Laughing City
<< prev | goto page
 | next >>

elephant or donkey?
Republican
34%
 34%  [ 37 ]
Democrat
42%
 42%  [ 46 ]
go ralph nader! (green)
10%
 10%  [ 11 ]
People can take care of themselves (libertarian)
12%
 12%  [ 13 ]
Total Votes : 107

Author Message
manchilds
Lost at Forum


ambientgecko wrote:
sorry, this is long too, but I think it's worthwhile to read:

When politicians see television cameras, even the most reasonable and responsible among them become more than willing to sink the ship of our nation with the inflammatory rhetoric spewing from their loose lips. The 9-11 Commission has done nothing to further the prevention of terrorism, but has been a dirty political blame game that must have been very entertaining for Osama bin Laden (assuming he has access to television in the hole he is cowering in). The public hearings have been a dangerous farce, eroding the confidence of some and exposing our divisions to those who wish us ill.

The Democrats on the committee seem to believe President Bush has the deductive abilities of Sherlock Holmes, the omniscience of God and the physical abilities of Superman. They would have us believe that when President Bush read al Qaeda chatter saying, “Something big is going to happen,” he should have swung into action! He should have known that terrorists were going to hijack airplanes. He should have known who was going to do the hijacking, what planes they were going to hijack and the buildings they were targeting. President Bush should have donned his cape, flown out of a White House window, grabbed those planes, landed them safely, slapped the terrorists around and escorted them to jail. He should have zipped over to Afghanistan and zapped bin Laden with his laser vision!

Ben-Veniste and Kerrey didn’t actually paint that comic book scenario, but it is clear they believe that President Bush should have known what was going to happen and should have stopped it. Let’s pretend that after finally assuming the Presidency (after months of fighting Democratic election fraud and obstruction), the President and his team moved into a White House (vandalized and looted by Democrats) and began picking up the pieces of our intelligence services (defunded, degraded, hampered and nearly destroyed by Democrats from the Church Commission to Clinton). Richard Clarke tells President Bush the details of the 9-11 attacks. Clarke, having spent the previous two years as the nation’s leading Chicken Little, warning that the year 2000 would usher in a cyber Armageddon, somehow convinces the President of his veracity.

Should the President have pushed for a strengthening of our intelligence services, a coordinated effort that would have allowed the monitoring of terrorist suspects within the United States – a Patriot Act? Democrats and many Republicans would have screamed that a fascist regime was undermining American civil liberties. The ACLU and other legal groups would have flooded the courts with lawsuits, and impeachment hearings would have followed.

Should the President have ordered an investigation of Islamic groups? The nation would have cried that he was a religious bigot bent on imposing Christianity on America. Should he have ordered tightened security at airports, and the screening of Middle-Easterners? He would have been branded a racist, and enemy of civil rights.

Should he have ordered Air Marshals be present on all domestic flights? Should he have shot down the planes before they reached their targets? Should he have closed our borders? Should he have rounded up all suspected terrorists and placed them in internment camps? All of these actions could have prevented the 9-11 attacks. None of them would have been tolerated by the Congress, the courts or the American people.

There are only two ways another 9-11 can be prevented. America can become a police state, in which every citizen is watched and investigated. Or, terrorists can be killed or imprisoned before they enter our nation. President Bush has chosen the latter, and he has strengthened our intelligence services to investigate suspected terrorists within our borders. Any reasonable person can see the wisdom in this approach – simply stated, it is best to chop the head off of a snake before he has the opportunity to strike.

President Bush has shown the wisdom and fortitude to wage a world wide war on terror regardless of the opinions of the world. Under his leadership, America has overturned terrorist regimes and their sponsors and created a trend of pro-American democracy in the Middle East. As President Bush said, this will be a long war, with many battles. There will be more terrorist attacks, here and abroad. America will make new allies and new enemies, and at times it will seem like the whole world is against us. However, we are on the right track, pursuing the only workable strategy. With the resolve and courage to set aside political posturing, we will win.




if you haven't read that, you should read it before posting, and not skip it becuase its so long (like I did at first)

_________________
If you wanna go on a picnic, I'll bring the watermelon.
Joined: 21 Aug 2003 | Posts: 1029 | Location: Austin, TX
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
potato
Laughing Citizen


this thread has become too long for me too read, and i'm too tired to argue with anyone.
so...does anyone want to summarize for me? Laughing jk

_________________
www.myspace.com/neilcorbett
Joined: 16 Jul 2003 | Posts: 1828 | Location: ft. worth
View user's profile Send private message
swiss army romance
Golly, Poster


I would think Bush did the right thing with Iraq if I believed he was being genuine. I wasn't a liberal thinker when it came to war before Bush took office. I'm kind of like the girl who turned lesbian after a really bad experience with a guy. Granted, Iraq needed to be changed, the people were oppressed, people were being killed. My point is, though, that you can't help one country who live under an oppressive dictator and then let other dictators go free because they serve your interests. Iraq shouldn't have been at the top of our priority list. This isn't about democrat vs. republican, liberal vs. conservative (though I will admit, some make it that way), it's about why invade Iraq when they aren't even the most extreme case of what we were supposedly fighting against in this war. You can't convince me that there weren't politics behind this war in some way, whether it was for the oil, or trying to put a democratic country in the middle of a troubled region. It couldn't have been about the people of Iraq because there are people worse off then them. If couldn't have just been about whatever "imminent danger" that Bush was talking about because there are other countries that were much more of a threat to us than Iraq. All I'm saying is that the fact that Iraq would be such a push-over in a war must have had something to do with why we chose them to go after next. I don't believe Bush is a war-hungry mongrel, but I do believe he is a politician.

