|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Time to flourish where? If you're talking about Iraq there was no terror there until we liberated them. Now if we went after Syria or Iran you would be within the bounds of going after terrorism but that still would have been a not smart move because we were supposed to be dealing with Afganistan. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
"Unconditional surrender, eh?" Like I said I don't have an answer for Iraq but I know we are in a mess and I'll voice it. I'm not a political head bobber like you and I'll question when I think lives are being wasted. What isn't working isn't working. Also you still haven't given a answer, just rhetoric. |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
OMG, how did I leave this out:damn:
http://www.thoseshirts.com/anti-hillary-shirts.html http://www.thoseshirts.com/anticheshirts.html http://www.thoseshirts.com/patrioticshirts.html http://www.thoseshirts.com/gunshirts.html http://www.thoseshirts.com/cat.html http://www.thoseshirts.com/donkey.html http://folk.ntnu.no/makarov/temporar...union-1943.mp3 |
Quote:
Your only Government is God?...God himself says to respect the authority. Lay off the weed dude lol. |
I think, broadly speaking, there are only 3 kinds of Republicans (or in Canada we call them Conservatives, but same thing), and though there may be some overlap among the 3 groups its only the first one that benefits by their party's policies (and by that I mean by what they actually do once in office, and not the stuff they talk about doing or promise to do but know they can't achieve but can blame that on the Democrats). They are:
1. The rich and the very wealthy. This is not the family of 5 living on a single 150K/year income where the sole wage earner, or wage earners, are not only providing for their family but paying off big student debts, mortgages, etc and thereby likely carrying a debt load 3 to 4x higher than their annual income and for all intents and purposes practically living paycheque to paycheque; so rather these are the modern middle class, or what's left of it. The rich/wealthy are those with enough disposable income that they need not be concerned with debt, but can devote their resources to maximizing investments rather than paying off debt or using it as colateral. In another age, this would be the merchant/aristocratic class but while many, but not all, are of the 'leasure class', what they all have in common is that they have no use for any kind of social programs. Natural parks? They have no need of them, being able to spend their vacation time in more exotic locations. Community youth programs and such? Those are for "other people", these people live in their own communities that are inhabited exclusively by others of the same class. Public education? Again, these people have no use for that - their children, if they decide to have any, will attent exclusive private schools. In other words, the rich/wealthy live in a world shared by very few of us. They are not even 15% of the electorate but they are the ones who benefit the most from Republican policies, since the tax cuts they receive are the largest ones while the programs that are cut to fund them are programs they don't use and will never have any need of. Republicans, to this group, is literally money in the bank to them. 2. The religious right and others who vote largely based on exclusivie wedge issues that the Republican party can almost never deliver, but always use to get this group of voters into the voting both. Though a few of these people might also belong to group #1, most of them are average wage earners or earning a lot less (and some of them are not "earning" anything but instead are retired, disabled, or even on welfare). Unlike group 1, fiscal policy is of little to no interest to this group and many of them are even directly harmed by Republican fiscal policies but they are motivated to vote by Republican social ideology (yes, ideology and not policy since the ideology is rarely transformed into policy - if it was this group would no longer be so easily motivated to the voting both). 3. Ditto heads. These are people who know very little about economics, and who, even though they have been sold a bill of goods by the Republican party that is completely at odds with reality, will check the (R) everytime. They have no interest in reality, having been sold an alternative version that is more appealing to them by one or more of Bill O'Reilley, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, or any one of the many other right wing shills who get the weekly talking points memo from the RNC and who, aside from being part of group #1, have mastered the art of getting the other 36%+ of the electorate need to sell out their own interests in favour of a (R) win to further fatten increase these talking heads' wealth and make a big profit in the meantime. The ditto heads believe that the US is actually winning the war in Iraq, that things are just swell in Afghanistan, that it no longer matters that Bin Laden still hasn't been caught, that the fact that the price of oil has tripled in the last three years has absolutely nothing to do with the republican executive branch (many of whom are former oil executives) and their (R) minions in congress and the senate, that climate change is still only a theory, that Americans would be speaking Farsi or Arabic if the Democrats were in power, etc. Anyway that's enough for one post, spelling mistakes and all. [Edit] I would automatically lump any "Independents" into group 3; most of the talking heads who push the RNC talking points are also "Independents", which is a very nice and disengenous way of pushing Republican ideology while being able to absurdly claim that you are above it, or "impartial", etc which is all just so much transparent BS to the rest of us. You may have convinced yourself, after voting for GWB twice and listening to Rush everyday, that you are an "Independent" but the rest of really aren't stupid enough to believe you. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
