.

"again, this vast oversimplification and overgeneralization...who precisely is the "American public?"

People other than the government. Some things are simple.

"Do you really think every single American thinks and speaks the same way?"

Nope. Just look at the difference between you and me.

"That is just stupid."

I haven't called you any names. It would be disrespectful.

" --perhaps the word you seek is "anally."

Yes. The word I sought was anally.

"I really don't see the leap of logic you're trying to make here"

Seek some help in the logic department.

"the second amendment was written in the days of the slow-loading musket."

Fairly common knowledge. They even had pistols that could be concealed on ones person.

"Surely our forefathers did not foresee a day when schoolchildren would bring 9mm handguns and semi-automatic weapons to school"

I guess you think they were stupid like me.

"taking all the guns away from school children sounds like a fine idea to me."

Good. It would be even better to have the parents keep them away from their kids. What I was referring to is the outlawing of guns and I think you knew that.

"then you're about as blind and gullible as I suspected"

I have no response to that except to say you can call me what ever you like if you think it proves your point. It does not hurt my feelings and does not disprove my point.

"-oh, I see, because there is absolutely no possibility whatsoveer that they might make a mistake about you or your loved ones?"

Yes. I can see that here is a possibility that they can make a mistake about me or my loved ones. They could do that before any of the security bills passed after 9/11 But they will most likely be zeroing in on terrorist groups or people supporting them because now it will be easier. Perhaps the word you sought was whatsoever. I have never seen and never will see anything that is 100% foolproof.

"the protestors are protesting a needless war in Iraq. Explain, please, what connection this immanent attack upon Iraq has to do with "preventing terrorism?" Attacking a bunch of innocent civilians with bombs has nothing whatsoever to do with "preventing terrorism."

I fail to see this scenario of "attacking a bunch of innocent civilians with bombs." Everywhere I read about the strategy to bring about a regime change talks about avoiding civilian casualties. Where is this coming from except other war protestors? Just telling me I am stupid, gullible and blind does not prove your point or disprove mine. I can just say you are stupid, blind and gullible too but that is not a valid method of debate.

Where in the news have you heard that the armed forces are going to attack a bunch of innocent civilians with bombs? Why would anybody do that anyway? It would not help attain a regime change and it would be a waste of bombs that would be better targeted at the Iraq military. I read and I watch the news and I do not pay attention the talk shows. I don't see any indication of an attack on the civilians.

As for preventing terrorism, Saddam Hussein supports, finances, aids and abets terrorism. On small example of that is he openly sends money to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers, thereby encouraging others to do the same. This money is diverted from the money should go to the citizens of Iraq.

" --I'd lay in a lot of bottled water if I were you."

I already have on advice of Homeland Security.

Old Guy