TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- 2008 Elections
Pages (9): « 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 9 »

quote:

Originally posted by shaolin_Z Republican Congressman Ron Paul. If I vote, that's who I'm voting for. He's the only sane, real conservative, non-prowar candidate we have. Not only is he agiast the Patriot Act & Military Commissions Act and for maintaining/protecting our civil liberties,

I find it hard to take seriously anyone that talks about protecting civil liberties when they deny hate crime protection to a minority group. Sounds like rhetoric, just like what we have with the Bush white house today. Bashing minorities for political gain is a dirty trick that has been used far too many times ( ex. Adolf Hitler bashing Jews, the Republican Party bashing gays ) and unfortunately still works. As for gays being a threat to American families, I would be certain that more families were destroyed in the past 2 years by the horrible response to hurricane Katrina, medical bankruptsy, and the failed war on crystal meth, than will ever be destroyed by gay people.

quote:

Originally posted by LatinLover The Dems dont have anything... If Obama/Clinton/Gore the best they can come up with I got to tell you... WE ARE IN DEEP SHIT!!!!

And you disagree with Obama because, why again?

quote:

Clinton would have been president today if she would have sent Bill to hell after he disgraced the presidential office with the Monica scandal.. She knew he was guilty and still defended and stood by his side and came to his defense along with her daughter.

Wow. How about that - a person who claims he's neither a Rep or a Dem. bringing up the whole blowjob scandal, once again, and believingthat among all things that have occurred with this fucking Administration over the past years, among all things that this Administration has successfully gotten us deep into and disgraced the fuck out of us as well as completely pissed all over the Constitution,

.....well hell, we've got big problems if Hillary wants to get in because she didn't run from her cheating husband who lied about his affair that a Republican hack spent somewhere around $85 million of our taxpayer dollars investigating, even though his actual investigation was supposed to be on that whole Whitewater thingy that ended him with jack shit. Because THAT event, in lieu of everything else we are seeing, in lieu of a president who sits at 28% approval:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB117...tics_primary_hs

Twenty-fucking-Eight percent approval (approaching Nixonian levels fast), yes I can see how that whole blowjob affair really has a morality light shine down on it hard.

Great point.

quote:

If she would have said " this man in not worth anything and is a disgrace and so on" she would have been president today. Cant you guys think of the mental abuse this woman and her daughter went through?

I can think of about 3,334 other families who might be going through a bit more mental abuse than our dear Hillary, let alone the tens of thousands of wounded and disabled soldiers, and the tens of thousands diagnosed with at least one mental trauma/disorder of their own.

quote:

For what? To protect the Clinton name. Please that dosen't show 1. she respects herself 2. not a tough woman to deal with that kind of problems

Yes, I can think of a coupla other folks that don't deal with big problems themselves. Quick trivia game for ya:

1. Who pussied out of signing up to fight in Vietnam, and also has an unaccounted for gap in National Guard service on top of it?

2. Who opted out of a war 5 times because "I had other priorities", you know, bigger priorities than fighting for the very cause you supposedly believe in and want others to fight in your place instead?

quote:

The GOP is the one that is convincing me the most like people like Rommney

You mean the guy who was a wonderful librul before he turned into such a terrific "conservative"? Hasn't he flip-flopped more times than Kerry?

quote:

Guiliani( idk if he can get the GOP vote for his social views)

Oh yeah, the same guy who couldn't even get his city's own firefighters to endorse him. The same guy who's family values include a coupla affairs of his own.

I'm sorry, you were saying something about the Clintons?

quote:

and one of the guys that I want him to step up to the ring is Dr. Gingrich

Ahh yes, I like his values too. Putting his nutbag neocon views aside for a moment, I think his family values of multiple affairs, including serving divorce papers to his ex-wife while she was in a hospital bed was especially revealing of those good, sturdy conservative "values".

I'm sorry, you were saying something about the Clintons earlier?

quote:

It saddens me that the American people have forgotten that there is still OBL, that according to him he got permission from god to kill 10m Americans, and the threat that terrorist groups face not only to America and to the rest of the world.

Hmmm, that must be why Bush pulled out our troops and intelligence from Tora Bora and handed the duty of hunting down OBL to corrupt Afghan warlords and diverted those troops to fight a hapless dictator that had nothing to do with 9/11, had no WMDs, and no operational connections whatsoever to OBL and al Qaeda.

That must be why our dear fearless leader said, "I truly am not that concerned about him (bin Laden).":

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/rele...20020313-8.html

And why his Faux News/Weekly Standard bitch Fred Barnes said, "bin Laden doesn�t fit with the administration�s strategy for combating terrorism."

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Conte...12/696wnfcp.asp

Yes, I can see how the ignorant American people have seemingly forgotten about him. We need another strong leader like the one we have now to help us continue to be "not that concerned about him."

quote:

Do we have to get attacked again to get this through our heads?

Have you asked your dear president that question? Perhaps we can find out why we're bogged down in Iraq instead of fighting the true enemy that you mentioned?

quote:

What pisses me off is that the Dems are politicizing the war...

Hi Pot, meet Kettle.

Your fucking idiot president has been politicizing this war from day 1. Christ, Rove and crew have politicized EVERYTHING. How many times did we hear of threats about terrorist attacks by this Administration if someone votes for the Democrats? And that's but one of a myriad of examples.

And now the Democrats are doing exactly what they said they will do when they took over Congress, doing exactly what the majority of the American public wants them to do, doing exactly what senior military officials want them to do, doing exactly what the Bush-appointed Iraq Study Group want them to do, but in doing so they are now "politicizing the war?"

