....unless Osama's on ice somewhere and Dubya thaws him out as an October Surprisicle. 555

Kerry is probably gonna win this if Bush keeps screwing things up. I'm surprised anyone likes Bush at this point....

As H.L. Mencken said, Mac, no one ever went broke underestimating the stupidity of the American public. But we're a lot smarter than we were four years ago. Even if Bush isn't. I swear, compared to Bush, Reagan really WAS the man his worshipers think he was.

Not talking about which one is better, but really, do you think Kerry is going to win? I think even democrats are rethinking their decision, after his never ending self-contradiction adventure. Do you know how many people in California went to see Ronald Reagan's funeral?? Now how many of those people do you think were democrats who all seem to just loathe the man? Anyways, Michael, I'm going to ignore your hatred for all republican presidents, but I agree that Reagan was better than Bush. Although Bush finally has Saddam Hussein behind bars, Reagan disassembled the whole Soviet. Reagan, like, Bush made tax cuts. And that means for everyone, both Bush and Reagan had tax cuts for everyone, not just the rich, contrary to popular belief. Bush, contradictory to conservatism, made the government even larger and more complicated than it already was, even though it was in good intentions. So I definitely have to say Reagan was better. Although restoring democracy is definitely deserving of a pat on the back, although most democrats think "restoring democracy" is killing innocent people in giant holocausts.

YWM - Now wait a minute, Reagan did not disassemble the Soviet Union - it was going by itself - you can say he accelerated it - but that's it. Believe me, Democrats are not rethinking Kerry. And where exactly did Mr. Pacholek say that Reagan was better than Bush. Reagan was evil, Bush is stupid. Oh, good parody.

To quote YWCA (young white christian ass), "Most democrats think restoring democracy is killing innocent people in giant holocausts." Yes, of course. Like Reagan in Nicaragua.

I meant to comment on that line also - first of all, where in hell did Bush and Reagan "restore" democracy? I know they both have whittled away at democracy here in the US - can you say "Patriot Act(s)"?

That is what I meant with Bush's big government which I don't approve of, Robert. I am against the Patriot Act, and John Kerry is both against it and for it, whatever that means. And even if Reagan did only accelarate the end of the Soviet Union that is a good thing. Maybe I should vote for Kerry, anyways, I mean, he agrees with every point of view. BTW, Michael said that Reagan was great compared to Bush in his only comment on his song.

Ok, straying from the topic, but WHY do you keep callling me YWM!? It's driving me insaaaaane!! The correct acronym is YWN.

YWN - Apologize for hitting the "M" and not the "N". Anyway, Pacholek did not say that in his comment - reread it. The rhetoric that you are spewing about Kerry is just the right-wing propaganda (i.e., agreeing with every point of view). So, I won't even debate this - it's not worthy of debate. The "acceleration" was not a good thing - it threw this country into economic chaos by the arms buildup - the point is, there was no need for the arms build up. And, might there be an argument made that "eliminating" the Soviet Union opened the roads to terrorism? Think about it. Finally, regarding Reagan and tax cuts, have we forgotten that this man had two of the largest tax increases in US history?

Um, no, I don't see how terrorism could've had to do anything with the elimination of the Soviet Union. Anyways, I confess I do not know much about Reagan. I do believe that he was a Christian, therefore not evil. Sure, Christians can make bad presidents, but I wouldn't define "bad" as "evil". And I am not saying that Reagan was a bad president. Furthermore, I believe that with taxes, it depends on whether we need them. If we are in a war, tax increase may be neccessary. I also believe that the only taxes we should pay to the government are things like, building highways or supporting military troops. Usually, instead the government wastes it on something random. I know people would say that we are in a war right now, but it shouldn't be defined as war unless we are in combat with another country. With The War On Terror, we are fighting Al-Qaeda, a terrorist network headed by Osama bin Laden. In The War In Iraq, we are fighting mass murderers, which may or may not be connected. Congress is funding the military, even though Kerry voted against it. BTW, were you for or against Reagan's tax increases? If not, wouldn't you be in favor of Bush's tax cuts? Looks you're in a pickle to me.

Hey RJP, et al: I'm guessing that YWCA (heh heh) is actually a middle-aged moderate who is just posing as an adolescent fascist to stir things up. I mean, come on.