I'm going to propose a question to the people who will post after me in this thread, and I'll appreciate it if you answer honestly. Taking the real facts into account, the fact that Iraq was neither the most dangerous, nor the most oppressive to its people, don't you think that this war was in some way politically motivated and not just "a noble president doing a nice thing for a troubled country".

Answer honestly

_________________
I think that it's brainless to assume that making changes to your window's view will give a new perspective.

Joined: 26 Jul 2003 | Posts: 754 | Location: Good ole' Goshen, Oh-hi-Oh
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail AIM Address
Paranoid Android v2.0
Vintage Newbie


A president who can lead us to an easy victory looks good when the voters go to the polls. Perhaps Bush chose Iraq over another hostile such as North Korea because he and his administration believed it would be a simple task to steamroll over Iraq, install a democracy, then smile for the cameras and wait for impressed Americans to re-elect. But now it isn't looking so quick, with tours of duty being extended and all.

Then again, maybe I'm wrong. But we never know what is really motivating politics.

_________________
Audioscrobbler Now

This is MYSPACE
Gee, Blog
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 | Posts: 4250 | Location: Up here in Connecticut
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger
Ecouter
Vintage Newbie


Paranoid Android v2.0 wrote:
Perhaps Bush chose Iraq over another hostile such as North Korea because he and his administration believed it would be a simple task to steamroll over Iraq, install a democracy, then smile for the cameras and wait for impressed Americans to re-elect. But now it isn't looking so quick, with tours of duty being extended and all.

hmm... i honestly don't think that had anything to do with it. but that's just me.

_________________
Facebook & Twitter & Blog(ish)-type thing
Joined: 18 Jan 2004 | Posts: 5565 | Location: Austin, TX
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail AIM Address
manchilds
Lost at Forum


is it so bad to help another country and help them establish a democratic society? sure there are other oppressed countries, but I'm sure if we were to try and help them out george w. would be facing the same condemnation he is receiving about Iraq. there are many oppressed countries, but it is not possible that we help them all at the same time. why is it that since america chose to go into Iraq, overthrow its wicked dictatorship and try to establish a democratic governement for people who have NEVER experianced freedom conjurs such hate from people? if we were to attack syria there still would be complaints, if we were to attack Saudi there would be complaints, if we were to attack North Korea there would be complaints, and if we didn't do anything the only thing that would happen would be that the terrorists slowly grow in number......and what type of attack do you think they would be planning on next? then there is also the intelligence system that everybody seems so eager to debunk, which claimed that Iraq still had weapons of mass destruction...... which we KNOW did exist because saddam used them on his own people. for all bush new, Iraq had those weapons and wasn't afraid to use them. in the process of liberating Iraq we have caught countless terrorist leaders. captured one of the most ruthless dictators in history, and am making america a safer place. so even if it was all political to go to Iraq I'm not complaining!
_________________
If you wanna go on a picnic, I'll bring the watermelon.
Joined: 21 Aug 2003 | Posts: 1029 | Location: Austin, TX
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
ambientgecko
Lost at Forum


first all answer Swiss Army, I don't think it was a political move, it hasn't helped Bush at all, in fact it's hurt him, I honestly believe he did what he thought was right from his heart. That seems to be what he does regardless of the reaction he may get from it.

My main reason for posting so much on this thread is that I don't want people to make the decision to vote for the wrong person. Neither candidate is perfect, but it's a lot harder for me to follow Kerry than Bush. Kerry can't even decide what he wants to be for and against. I've come up with several flip flops of Mr. Kerry that I'm prepared to post.

Slate continues its short features on the 2004 presidential candidates. Previous series covered the candidates' biographies, buzzwords, agendas, worldviews, best moments, and worst moments. This series assesses the candidates' purported flip-flops. Here are two switches commonly attributed to John Kerry—and the context his critics leave out.

Flip: In December 2002, Kerry said, "We should encourage the measurement of the real value of companies by ending the double taxation of dividends."

Flop: Throughout 2003, Kerry opposed President Bush's tax plan, which, according to Bush, would eliminate the "double taxation on dividends." In May, Kerry voted against the final plan, which cut but didn't eliminate the tax on corporate dividends.