Yeah, makes perfect sense, chief.

quote:

Political parties dont lose wars, nations lose wars.

You might be right, but the American people also want a change. We wanted to stop fighting a losing battle, and wanted to open up more channels to diplomacy while standing down the military strategy instead. We wanted a change, and the Dems are bringing that change.

This war was already lost, and you'll have to come to grips with that some day. Moreover, it was lost not because of the Dems. - it was lost because this president and his Administration manipulated intelligence to get us there (and willfully ignored any counterintelligence against their conclusions already made), they had too few troops for post-war operations, had absolutely NO PLAN for a post-war Iraq in the first place, completely upended the Iraqi government infrastructure without a moment's thought as to what that might do, ignored any neighboring countries that should have played a larger role in the rebuilding process and diplomacy, ignored anyone who told them a civil war was ineviteable with the course of actions they were going to take, and had an overall complete lack of understanding of the region, culture, and religious sects that have been there for centuries.

quote:

If the Dem party all they can do is come out and present the solution to pull out i doubt that they can win the next pres elections.

With the majority of Americans behind them, with the presidential approval tanking at 28%, don't be offended if they have a wee hard time listening to your advice.

quote:

I want to get this clear I am not a Rep nor a Dem but an American that wants the best for this nation.

Could have fooled me.

quote:

If we pussy out like the Spanish did after they got attacked than I must say we must be prepare when our enemy brings the war here to our soil.

Because that's exactly what the Iraqi insurgents, both Sunni and Shiites, have in mind, don't they? They just can't wait to attack New York, right?

Just out of curiousity, what evidence has compelled you to reach such a silly assertion?

quote:

Originally posted by spiflicated pick one

right, thats what i thought.

your logic is about as empty as Biden's suit.

quote:

Originally posted by spiflicated Yes, I have, and I think they are appalling. However, this is the first time you mentioned them in this thread.

I think something like that should be on everyone's mind while voting, repealing those unconstitutional bills/legislation. So what do you not understand then?

quote:

Originally posted by spiflicated I will restate my point for you, as you seem to be mentally challenged at times. I understand that you think a state acknowledged relationship is trivial. You need to understand that there are many people that trivialize the civil liberties that you care about. When people stop trying to defend all civil rights, that's a sad day for our country

Listen, if the contituion wasn't being torn to shreds and we weren't slowly... no, more like rapidly moving towards a totalitarian state, things would be very different now wouldn't they? Assuming you're a gay man, would you rather live in a police state with reduced civil liberties for everyone even though your marriage/civil union is constituionaly recognized, or in a republic where you still have tons of civil liberties that aren't lost, minus the stuff Jake mentioned ofcourse. Do the math, and take a few lessons from history. Why is that so hard to understand? And it's not like gay right are something far in the future to struggle for, the way I see it, it's something that's bound to happen sooner or later.

quote:

Originally posted by spiflicated You're a fucking idiot if you think Ron Paul is a Republican. He's a fucking Libertarian you moron.

I know he's a libertarian but he's part of the Republican party, which would make him a Republican. [EDIT] Actually you're right, he WAS in the Republican party, but not anymore.

quote:

Originally posted by spiflicated I didn't even discuss morally right or not... again, you went off on a tangent and clearly cannot read at an adult level. My point is that everyone's civil rights need to be protected. Your civil rights are no more important than Jake Benson's.

I didn't say his civil liberties were less important than mine or anyone else's.
[EDIT] That wasn't exactly a tangent, I was just addressing the lame comment you made.

Does that help getting my point across?

So do you really think these are trivial issues trumped by a much bigger issue of "gay rights?"

quote:

Debt and Taxes Working Americans like lower taxes. So do I. Lower taxes benefit all of us, creating jobs and allowing us to make more decisions for ourselves about our lives. Whether a tax cut reduces a single mother�s payroll taxes by $40 a month or allows a business owner to save thousands in capital gains taxes and hire more employees, that tax cut is a good thing. Lower taxes allow more spending, saving, and investing which helps the economy � that means all of us. Real conservatives have always supported low taxes and low spending. But today, too many politicians and lobbyists are spending America into ruin. We are nine trillion dollars in debt as a nation. Our mounting government debt endangers the financial future of our children and grandchildren. If we don�t cut spending now, higher taxes and economic disaster will be in their future � and yours. In addition, the Federal Reserve, our central bank, fosters runaway debt by increasing the money supply � making each dollar in your pocket worth less. The Fed is a private bank run by unelected officials who are not required to be open or accountable to �we the people.� Worse, our economy and our very independence as a nation is increasingly in the hands of foreign governments such as China and Saudi Arabia, because their central banks also finance our runaway spending. We cannot continue to allow private banks, wasteful agencies, lobbyists, corporations on welfare, and governments collecting foreign aid to dictate the size of our ballooning budget. We need a new method to prioritize our spending. It�s called the Constitution of the United States. American Independence and Sovereignty So called free trade deals and world governmental organizations like the International Criminal Court (ICC), NAFTA, GATT, WTO, and CAFTA are a threat to our independence as a nation. They transfer power from our government to unelected foreign elites. The ICC wants to try our soldiers as war criminals. Both the WTO and CAFTA could force Americans to get a doctor�s prescription to take herbs and vitamins. Alternative treatments could be banned. The WTO has forced Congress to change our laws, yet we still face trade wars. Today, France is threatening to have U.S. goods taxed throughout Europe. If anything, the WTO makes trade relations worse by giving foreign competitors a new way to attack U.S. jobs. NAFTA�s superhighway is just one part of a plan to erase the borders between the U.S. and Mexico, called the North American Union. This spawn of powerful special interests, would create a single nation out of Canada, the U.S. and Mexico, with a new unelected bureaucracy and money system. Forget about controlling immigration under this scheme. And a free America, with limited, constitutional government, would be gone forever. Let�s not forget the UN. It wants to impose a direct tax on us. I successfully fought this move in Congress last year, but if we are going to stop ongoing attempts of this world government body to tax us, we will need leadership from the White House. We must withdraw from any organizations and trade deals that infringe upon the freedom and independence of the United States of America. War and Foreign Policy The war in Iraq was sold to us with false information. The area is more dangerous now than when we entered it. We destroyed a regime hated by our direct enemies, the jihadists, and created thousands of new recruits for them. This war has cost more than 3,000 American lives, thousands of seriously wounded, and hundreds of billions of dollars. We must have new leadership in the White House to ensure this never happens again. Both Jefferson and Washington warned us about entangling ourselves in the affairs of other nations. Today, we have troops in 130 countries. We are spread so thin that we have too few troops defending America. And now, there are new calls for a draft of our young men and women. We can continue to fund and fight no-win police actions around the globe, or we can refocus on securing America and bring the troops home. No war should ever be fought without a declaration of war voted upon by the Congress, as required by the Constitution. Under no circumstances should the U.S. again go to war as the result of a resolution that comes from an unelected, foreign body, such as the United Nations. Too often we give foreign aid and intervene on behalf of governments that are despised. Then, we become despised. Too often we have supported those who turn on us, like the Kosovars who aid Islamic terrorists, or the Afghan jihads themselves, and their friend Osama bin Laden. We armed and trained them, and now we�re paying the price. At the same time, we must not isolate ourselves. The generosity of the American people has been felt around the globe. Many have thanked God for it, in many languages. Let us have a strong America, conducting open trade, travel, communication, and diplomacy with other nations. Border Security and Immigration Reform The talk must stop. We must secure our borders now. A nation without secure borders is no nation at all. It makes no sense to fight terrorists abroad when our own front door is left unlocked. This is my six point plan: Physically secure our borders and coastlines. We must do whatever it takes to control entry into our country before we undertake complicated immigration reform proposals. Enforce visa rules. Immigration officials must track visa holders and deport anyone who overstays their visa or otherwise violates U.S. law. This is especially important when we recall that a number of 9/11 terrorists had expired visas. No amnesty. Estimates suggest that 10 to 20 million people are in our country illegally. That�s a lot of people to reward for breaking our laws. No welfare for illegal aliens. Americans have welcomed immigrants who seek opportunity, work hard, and play by the rules. But taxpayers should not pay for illegal immigrants who use hospitals, clinics, schools, roads, and social services. End birthright citizenship. As long as illegal immigrants know their children born here will be citizens, the incentive to enter the U.S. illegally will remain strong. Pass true immigration reform. The current system is incoherent and unfair. But current reform proposals would allow up to 60 million more immigrants into our country, according to the Heritage Foundation. This is insanity. Legal immigrants from all countries should face the same rules and waiting periods. Privacy and Personal Liberty The biggest threat to your privacy is the government. We must drastically limit the ability of government to collect and store data regarding citizens� personal matters. We must stop the move toward a national ID card system. All states are preparing to issue new driver�s licenses embedded with �standard identifier� data � a national ID. A national ID with new tracking technologies means we�re heading into an Orwellian world of no privacy. I voted against the Real ID Act in March of 2005. To date, the privacy focus has been on identity theft. It was Congress that created this danger by mandating use of the standard identifier (currently your SSN) in the private sector. For example, banks use SSNs as customer account identifiers because the government requires it. We must also protect medical privacy. Right now, you�re vulnerable. Under so-called "medical privacy protection" rules, insurance companies and other entities have access to your personal medical information. Financial privacy? Right now depositing $10,000 in your local bank will generate a �suspicious activity report� to the federal government. And then there�s the so-called Patriot Act. As originally proposed, Expanded the federal government's ability to use wiretaps without judicial oversight; Allowed nationwide search warrants non-specific to any given location, nor subject to any local judicial oversight; Made it far easier for the government to monitor private internet usage; Authorized �sneak and peek� warrants enabling federal authorities to search a person�s home, office, or personal property without that person�s knowledge; and Required libraries and bookstores to turn over records of books read by their patrons. I have fought this fight for many years. I sponsored a bill to overturn the Patriot Act and have won some victories, but today the threat to your liberty and privacy is very real. We need leadership at the top that will prevent Washington from centralizing power and private data about our lives. Property Rights and Eminent Domain We must stop special interests from violating property rights and literally driving families from their homes, farms and ranches. Our country�s founders would roll over in their graves if they saw the takings clause in the Fifth Amendment used to justify booting people out of their homes for the profit of private developers and tax-hungry local governments. The Supreme Court�s Kelo decision said government power could be used to condemn private homes and churches to benefit a huge pharmaceutical corporation and a large property developer. Today, we face a new threat of widespread eminent domain actions as a result of powerful interests who want to build a NAFTA superhighway through the United States from Mexico to Canada. We also face another danger in regulatory takings: Through excess regulation, governments deprive property owners of significant value and use of their properties � all without paying �just compensation.� Property rights are the foundation of all rights in a free society. Without the right to own a printing press, for example, freedom of the press becomes meaningless. The next president must get federal agencies out of these schemes to deny property owners their constitutional rights to life, liberty, and property.

What an aweful candidate. Let's just vote for more corporate shills.

quote:

Originally posted by shaolin_Z I think something like that should be on everyone's mind while voting, repealing those unconstitutional bills/legislation. So what do you not understand then?