Um, no, Spaff, I am a non-fascist, but conservative (YES, there IS a difference!!!) adoloscent who only states his opinion on different matters.

Ok - but one could theorize that the absence of the bear opened the door to terrorist acts against us. Afterall, there's a theory that Reagan ended communism and disassembled the Soviet Union, right? And I'm not for raising taxes to support a war that we had no business starting - but largely we can't pick and choose for what we get taxed. I'm sure, like Reagan did, you (YWN) feel helping the underprivileged is a waste of tax payer money; I don't. Re: War - if it looks like a duck . . . it's a duck. Would you prefer the phrase "mission to democratize Iraq"? And whatever happened to the war on terrorism? Why don't we have Bin Laden? It's been nearly three years since the attacks and you give me Saddam? Why wasn't the tax money which is currently being wasted in Iraq wasted on the hunt for those responsible for 9/11? A pickle, no my friend. I was simply clarifying your point on Reagan giving tax cuts to everyone (not just the rich) and pointing out that the party which claims to champion tax cuts by branding the democrats as tax and spend liberals, presided over two of the largest tax increases in US history. And for the record, no, I'm wasn't in favor of the Bush tax cuts; I'm haunted already. bob

Hey Spaff, how the hell are ya? (Didn't see your post until after I submitted). Yeah, could be. I just like to set the record straight - the right-wing propaganda in America rivals that of the Soviets. I don't know, conservatism is closer to fascism than communism ever was to liberalism. bob

Wait, you seem to be basically saying, "When the cat's away the mice will play". But how was the Soviet Union a cat to these suicidal mice? And wait... The US started the cold war? The Soviet was obsessed with dominating the world and had been threatening us for some time. As for the underpriveleged, if you mean the poor, I think that if they are going to expect anything in the mail, they have to be willing to work, as in a part time job, and maybe they will work their way up. Or, they could live entirely off the government. And no, I am fine with the phrase "Operation Iraqi Freedom", which seems to be an accomplished task, with Saddam out of the way. As for Osama, yes, I'd also like to see that criminal found and put to death, but you can't expect military to search every nook and cranny in the Middle East.

I never said that I subscribed to the theory, I said it could be made. And, please, don't tell me what you think I seem to be saying - it is not that simple. Look, if the Soviets still occupied Afghanistan, would the events of 9/11 transpired? And let's be honest, the Soviets were no threat the the US in the 1980's - that was Reagan's little fantasy. Ironic isn't it? I mean the guy you mourn has a hero today, the sole American who brought down communism - could it be that he paved the way for terrorist acts on American soil? Good, I'm glad your fine with whatever the Bush Administration is telling you to call the empire invading Iraq; I'm not. Accomplished task? You're joking? Aren't you? Hasn't the administration even backed away from "Mission Accomplished". I thought the mission was to uncover the WMD's that were stashed in Iraq, no? I guess that I should stop paying attention to the liberal bias in the media. I had no idea that we invaded Iraq to get Saddam out of the way. And if the mission is accomplished - whatever the hell the mission is when this gets posted - why are innocent people still dying? Let me get your final point straight, because I don't want to put words in your mouth. I can't expect the military to search every nook and cranny in the Middle East for Bin Laden, but I can expect (and my government apparently) to search every nook and cranny for Saddam until they find him - remember, mission accomplished? This is absurd. I live in New York City, when they find Bin Laden, that's when it's Mission Accomplished.

I'm not sure, but it may seem that we have argued to the point so that all we can do is look at each other's opinions. But here is my translation of what you have said. (Yes, I do this often)

We never should have brought down the Soviet Union. Now that it's gone, terrorists are attacking. How these two things are relevant, I cannot say. And face it, when a Communist network starts threatening you, there's nothing to be worried of. The man you praise for bringing down the glorious Soviet is a terrorist, and you can't deny it. I mean, LOOK at him. He even looks like a terrorist. Accomplished task? Even though we have removed the possible largest threat to the world and put him behind bars, we are no where close to accomplished. Wasn't the mission to uncover the WMD's, which we found some of? And why are are innocent, and when I say innocent, I mean mass murderers, still dying? Furthermore, it isn't right that the military found Saddam before Osama, so I demand they free Saddam Hussein, and we'll look for him later.

I'm sorry, I don't understand YWM-speak.