It is to the point now, the devisive politics which breed a kind of 'fanatacism' about them (which is evident in the ever shrinking 'swing vote'), that its invaded American popular culture which Canadians are big consumers of (much more so than any other country in the world). We see it now not only in your news, but also in ordinary TV shows (which make up a substantial portion of our television programming), movies, music, and even popular literature. I was shocked at the political bias that was so evident in two of the recent American novels I'd read, both thrillers, that overtly had nothing to do with US politics but which both novelists (one left-wing, one right-wing) had managed to inject into the novels through the language they used, the characters and events and the way they depicted them, etc. Aside from that, I also worked for 18 months, prior to my current job, with a U.S. company here in Canada where I provided tech support to its American internet subscribers (this is part of the US "outsourcing" that has been occuring since Free Trade and NAFTA, where the low tech low paying work is being done by sweat shops in Mexico and elsewhere while the former middle class, median wage higher tech jobs are outsourced to Canada, India, and elsewhere). Anyway, even though my job had nothing to do with politics, in the course of over 10,000 calls - many of them between 20 minutes to an hour or more - there is a lot of "dead time" on the call where small talk is essential and where it was often easy to nudge the caller into the political realm, as I'd prefer to hear their views on that (whether they were right-wing or left-wing) than discuss how the Boston Redsox were doing or how windy it was in Chicago; this was particularly easy during the run-up to the 2004 election and its aftermath. So you listen to enough people from all kinds of backgrounds and over the course of a year and a half, while keeping up on the news and coming from sociological/economics background in University, you get a good feel for the political climate down south... One of my most memorable calls was from a black Vietnam veteran who was wounded over there and has been living on his VA disability ever since. I'd fixed his problem in about 5 or 10 minutes but let the conversation run on at least another half hour as he vented about how f*cked over he felt by the current government of the country he'd put his life on the line for and been maimed in the process. It was mostly memorable because the guy still had his sense of humour and wasn't only passionate, and dead on I thought about everything we talked about, but could make you laugh even while discussing some pretty bleak stuff. Anyway, that is kind of off topic but being Canadian and very openly anti-Bush I get a lot of "you hate the US/you hate Americans" which is kind of absurd when you consider that if it were true then there's no way I could have worked at one of the most stressfull/highest rates of burnout occupations for so long and while working supposedly for and with people "I hate" when I could have taken a job with a Canadian company, dealing with Canadian customers for the same pay at any time... which is what I eventually did do, but only because the job had lost any challenge (become too monotous) while at the same time I'd had enough of management and their asinine policies and office politics (but I have no preference for American or Canadian clients, and treat them no differently, since at the end of the day its all the same paycheck no matter who you work for or work with). |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
I may be wrong here but didn't we find evidence of only one small terrorist organization and this one had never been heard of then or now nor had they actually performed any terror acts. Quote:
The difference is that Iran has been proven to support terrorism. Syria has been proven to support terrorism. Why haven't we attacked them yet. The answer you are going to come with is the reason we shouldn't have attacked Iraq. I think I understand terrorism pretty well. I think I also understand the basic rules of war as in; Don't split your force. Don't fight on more than one front. Use overwhelming force. You obviously don't understand the basic's. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
I support our troops but I don't support the keep feeding men and equipment mentality. What inroads have we made there in say the last year or so for instance. I expect a blank reply here with the exception of cancelation of some units rotation sback to the states in order supply a larger force. Quote:
That incident has no bearing on my opinion however. Don't know the New Yorker. Never read it. Yes we are both in our cozy little digs aren't we. Where was your friend stationed in Iraq? Ultimately, you have no idea what it's like on the ground in Iraq also. You have heard from a friend who was knows of where he was at while in Iraq. I'm talking overall. A brief summation; I support the war on terror. I support the invasion of Afganistan. I support the use of overwelming force. I believe invading Iraq was a gross mistake and has made the situation worse, not better. I believe Sadamm was a bad guy but you don't invade countries because of a corrupt goverment. We don't have that right. We use that as a gage and we will be attacking over half the world. |
Quote:
Bush did dismantle the walls built by the Clinton administration in intelligence information sharing. And the Democrats screamed bloody murder over it when it was done. And your basic premise of war fighting may be correct in some ways, but you would have lost WW2 applying them on a global warfighting scale. Tell Roosevelt he shouldn't have fought on multiple fronts or he shouldn't split his forces between Atlantic or Pacific. And while I believe we should use overwhelming force, it would help if the Democrats would shut up when we do it, and not become Al Qaeda's domestic propaganda machine. Your general basics of war do not apply with the type of enemy we now confront. And the leftists in the USA make it very difficult to use any force at all. If you support the war on terror and Afghanistan, and you support the use of overwhelming force, why are you so opposed to President Bush? Just because you don't support our actions in Iraq? OK, you are against the Iraq war, fine. But you have not read the resolution. And it shows with your statement regarding Saddam being a bad guy, and thinking that's why we went there. Oh yeah, and one more thing, Al Qaeda was in Iraq pre-invasion. What was proven not to be true was a link of Saddam to 9/11 nor was there an absolute establishment of a working relationship. But yes, in Salman Pak, there was terrorist manuals, evidence of a hijacking training program, and Saddam was actively financing terrorists in the West Bank. And Saddam had been actively using his military forces against Kurdish civilians. That sir, can be called a terrorist supporting state by any measure. |
By your definition we should be using the military to go after Pet and Eco Activist's in this country. By your definition we should be in;
In WWII we fought on multiple fronts because we had to. We didn't start it. Hitler opened up two fronts against the advice of his generals and look what happened. We did however start Iraq. You weaken yourself as is proven today in Afganistan and Iraq. If we had the forces and money in Afganistan that we have used in Iraq their would be no Taliban, and probably no Al Qaeda and democracy would safely grow and that region could be an anchor. Instead we are piece mealing ourselves out and accomplishing nothing but holding on. I suggest you reread the resolution and gleam fact from what turned out to be fiction and I'll say it again, what was going on in Iraq was bad or evil, whatever word you want to use but did not warrant invasion. We can't go around the world invading for every wrong. I thought Al Qaeda had Sadamm as a target. Funny they would be chummy don't you think. But yes, this thread is getting tiresome. You'll crow the republican line right or wrong. I read in todays paper that republicans are starting to change and call for an exit strategy. Gee, nothing like an election to change politicians reasoning. It's disgusting. |