Context: Kerry believed the tax cut would do little to stimulate the economy, considering the deficit and the war in Iraq. In regard to the dividend tax and his position switch, he said, "I don't support [eliminating the dividend tax] now under any circumstances at this moment. I support it in the context of tax reform overall, in which case not doubly taxing income I would think is an important principle."

Flip: In October 2002, Kerry voted for the Iraq war resolution sought by Bush. Kerry voted against an alternative that would have authorized force only if the U.N. Security Council sanctioned it. The resolution Kerry supported stated, "The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to … defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq."

Flop: Soon after voting for the resolution, Kerry expressed dismay over the march to war. He said he wouldn't "support the president to proceed unilaterally" and consistently criticized administration policy leading up to the invasion.

Context: Kerry often said Iraq was a looming threat that had to be dealt with. He believed an invasion, done properly, would be sound policy. He insisted that Bush should "exhaust all possible remedies" to avert unilateral war, but he also said, "American security must never be ceded to any institution or to another institution's decision." That was why he voted against the alternative Iraq resolution. In the days leading up to the war, Kerry was unclear as to whether he would support an invasion without a U.N. Security Council resolution.



what's worse, a president who isn't the best speech maker, or a president who can't do what he believes b/c he's scared of offending someone, anyone?

_________________
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
WWW.MODICOMUSIC.COM
www.myspace.com/modico

"even on the drearest day
a loving hand won't turn away
God's greatest gift to man
how sweet is love"


http://www.myspace.com/ambientgecko


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Joined: 24 Dec 2003 | Posts: 1334 | Location: Fort Worth is my home... I'm at OU now though
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address
BNROCKS
Vintage Newbie


i'm gonna vote for the guy who has a better plan for getting our allies back because we need them. we're never going to win this war without them.
Joined: 20 Jan 2004 | Posts: 9108 | Location: boston, ma
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail AIM Address
joseph
Lost at Forum


BNROCKS wrote:
i'm gonna vote for the guy who has a better plan for getting our allies back because we need them. we're never going to win this war without them.



yeah... right.

Not to sound arrogant or cocky, but America has the ability to win "this war."

_________________
signed: Omygosh, Emperor of Shmo

**the turtle stamp of approval**

www.soulstrum.com
Joined: 03 Jul 2003 | Posts: 1195 | Location: West Texas
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
ambientgecko
Lost at Forum


joseph wrote:
BNROCKS wrote:
i'm gonna vote for the guy who has a better plan for getting our allies back because we need them. we're never going to win this war without them.



yeah... right.

Not to sound arrogant or cocky, but America has the ability to win "this war."


agreed

_________________
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
WWW.MODICOMUSIC.COM
www.myspace.com/modico

"even on the drearest day
a loving hand won't turn away
God's greatest gift to man
how sweet is love"


http://www.myspace.com/ambientgecko


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Joined: 24 Dec 2003 | Posts: 1334 | Location: Fort Worth is my home... I'm at OU now though
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address
BNROCKS
Vintage Newbie


i mean the war that is probably going to continue with n korea, syria, saudia arabia.. and so on

there have already been some rumors of the draft
Joined: 20 Jan 2004 | Posts: 9108 | Location: boston, ma
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail AIM Address
ambientgecko
Lost at Forum


I find it very interesting that a Democrat proposed this ridiculous draft idea. We have plenty of vollunteers already in the army and it makes no sense to me at all.
_________________
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
WWW.MODICOMUSIC.COM
www.myspace.com/modico

"even on the drearest day
a loving hand won't turn away
God's greatest gift to man
how sweet is love"


http://www.myspace.com/ambientgecko


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Joined: 24 Dec 2003 | Posts: 1334 | Location: Fort Worth is my home... I'm at OU now though
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address
BNROCKS
Vintage Newbie


ambientgecko wrote:
I find it very interesting that a Democrat proposed this ridiculous draft idea. We have plenty of vollunteers already in the army and it makes no sense to me at all.


ya, it was just a rumor....

but it is still really REALLY scary to think about it.
Joined: 20 Jan 2004 | Posts: 9108 | Location: boston, ma
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail AIM Address
ambientgecko
Lost at Forum


it really was proposed, I'll be in college so I'm not worried about getting drafted, I just think it's dumb. And it's so ironic that it's a Democrat thing, you'd think a Republican would come up with it.
_________________
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
WWW.MODICOMUSIC.COM
www.myspace.com/modico

"even on the drearest day
a loving hand won't turn away
God's greatest gift to man
how sweet is love"


http://www.myspace.com/ambientgecko


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Joined: 24 Dec 2003 | Posts: 1334 | Location: Fort Worth is my home... I'm at OU now though
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address
MomentumShift
Vintage Newbie


Green here
_________________
i should have been bordie of the month...every month.
Joined: 20 Jan 2004 | Posts: 2286 | Location: DFDubz.
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail AIM Address
Post new topic   Reply to topic

Display posts from previous:   

<< prev | goto page
 | next >>


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
All times are GMT - 12 Hours
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB, coffee, and Eisley fans worldwide.
phpBB is © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group