I understand, just think that all arguments should be explicit and not make assumptions.

quote:

Originally posted by shaolin_Z Listen, if the contituion wasn't being torn to shreds and we weren't slowly... no, more like rapidly moving towards a totalitarian state, things would be very different now wouldn't they? Assuming you're a gay man, would you rather live in a police state with reduced civil liberties for everyone even though your marriage/civil union is constituionaly recognized, or in a republic where you still have tons of civil liberties that aren't lost, minus the stuff Jake mentioned ofcourse. Do the math, and take a few lessons from history. Why is that so hard to understand? And it's not like gay right are something far in the future to struggle for, the way I see it, it's something that's bound to happen sooner or later.

Your point is not difficult to understand, you are okay with choosing certain rights over others. I am one of those people that want all of my rights I want to see that everyone else has all the rights that should be afforded to them, which need to be both protected and fought for politically and in the courts.

I agree with you Opus. I think that Clinton is the best candidate for her party. Who do you live in this upcoming election? Which democratic duo?

quote:

Originally posted by Kapedan I agree with you Opus. I think that Clinton is the best candidate for her party. Who do you live in this upcoming election? Which democratic duo?

Well I don't recall saying or implying that Clinton is the best candidate. I was simply trying to put the former President's affair in full context to the current mess of a President we have today. In fact most here know that Clinton is the last Dem. on my list of those I'd support.

As for my current picks, I have no frontrunner, but my initial leanings are in the Edwards or Obama camp. I always hoped that Clark would come back in the race, but I think he saw his chances were slim and has stuck to the sidelines. As for a Republican, it would have to be someone like Hagel in order to get my attention.

MisterOpus1,

You failed to understand the logic behind my statement (dosen't surprise me) Moving on... you come up and compare the Clinton scandal with Bush's decision to go into war with Iraq

Okay... The clinton scandal involved a scandal that basically froze presidential operations nationally and internationally. He disgraced office, came up and lied to the American people that nothing happened between Monica( i dont know about you but i dont like being lied too) and basically concentrated all congregational efforts to get to the bottom line. Dont you think if we would have concentrated all that energy to hunt down OBL during his presidential term would have been more constructive? If you think that the white house is like being in hollywood surrounded by sex scandals you should consider in moving into Beverly hills to see whos cheating on who.

Now with Bush This is what I have to say... sometimes our leaders must take unpopular decisions for the best of our country. If you think that taking on with popular decisions is doing the right thing you must be stoned or stupid First of all our president acted on bad intelligence. We have had the same intelligence that MI6 and russian intel it was "Slam Dunk" from all 3 nations.

Okay... I love your bashing on the GOP on their divorces... awww I guess that getting divorced is an awful sin... its better to come up in public and just accept the fact that your husband or wife has had an affair and just forgive him and not only that but come out and defend him... awww that is the moral thing to do!

You say that America has lost the war... it saddens me Hey lets just follow the Dem, lets throw the towel, lets go save the penguins up north and increase taxes. And Iraq lets just forget about it and let terrorist group take over and use the oil refineries so they can fund their operations against America.

quote:

Originally posted by LatinLover MisterOpus1, You failed to understand the logic behind my statement (dosen't surprise me) Moving on... you come up and compare the Clinton scandal with Bush's decision to go into war with Iraq Okay... The clinton scandal involved a scandal that basically froze presidential operations nationally and internationally. He disgraced office, came up and lied to the American people that nothing happened between Monica( i dont know about you but i dont like being lied too) and basically concentrated all congregational efforts to get to the bottom line. Dont you think if we would have concentrated all that energy to hunt down OBL during his presidential term would have been more constructive? If you think that the white house is like being in hollywood surrounded by sex scandals you should consider in moving into Beverly hills to see whos cheating on who. Now with Bush This is what I have to say... sometimes our leaders must take unpopular decisions for the best of our country. If you think that taking on with popular decisions is doing the right thing you must be stoned or stupid First of all our president acted on bad intelligence. We have had the same intelligence that MI6 and russian intel it was "Slam Dunk" from all 3 nations. Okay... I love your bashing on the GOP on their divorces... awww I guess that getting divorced is an awful sin... its better to come up in public and just accept the fact that your husband or wife has had an affair and just forgive him and not only that but come out and defend him... awww that is the moral thing to do! You say that America has lost the war... it saddens me Hey lets just follow the Dem, lets throw the towel, lets go save the penguins up north and increase taxes. And Iraq lets just forget about it and let terrorist group take over and use the oil refineries so they can fund their operations against America.

If you truly believe that openly defrauding the American taxpayers by starting a war that has cost hundreds of thousands of lives, over a trillion dollars, and totally destabilized a region of the world that was already on shaky ground is somehow less disgraceful than lying about having sex with an ugly fat chick, then I cannot help but feel sorry for you.


I disliked Bill Clinton almost as much as I dislike Bush. But the whole idea of impeaching someone for lying about something in a civil lawsuit that the supreme court had to agree was even allowable; and then to be told he was being impeached for perjury in regards to a statement he made that was contradicted by personal wire taps that would have been inadmissable in any court of law; all of this done at the end of a 4 year long investigation that had turned up absolutely nothing worth prosecuting anyone over in court was a sick perversion of the constitutional process.

But it did its job, it made the whole idea of beginning impeachment proceedings so unpalatable to the American people that, today, a president can do things that even Nixon would not have thought of doing and know that he will never have to pay the constitutional price for his high crimes and misdemeanors.


MrS

quote:

Originally posted by LatinLover MisterOpus1, You failed to understand the logic behind my statement (dosen't surprise me)

It doesn't surprise you because?.....

quote:

Moving on... you come up and compare the Clinton scandal with Bush's decision to go into war with Iraq Okay... The clinton scandal involved a scandal that basically froze presidential operations nationally and internationally.