Quote:
1) No, there are many kinds of everything, and 2) No, you don't think. I'm not a Republican, but I do tend to be more conservative than liberal. That said, I've been accused of being both due to my opinions on various subjects. I know many extremely intelligent people who listen to Rush Limbaugh (he is quite witty, after all); not so many of them like Hannity or Coulter. You, on the other hand, usually come across as just as opinionated and lock-stepped as the people you like to point fingers at. I don't see you as any more open-minded or thoughtful in your arguments than some of the people on the "other side of the fence". You seem to already know that you are right and those who disagree with you are wrong, misguided, lying or just plain stupid. Of course that's true of a lot of conservatives as well. I myself try to see all sides of situations and leave myself open to reasonable debate. |
Quote:
The ties between Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein were about as strong as balsa wood. No doubt you must have heard about the declassified report released on Friday by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. From the 151 page report: Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Another article here: http://www.nydailynews.com/front/sto...p-379418c.html Where is that crackpot Laurie Myrolie when you need her with her wacky theories that Saddam helped plan and fund 9/11 and other trippy LSD style type theories that she paraded in the media to strengthen the case for invading Iraq during the lead up. Invading Iraq was the wrong war. Now we face the possibility of Iraq becomming another Afghanistan style haven/training ground for global terrorists (Al Qaeda), meanwhile Iran feels like it is on a role, and back in the States despite the massive policy failures and cockups following the conventional war victory in Iraq it is all going t*its up and not one sorry ass politician or beauracrat has been sacked. Accountability.....what's that? Bradclark1 has it spot on. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
Alas this is a hypothetical..but if the Anciant Roman mentality ever kicks back in...watch out....it won't be Sunday night football...it will be Sunday night throwing terrorist wannabes into the lions pit..... PS...God I pray I am not here to see this ever happen. :) |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
I also get the feeling you don't vote based on whatever candidate Pat Robertson endorses, or based exclusively on any of the usual wedge issues that republicans bring up around election time to get out the category 2 vote (gay marriage, flag burning, immigration, abortion) even if you happen to agree with their positions, its not enough to get out your vote. However you fit category 3 to a tee. You claim your an "independent", you admit you're a Rush fan, and you probably voted for Bush both times in spite of the fact that his policies have not only done absolutely nothing for you personally (your share of his biggest political plank, tax cuts, being not only next to nothing but grossly offset by the price of everything else that has increased since from the trippling of oil prices to state and municipal taxes that have had to have been raised, along with indirect federal "taxes" that have been raised or increased to make up for the shortfall and usually aimed directly at the middle and working classes) but have likely factored into a worsening of your personal circumstances since he came into office and began slashing funds to the VA and cutting back on other social programs that you may have benefitted from before or been able to benefit by now if they were still around (though you'd never admit it). Quote:
Quote:
[Edit] Recommended reading: Confessions of a Former Dittohead. I'm assuming you have a library card, periodically use it, and you claim to be open minded... and this isn't written by a left-wing kook, but by a lifelong conservative... its also a quick, light hearted read. |
"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003 | Source "I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." - Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002 | Source "One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line." - President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998 | Source "If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program." - President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998 | Source "We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction." - Madeline Albright, Feb 1, 1998 | Source "He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983." - Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998 | Source "[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." Letter to President Clinton. - (D) Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, others, Oct. 9, 1998 | Source "Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." - Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998 | Source "Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies." - Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999 | Source "We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them." - Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002 | Source "We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." - Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002 | Source "Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." - Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002 | Source "We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." - Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002 | Source "The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..." - Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002 | Source "There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." - Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002 | Source "In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons." - Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002 | Source "We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." - Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002 | Source Just reminding y'all that the Democrats don't have much of a clean slate either. And they're just as guilty as Bush for going into Iraq. |
| All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:46 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 1995- 2025 Subsim®
"Subsim" is a registered trademark, all rights reserved.