YWN!!!! Y...W...N!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Whew. Now that that's settled, yes, I am aware most people do not know YWN speak. But what you said about Osama... You're being illogical. We haven't found Osama, but we found Saddam, and after we found him (six months ago), you just complain we haven't found the other one? If we found Osama Bin Laden first, would you be complaining that we didn't find Saddam Hussein? Just because the man hasn't left us any tapes or anything for the news networks to tell us about, doesn't mean they're not looking for him. You can't expect CNN, or whatever channel you watch, to tell you every now and then, "We're STILL looking for Bin Laden!" Although, they're pretty busy in Iraq right now, so they're probably not putting as much work into it. Besides that, you see it on the news all the time, something like this. "Muhammad Al-Praz and Austin Snyder, two young snipers possibly for Al-Qaeda, have been captured today." As for Iraq, I'm not sure how long American troops are going to stay there, but I'm guessing as long as Iraq wants them there.

Well YWM - hey, if you're going to put words in my mouth, I'm going to change letters in your name. Again, you're really not reading what I wrote. First of all, all I ever wanted in retaliation for 9/11 was Bin Laden - that's where all the "wasted" tax payer money should have been spent. Since the Mission was not being accomplished, the selected President decided to invade Iraq - there was no reason to do this. But, as of today, the administration has offered several - and will probably change the reasoning several more times. If we got Osama, then it would be Mission Accomplished. I would not complain about not getting Saddam at that point because I find no reason that we should be in Iraq to begin with. And I'm not going to continue to engage in debate with you if you're going to interpret what I'm saying. The energy and money expended over Iraq should have been used to find Bin Laden - period. Finally, you may want to take a look at today's News - your State Department acknowledged that it was wrong in reporting that terrorism declined worldwide last year - so, the selected president cannot claim that he has been successful in countering terrorism. So, for my (tax) money, you have given me nothing in return for the terrible events of 9/11. I don't feel any safer now - in fact, i live fear daily because of the failed policies of the selected administration. You can spew all the right-wing rhetoric that you want to about Kerry flip-flopping but "stay the course" is not working.

You are right, the government should be using our tax money to find Osama Bin Laden instead of using it to fund rain forests in Antarctica, or whatever they usually waste it on. Anyways, I know you don't feel that we should've been going to Iraq when we had Al-Qaeda to deal with, but it's America's nature to help other countries out. Something that the French can't seem to recall.

Well, I've read the thread. That said I'll put this to bed (as far as I'm concerned, anyway): YWN, 13 or 113 your arguments are inconsistent and lack factual support. Your logic is so tortured the someone ought to notify the Red Cross so they can do an inspection. OH, don't think for a minute that everyone who paid respects to Reagan this week is going to vote for Dubyah. Although I never liked Reagan much he at least was pragmatic enough to change course occasionally when things just weren't working (For instance, he RAISED taxes in 1982, which was the right thing to do at time, although whose he raised and how he raised them is another topic, at least he recognized it needed to be done). Not to make light of his death, but all the mourning for Reagan now is weird. He was 93 and suffering from Alzheimer's disease, a terrible, progressive illness that eventully robs you of your mind and identity. Nobody wants to live like that and Reagan appears to have spent his last few years in those awful late stages. I really think that death at that point is the most merciful thing one could have. Still, if folks feel better shedding a tear or two I won't begrudge them. Anyway, Dubyah has changed course slightly as far as trying to bring in the U.N., but only because he HAS to. Unfortunately, he is going to have to do a bit more groveling to get some of the countries he dissed to go along with this. And they eventually will because they have to - it's not in their best interests to have an unstable Iraq sitting there as a gathering place for terrorists (which it was not before the invasion). Unfortunately, I must agree with Robert on the issue of "Homeland Security" also. We are not safer today. Sadly, "soft" targets" are more likely to be the sites of future terrorist actions here. I'm not sure even an intelligent, forward-looking Adminstration could deal all that well with that threat. The current group of politcially-motivated, posturing bumblers does not inspire much confidence.