Evidenced by, what again?

And on the flip side of that argument, could the same be said of the GOP Congress who's relentless efforts into busting him on Whitewater, uhh I mean a lie on a blowjob?

Of course not. Let's just keep the focus on Clinton.

quote:

He disgraced office, came up and lied to the American people that nothing happened between Monica( i dont know about you but i dont like being lied too)

Which means you really love this Administration then, right? Because they've NEVER lied about anything of note, ESPECIALLY in comparison to stains on a dress and a blowjob, right?

quote:

Dont you think if we would have concentrated all that energy to hunt down OBL during his presidential term would have been more constructive?

I see that you're relatively new here, so I will say that if you do a bit of a search regarding this topic you'll find my arguments thoroughly posted in the past. Believing that Clinton could have done more is one thing, and if this is what you are stating then I would agree. On that same token, however, an equal belief in this current Administration could have done more and taken the bin Laden threat more seriously must also be equally measured. I really don't know how an Administration can seriously blow off Richard Clark who demanded meetings with the Vice President in 2000, as well as demanding from Condi Rice that more must be done, only to be handwaved away. And it's also a bit difficult to escape the simple little phrase given to our dear leader in August of 2001:

"bin Laden determined to strike the United States."

It's hard to decifer that message in any manner other than it being extraordinarily threatening.

And what did our fearless leader do in response?

So in the context, both screwed up. Now, if you're going to take it a step further and center your criticisms in the manner that Clinton was so completely distracted that he was SOLELY at fault, you're going to have to do a bit more convincing for me to believe that. In the meantime, here's a little extra reading for you:

quote:

To make this argument with any plausibility, Bush supporters would have to be able to point to complaints made by Republicans at the time -- and especially during the 2000 election -- that the Clinton administration should have been more attentive or aggressive towards Islamic terrorists. The threat posed by Al Qaeda and bin Laden was well known throughout the 1990s. To pretend that Republicans wanted a more aggressive stance than Clinton took is blatant revisionism. Prominent Republican elected officials were not criticizing Clinton for paying insufficient attention to Al Qaeda. George Bush barely said a word about Islamic terrorism during the entire presidential campaign -- throughout 1999 and then through all of 2000 -- and to the extent Republicans spoke about Clinton's anti-terrorism efforts at all, it was to criticize them for being too bellicose, too militaristic, and just unnecessary. The 2000 Republican Party Platform contains 13 specific criticisms of the Clinton Administration's foreign and military policies. Not a single one mentions or refers in any way to Al Qaeda or terrorism generally. After that, there is an entire section entitled "The Middle East and Persian Gulf" that deals extensively with Iraq and the alleged threat posed by Saddam Hussein, but it does not say a word -- not a single word -- about Islamic extremism, Al Qaeda, or Osama bin Laden. Even the section of the Platform entitled "Terrorism, International Crime, and Cyber Threats" makes not one reference to Osama bin Laden, Al Qaeda, or Islamic extremism. It does not contain a single claim that the Clinton administration was insufficiently aggressive towards Islamic terrorists, nor does it advocate increased militarism in the Middle East or against terrorists. In fact, to the extent Republicans advocated a new approach at all, it was to emphasize the need for the very "law enforcement" and "domestic preparedness" approaches which they now claim to disdain..... .....George Bush's 2000 Republican National Convention acceptance speech contained a slew of specific criticisms of the Clinton administration, along with a series of specific foreign policy goals. He never mentioned or even alluded to the threat of terrorism, Islamic extremism, or the need for increased aggression against Middle Eastern supporters of terrorism. In fact, to the extent Bush criticized the use of military force at all, it was to imply that it was not used sparingly or discriminatingly enough..... .....Then-Governor Bush also engaged in three lengthy presidential debates with Al Gore and never once criticized the Clinton administration's handling of terrorism. He never once advocated increased aggression or urged that more attention be paid to that threat. Again, to the extent he criticized the Clinton administration's foreign policy, it was to criticize the excessive use of military force. In the third presidential debate, Bush was asked about what his foreign policy would be in the Middle East. He spoke of the need to confront Iraq, but did not utter a word about Al Qaeda or terrorism generally. The criticism he made of the Clinton administration's use of military force was this: "I'm concerned that we're overdeployed around the world." ......Not a word about terrorism, Al Qaeda or Islamic extremism. In the same debate, Bush again said: "I'm worried about overcommitting our military around the world. I want to be judicious in its use. . . . It needs to be in our vital interest, the mission needs to be clear, and the exit strategy obvious." It is in that debate where he also famously said: "And so I don't think our troops ought to be used for what's called nation-building. I think our troops ought to be used to fight and win war." How is it justifiable for Bush supporters now to claim that the Clinton administration was insufficiently attentive to, or aggressive against, Al Qaeda when they said nothing of the sort at the time? They didn't spend the 1990s criticizing Clinton for failing to confront the terrorist threat. Quite the contrary; if anyone was attempting to urge the country to take the threat of Al Qeada more seriously, it was the Clinton administration. Here is what James Bennett reported in The New York Times on August 21, 1998, the day after President Clinton ordered cruise missile strikes on what the CIA believed were Al Qaeda sites in Afghanistan and the Sudan in retaliation for the bombings, two weeks earlier, of two American embassies in Africa: quote: In his speech Mr. Clinton warned Americans that the strike would by no means put an end to terrorism. ''This will be a long, ongoing struggle,'' he said. ''America is and will remain a target of terrorists.'' . . . Repeatedly he said Mr. bin Laden presented an imminent threat, quoting his pledge this week to wage a war in which Americans were ''all targets.'' That bin Laden posed a serious terrorist threat was well-known. From the same article: quote: 'What they shared with us made it crystal clear that terrorism had escalated against us,'' Senator Gordon Smith, a Republican from Oregon, said in a telephone interview . . . . President Clinton signed an executive order that placed Mr. bin Laden on the Treasury Department's list of terrorists and their sponsors, clearing the way for officials to seize his assets. Despite the well-known threat posed by bin Laden, most Republicans were not criticizing the President for being insufficiently attentive to it. To the extent they were criticizing his attacks on Al Qaeda, it was to question whether those attacks were really necessary. Some leading Republicans endorsed Clinton's response -- "Speaker Newt Gingrich expressed firm support, and the Senate majority leader, Trent Lott, said, 'Our response appears to be appropriate and just'" -- but numerous Republicans criticized the strike on bin Laden as an unnecessary diversion from what really mattered: the Clinton sex scandals which they were obsessively pursuing. The revisionism at the heart of the praise which Bush supporters are lavishing on this mini-series is manifest. The notion that Republicans wanted a stronger and more aggressive approach to terrorism than the Clinton administration took is pure fantasy. During Clinton's second term, Republicans were focused on Monica Lewinsky, not Osama bin Laden. When Clinton was President, and during the Bush presidency prior to the 9/11 attacks, Bush supporters couldn't have cared any less about Islamic terrorism. Even Clinton's attacks on Al Qaeda were immediately used as a tool to focus more attention on Ken Starr's investigation. George Bush ran in 2000 on a platform of reining in the use of military force, not expanding it. He wanted a more "humble" and restrained foreign policy, not a more aggressive one. If all one knew about the world came from listening to the Bush campaign in 2000 -- or Republicans during the 1990s -- one would barely have known that terrorism existed. The notion that Republicans wanted a more aggressive posture against Al Qaeda and terrorism during the Clinton administration is pure, unadulterated fantasy. And, by definition, any narrative which lends support to that myth -- as Bush supporters claim Path to 9/11 does -- is (in addition to its other factual inaccuracies) pure fiction. http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/...-terrorism.html

