Quake3World

maybe he would have been a good president? check out this quote from his speech yesterday...nice...

"Fear drives out reason. Fear suppresses the politics of discourse and opens the door to the politics of destruction. Justice Brandeis once wrote: "Men feared witches and burnt women."

The founders of our country faced dire threats. If they failed in their endeavors, they would have been hung as traitors. The very existence of our country was at risk.

Yet, in the teeth of those dangers, they insisted on establishing the Bill of Rights.

Is our Congress today in more danger than were their predecessors when the British army was marching on the Capitol? Is the world more dangerous than when we faced an ideological enemy with tens of thousands of missiles poised to be launched against us and annihilate our country at a moment's notice? Is America in more danger now than when we faced worldwide fascism on the march-when our fathers fought and won two World Wars?

It is simply an insult to those who came before us and sacrificed so much on our behalf to imply that we have more to be fearful of than they. Yet they faithfully protected our freedoms and now it is up to us to do the same."

That is a very strong point, and has been made by others before him.

Gore is intelligent, but that bastard never had a backbone until after he was defeated. I like reading what he has to say these days, but he would have been useless 5 years ago.

Of course, that's not to say I wouldn't still prefer him over Bush's having won.

he is less of a douchebag then kerry...

Yea, I would agree with that.

I heard that Kerry was planning to try for the Dem nomination again in 2008 - moron alert?

Word. How much do you have to suck to lose to W? That should've alerted Kerry to his suck factor, even if nothing else did!

Firstly, I don't think we should trample people's rights in the name of fighting terrorism.

However, I don't think the analogy is quite fair. The British fought completely differently than the terrorists. In fact, it was the colonials who would attack from cover wearing camoflage, while the British fought in the open wearing bright colors like "civilized people". The British threat to this country was not through secret attacks.

However, the colonials were rebelling against British abuses of power, and these abuses did include the whimsical violation of human rights. The Bill of Rights was added to the constitution to protect against an abusive government when there was no threat of an enemy using those same tactics.

Lastly, the founding fathers did not put the Bill of Rights into the Constitution to begin with. It was added almost immediately because the states wouldn't ratify the constitution without those ammendments. That's why they are 10 ammendments, rather than part of the original constitution. Our founding fathers added them to the constitution because the people forced them to. If anything, this argument should indict the political apathy of the modern American citizen, not the national leadership.

Good point.

But while we're at it, let's not forget the Boston Tea Party. Our own response to economic imperialism over our resources was to destroy the goods along with the people who brought them, as a political statement.

In fact, the only way for the middle eastern oil countries to TRULY follow our example of democracy, would be to sink all our ships in the harbor, kick us out of their country by force, and overcome through pure rebellion.

But they would have to be terrorists to do something like that.

John Edwards is best nominee the dems have...this of course means he won't be nominated. Howard Dean is possibly the worst DNC chairman in the history of the party. Par for the course I guess since the dems have been chuggin bigfoot penis for several years now. Just had to get that off my chest.

that was good, wonder who wrote it for him?