Paul, I've got to tell you, I had to laugh when you said, "Unfortunately, I must agree with Robert." Am I really that bad? Anyway, YWM - again you've put words into my mouth. I'm not sure where I mentioned funding for the rain forests in Antarctica - I wasn't aware that Antarctica had rain forests. But I did say that the funding for the unjust war in Iraq should have gone to hunting Bin Laden. Again, please do not change what I say - I do try to be as clear and concise as possible. Fortunately, I agree with Paul - your arguments do lack factual basis - not inconsistent with right-wing rhetoric, I might add. And, he's right, we are not safer - come to NYC and ask people on the streets - we live in fear. Finally, while it may be America's nature to help out other countries, this selected administration would have been better off helping out its own country. Where's all the federal money that was supposed to be coming to New York City - my guess is that it's either being used to fight the unjust war in Iraq or being spent on new fire trucks in Nashville.

LOL, I also thought it was funny when Paul said that. Anyways, my standpoint on Homeland Security, is that we may be safer, but it is still not worth it to go around like that bugging phones and such. It is just an invasion of privacy. Robert, Robert, why is it that you can't stand to admit that we agree on one issue? You know well when I said "rainforests in Antarctica", I was just exaggerating how the government wastes our money, when it could be using it to help find Osama Bin Laden.

YWN - I didn't think you had a sense of humor, that's why. And, we're not safer.

Hey, if I didn't have a sense of humor, wouldn't it be kind of quirky about writing songs, like, for example, squirrels dominating and ruling the world? Actually, it is still quirky, even with my sense of humor provided. ;-)

And I'm not going to agree or disagree about whether we are safer or not, because I don't know. All I know is that the government shouldn't be doing that. I'm tired of Bush being Big Brother.

Fair enough on safer - and I understand why people may feel safer - and in many places, they are safer now. (This is why I emphasized where I live - not for sympathy but for perspective - we're still one of the several targets; and we feel it. I loved your end Bush comment (and agree) - glad to see that your understand and value our (Bill of) rights. I was going to ask you about your writing - couldn't find you listed - so I didn't bring it up (didn't want it to appear that I was challenging your posts.) Since your brought it up, what are your parodies listed under - I'd like to read them. bob

Yeah, Ben Franklin warned people about giving up rights just to guarantee a little more safety. You know what also bugs me? People call me Pro-Bush if I say something good about him, and Anti-Bush if I say something bad about him. Am I Pro-Anti-Bush?
I'm not on "The List", because I don't have ten parodies on this site yet. I only have nine, however, I have recently finished a song called "Failure For Inspiration", a parody of "Lose Yourself" by Eminem. So soon, you can see all of my parodies in one page. My question is, how do you get on the list? Do you have to notify Chuck when you've written ten parodies for him to add you on to the Parody Authors list?

I believe it just goes up automatically. I'll search for you and read the songs I'm familiar with. Actually, you appear to be more of a civil libertarian (on the right). I guess if I were to describe my self it would be - a liberal civil libertarian. However, let's face it, it's a two-party system - only a democrat or republican can win the presidency with the existence of the electoral college (this is where the Constitution should be amended). So, you're pro-Bush by default - as I'm pro-Kerry by default.

I wish there was a party such as conservative libertarian, because I am wondering if I will be a registered Republican or Independent when I turn 18. I'll probably be Republican. I hold some libertarian ground, such as that the government should only tax us for construction and military, but I don't want marijuana to be legal. I find it strange that most of the libertarians think it is wrong to have a Bible in school, since the party is supposed to be based on free will. Speaking of the Bible, Kerry is supporting the Vatican's movement that it should be illegal for people to give sermons unless they are a legally ordained minister, which I find a violation of Freedom of Speech. I bet he thinks he is winning the Christian vote, but by doing that, he is only winning the Catholic vote, which I see as a different religion from Christianity. But I've strayed off.

Anyways, I am in favor of the electoral college, and I don't think that it is their fault that other parties have no chance of winning. The thing is, most citizens are either Republican or Democrat. By the way, I saw a website called "Conservative Democrats". It says that being conservative has nothing to do with being a Republican, and than the only definitions of the two parties are that one prefers a republic and the other a democracy. I never thought of that. I prefer a republic, which I'm glad of, because if I was one of those Conservative Democrats, I would have a heck of a time trying to explain my beliefs. "Yes, I'm a democrat, but NOT liberal. Yes, yes, there is a difference...." So, I suppose there are liberal Republicans out there too. I'm so confused now...