quote:

If you think that the white house is like being in hollywood surrounded by sex scandals you should consider in moving into Beverly hills to see whos cheating on who.

Uhh, huh? What on earth are you talking about here?

quote:

Now with Bush This is what I have to say... sometimes our leaders must take unpopular decisions for the best of our country. If you think that taking on with popular decisions is doing the right thing you must be stoned or stupid First of all our president acted on bad intelligence. We have had the same intelligence that MI6 and russian intel it was "Slam Dunk" from all 3 nations.

I'm sorry, you said you were neither a Dem or a Republican? Are you sure? Because these points are exactly what I hear from the Bush supporters here, as well as on AM radio Wingnut shows.

Regardless, again this has been discussed exhaustively here by me and others to which you can do a search for my arguments. But let's see if I can summarize the points again:

Lying continuously about pre-war ties with al Qaeda and Saddam were just peachy:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...7040502263.html

while all the while knowing well in advance that such ties were utter bullshit:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...90800777_2.html

No connection existed from the getgo, and they knew that:

http://nationaljournal.com/about/nj...005/1122nj1.htm

But did that stop our dear Cheney from making those connections time and again over the years?

And about that "evidence" that other countries agreed upon. You see, those other countries didn't invade Iraq, we did. So the onus of proof was upon us to be absolutely correct with that evidence and look at it with scrutiny. The problem, of course, is that there was a good heapin' amount of counterevidence against the WMD claims once we did look into it:

http://www.americanprogress.org/iss...les/b24889.html

But it was completely ignored:

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/03/i...2&ex=1254456000

The reason being was simple - a stovepipe was created to circumvent our intelligence via Office of Special Plans from Doug Feith, Rummy, and Cheney:

http://www.newyorker.com/archive/20...7/031027fa_fact

And the sources you were getting to bolster your case for war such as Curveball was outrageous liars:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/artic...MNGCLC1Q5U1.DTL

To which your Administration knew full well in advance but didn't care. It's hard not knowing about this, because you had "intelligence being fixed around the policy":

http://downingstreetmemo.com/

So there's plenty of evidence out there to indicate the intelligence was being manipulated. And in regards to your "slam dunk" comment, Tenet will have to answer for himself on that bullshit. But he also will have a few things to say about it this Sunday on 60 Minutes, and needless to say, it doesn't put our Administration in a good light.

quote:

Okay... I love your bashing on the GOP on their divorces... awww I guess that getting divorced is an awful sin... its better to come up in public and just accept the fact that your husband or wife has had an affair and just forgive him and not only that but come out and defend him... awww that is the moral thing to do!

Actually the more moral thing to do is think about this:

"He who hath not sinned cast the first stone."

I think it's also more moral to hold family values a bit higher in these individuals, i.e. NOT HAVE FUCKING MULTIPLE AFFAIRS, considering you are holding them in such high regard in comparison. And for what? Because they came out with their affairs? Are you being serious?

Are you actually trying to tell me that your moral warrier, Newt Gingrich, who served his divorce papers to his wife in her hospital bed, and with each wife he has is from a subsequent affair from his prior wife before, is somehow morally superior than a woman who forgives her husband of an affair and stays with him?

Are you really trying to hold that line of logic here?

quote:

You say that America has lost the war... it saddens me Hey lets just follow the Dem, lets throw the towel,

As I said previously, the "towel" was thrown in long ago by this Administration's complete failures with a viable post-war plan. All reasonable analysts and military heads agree that more diplomacy and less military power is the answer, yet this Administration continues to do the exact opposite.

Blaming the Dems. on this is both erroneous and completely sidesteps the absolute mismanagement by this Administration. You wouldn't by chance be doing that on purpose, would you?

quote:

lets go save the penguins up north

How trivial of you to make of global warming. Are you sure you're not a Republican?

quote:

and increase taxes.

You mean those taxes that we continue to hold that's putting us further and further into debt? Those taxes that for the first time in history have been held during a war time?

Let's make sure we have the language clear here, my dear "independent". No Democrat will be "increasing" taxes - rather, they will cut the ridiculous tax breaks on the top tier affluent that have been held far too long by this Administration.

quote:

And Iraq lets just forget about it and let terrorist group take over and use the oil refineries so they can fund their operations against America.

You seem to be under the impression that any Democratic plan seems to want to pull out ALL troops out of the region. I'm curious, have you even read the Democratic plan?

And lastly, maybe we shouldn't be so "addicted to oil" in the first place, as your fearless leader suggested. Then perhaps we wouldn't be relying so heavily on regions full o' terra for our energy purposes? But woulda thunk that we'd ever get past such rhetoric by our fearless leader?

MisterOpus1,

You are the by far the closest minded Dem I have encounter. You are like Michael Moore, you would bend over to have the a Dem in charge.

On a more serious note, you want to talk about tax breaks? Fucksake your saying to increase tax on the rich? Those are the people creating jobs and investing. I say not only tax break for the rich but for all americans. Is like their proposal to increase the minimum wage... its a joke. The Dems didnt do shit in their first 100 hrs. They havent done shit to this day... all they do is come up with bills that endanger the lives of our brave soldiers but they are promoting failure.

Instead of progressing you are going backwards... you are still debating the WMD evidence buddy we are in this war already, LETS FIND A SOLUTION! A solution is not to withdraw... Dont give me this shit that its Bushs fault we are there. Congress approved the war, both Rep and Dem If all you want is to withdraw, have the dems provide you with free health care, for them to drag you by the hand for the rest of your live, tax the living shit out of the rich and save the fish and tress go ahead and vote for them.

My point: The dem presidential candidates are a joke! Obama/Clinton etc.. The only one that is more convincing is Edwards. The GOP in the other hand have way better candidates.

If you want to attack the GOP by the number of wifes theyve had your sad. In contrast, Clinton i keep repeating, the same desk that your president is seating at to find a solution for Iraq, Clinton was getting head by monica all day. Dude do you even know the past history of Clinton with other women? It wouldnt surprise me if he got other women to give him head in the presidential office. He was talking to some minister, cant recall his name, over the phone and monica was going at it. Im not lying this was confirmed when he was getting impeached, later on he called him and apologized lol.

Clinton knows he was ineffective. If you know history... what is the best way to have your history and legacy written? To write it yourself lol that is what Clinton did with "My life" he talked about monica like in three sentences... usually it takes up to 10yrs for historians to go back and he did it before that time frame lol. To help himself, that is why you have him with all these shit like promoting healthy foods in school etc.. helping the people in africa. Im not saying thats bad, but that is the truth!
==

Latin, I think Edwards is the worst out of them all. I don't think he would make a great candidate. He is a socialist for crying out loud, all of them are.

quote:

Originally posted by LatinLover If you think that taking on with popular decisions is doing the right thing you must be stoned or stupid

I'm insulted by the insinuation that being stoned is equivalent to being stupid.

"Do you believe there is such a thing as a global war on terror?"




we know who's not gonna get the nomination.

50% attrition achieved from 4 little words. absolutely pathetic. absolutely pathetic party.

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo "Do you believe there is such a thing as a global war on terror?" we know who's not gonna get the nomination. 50% attrition achieved from 4 little words. absolutely pathetic. absolutely pathetic party.

Thanks for posting that Q, seriously. Good work. Shows the Dem candidates for the schills they are. That is not sarcasm on my part... I repeat, that is not sarcasm.

quote:

Originally posted by shaolin_Z Well, technicaly, the consitution never protected gay marriage to begin with and it was never culturally accepted. So it's never had jack to do with the constitution, therefore, has nothing to do with restoring it.

Now we're getting into semantics and technically you are right. Banning gay marriage doesn't restore the constitution. It more or less makes the constitution a pointless toilet to throw biased jargon into. I mean common, that's like making an amendment to the constitution to ban cigarette smoking (and that ban would actually have *some* credibility to it whereas a gay marriage ban has none).

And way to go on AVOIDING my point, by arguing semantics instead of my argument.

quote:

And I'm done with this stupid discussion since all you seem to care about is some trivial bullshit in comparison to the civil liberties were loosing and everything else that's at stake.

If you think my rights are trivial bullshit, then I see no point in you having rights as a Muslim. I mean pfffft, the Patriot Act merely makes sure that YOU are not a terrorist. If you really aren't one then you won't get into trouble right? So why vote for Ron Paul?

quote:

You've got to be the most politically unenlightened, imperceptive, selfish, and apathetic gay man I have ever talked to.

In bed I am. But not here.

You said yourself that one of only two reasons you are voting for the guy is because he doesn't like the Patriot Act. Really? How important is that? I think it's HELPED America more than anything. Sounds like you have a selfish reason because you don't want to be spied on. If you have nothing to hide, then why worry?

You've got to be the most obnoxious, foul Muslim that ironically has more traits in common with the conservative Christian coalition despite the fact that they hate you.

quote:

I'd say about 90% of gay men I've ever come across are pretty well informed and politically aware, not to mention fairly intelligent, and, , quite pro-Palestinian. Having lived in San Fran, and now Austin, I've know plenty.