Hey, YWN....I was going to answer you about getting your songs on a list, but dang! Such a long thread...and when I got down here to answer, I found that Robert had answered. The title that you picked out, "Failure For Inspiration", got my attention because that's me lately...no inspiration.

Same with me, Adagio. I have been constantly thinking about what to write for a new parody, and I haven't found anything. I decided to write a song about having trouble writing a parody. This is the most difficult song to parody I have done. I don't think it was very well executed, seeing as I stayed up late with my eyes strained trying to finish it, but maybe that gave it authenticity. ;-)

I have recently learned that John Kerry didn't support the Vatican's plan just to get some votes from them, but because he is a Catholic himself. Let's think about this. If George W. Bush wants students to be allowed to have Bible in school, people say he is a religous fanatic. So what exactly is it when John Kerry thinks that only legal ministers, probably from the Vatican, can preach? Okay, Bush wants Freedom of Speech, and Kerry is against it. I'd like to see the liberals dodge this one.

Actually, YWN, what I said was, compared to Bush, Reagan really was the great man his acolytes claim he was. And only when compared to Bush. Well, maybe when compared to Nixon. In reality, Reagan was a simple fantasist who just could not imagine that his policies were causing harm to America and other nations. Remember: "I said we did not trade arms for hostages. My heart and my best intentions still tell me that is true. But the facts show that this was not the case." As Mondale (hardly a great man, but a better man) said, "It ain't that he lies, it's that he believes things that ain't so."

Robert brings up a good point: The elimination of a tyranny often causes a vacuum into which other dangers step. The fall of Napoleon III led to the Paris Commune, whose fall led to a united Imperial Germany. The fall of the Czar led to the birth of the Soviet Union. The fall of the Kaiser opened the door for the rise of the Nazis, whose fall opened the door for the expansionism of the Soviets, whose fall led to the Yugoslav civil war, the Taliban in Afghanistan and the rise of the Russian version of the Mafia. The removal of Mossadegh led to the restoration of the Shah's royal Islamic brand of fascism, which led to the Khomeini revolution, which led to the Reagan/Bush support of Saddam. Taking the excesses of Reconstruction out of the South led to "the strange career of Jim Crow." Killing Jim Crow led to the axis of evil that is Southern prejudice and the twisted version of Christianity preached by the Falwells and Robertsons. I wish we had leaders who could see a step ahead, and prepare to keep the next enemy from getting too powerful. But who has that kind of vision? Reagan certainly had a vision, but what happened in Russia and the Middle East certainly wasn't a part of it.

Okay, as I said before, I just don't know much about Reagan, and I confess I never should've started talking about him. Is your image of Reagan a well intentioned, nice man that screwed up? Just asking.

Even if it is true that destroying evil creates a new evil, it is not wrong to destroy evil. Because you DESTROY evil, not negotiate with it. Take this example:
"Mr. Bin Laden, I was hoping we could work something--" "Silence in the name of Allah! You infidels will never stop me." "Well, we were thinking along the lines of 'why not get along'. Don't you want to be a part of peace?" "Allah does not want peace. He wants REVENGE!" *Osama Bin Laden pulls out a machine gun* "DIE INFIDEL!!" "I guess this means no..."

I believe Robert said that Bush is not doing a good enough job of finding Osama Bin Laden and bringing him to justice. First, let me point out that Bush is not the person who funds the military. Robert is speaking of more search parties, of course. It is the government's decision whether or not they can either fund military or use it for strawberry flavored toilet water. Usually, the government would go for the latter, so I wouldn't be accusing Bush of anything. Anyways, why should we bring Osama Bin Laden to justice if it will just mean more evil? You see, we always have to get rid of evil people, whether or not it will open a door for new evil. I also have a question, not a challenge, but a question because what you said earlier confused me. How did the fall of the Soviet Union open a door for the Taliban?

Because it was the Taliban who won the war! And Ronnie gave 'em the weapons they needed to do it. Maybe you haven't noticed, or you're not paying attention in history class, but people tend to like guys who win their countries' wars. Here, too. Or was William Henry Harrison really qualified to replace Martin Van Buren?

I am not aware of the Taliban winning any war. I didn't know the Taliban was involved with the United States while Reagan was President either. You said that people tend to like guys who win their countries' wars. If Reagan was giving weapons to the Taliban, why are they not on friendly terms with us?