I'd say about 99% of Arab men I've ever come across are pretty intelligent, wealthy, and don't blow themselves up in public, not to mention don't care that I'm gay, Jewish or pro-Israel. Having lived in Seattle, and now LA, I know you're tunnel-visioned in politics and still don't have the guts to voice your opinion on gay rights (or can't admit to being against it).

quote:

Originally posted by shaolin_Z Read above you fucking idiot. I wouldn't vote for someone or not vote for them based on a stupid trivial matter like a state acknowledeged relationship.

Hey ass-munch. Remember how I pointed out FIVE things wrong with Ron Paul? Now if you can address ALL FIVE of my original points INDIVIDUALLY and give FIVE SEPARATE reasons why each of my FIVE points have no MERIT (which you have NOT done yet), then I'll give you a gold star. Until then, please stop generalizing them all to one straw-man subject, because it makes you look like a stupid trivial matter that no one should acknowledge.

quote:

Originally posted by Jake Benson Now we're getting into semantics and technically you are right. Banning gay marriage doesn't restore the constitution. It more or less makes the constitution a pointless toilet to throw biased jargon into. I mean common, that's like making an amendment to the constitution to ban cigarette smoking (and that ban would actually have *some* credibility to it whereas a gay marriage ban has none). And way to go on AVOIDING my point, by arguing semantics instead of my argument.

I didn't avoid your point at all. I showed it had nothing to do with restoring the contitutional protected civil libereties, but rather expanding constitutional protected civil liberties. How's that avoiding your point again?

quote:

Originally posted by Jake Benson If you think my rights are trivial bullshit, then I see no point in you having rights as a Muslim. I mean pfffft, the Patriot Act merely makes sure that YOU are not a terrorist. If you really aren't one then you won't get into trouble right? So why vote for Ron Paul?

I was talking in relative terms, and you know that. But apparently you'd rather misrepresent what I said. That's nothing new really, you've done it before on different issues. If you want, I'll dig up some of those threads.

quote:

Originally posted by Jake Benson In bed I am. But not here. You said yourself that one of only two reasons you are voting for the guy is because he doesn't like the Patriot Act. Really? How important is that? I think it's HELPED America more than anything.

Umm.. ok, I now know not to ever take you seriously again. And I think you've proven beyond all doubt that you're a complete moron.

quote:

Originally posted by Jake Benson Sounds like you have a selfish reason because you don't want to be spied on. If you have nothing to hide, then why worry?

Wow, just wow. Apparenly you don't understand jack about tyranny, power, and have obviously never studied history.

quote:

Originally posted by Jake Benson You've got to be the most obnoxious, foul Muslim that ironically has more traits in common with the conservative Christian coalition despite the fact that they hate you.

If you insist.

quote:

Originally posted by Jake Benson I'd say about 99% of Arab men I've ever come across are pretty intelligent, wealthy, and don't blow themselves up in public, not to mention don't care that I'm gay, Jewish or pro-Israel. Having lived in Seattle, and now LA, I know you're tunnel-visioned in politics and still don't have the guts to voice your opinion on gay rights (or can't admit to being against it).

I don't care about the fact that you're gay. The fact that you're a highly selfcentered nuerotic pretentious blind sheep is what makes you a jack ass, not your sexual orientation.

quote:

Originally posted by Jake Benson Hey ass-munch. Remember how I pointed out FIVE things wrong with Ron Paul? Now if you can address ALL FIVE of my original points INDIVIDUALLY and give FIVE SEPARATE reasons why each of my FIVE points have no MERIT (which you have NOT done yet), then I'll give you a gold star. Until then, please stop generalizing them all to one straw-man subject, because it makes you look like a stupid trivial matter that no one should acknowledge.

Do you recall me applauding him for those?

quote:

quote: Originally posted by spiflicated And your seeming inability to empathize with the need for minority rights is appalling, especially when your only reason seems to be there isn't time to help them when you are concerned with whatever rights you seem to have lost. When we start abandoning the rights of our fellow countrymen to save our own, 'tis a sad day. It isn't like Jake Benson is asking for more rights than you, he just wants the same rights that are afforded to heterosexual Americans. Originally posted by Shaolin_Z Now where the fuck did that come from? Did you bother reading what I posted earlier? Just so you know, no I don't think homosexuality is morally ok. Does that mean I hate gay people or am against them having right? No. I also think premarital sex and drug use is immoral, which I would be guilty of too, does that mean I hate myself and virually all straight people around me? No, grow a fucking brain you idiot istead of making stupid assumptions followed by equally stupid posts where you mentally masturbate about imaginary things. And yeah, all the gay dudes I know know my views and they don't have a problem with me or viceversa, because I don't treat them any differently than I would anyone else. It's called tolerance asshole, there's nothing to tolerate if you fully agree with something.

OMG WTF YOU AVOIDED HIS POINT! No where in your reply did you touch on his subject that I want equal rights for gays via politics/Ron Paul. You just rambled on how you tolerate, but don't accept homosexuality. What the hell is that? No one cares if gay people agree with you (appeal to population fallacy) or if you have lunch with them in the cafeteria (total tangent). That doesn't make anything valid.

If I vote for a measure against Muslims, I can't defend my vote by saying, "Oh don't worry, the Muslims I talk to agree with me and I play basketball with other Muslims too. So it's okay for me to discriminate against them through voting."

The point is you don't care about rights of another minority group politically and when dealing with Ron Paul. That is his point.

Shaolin_Z, you are perfectly entitled to your foul little Muslim way of thinking that homosexuality is not morally ok. In fact, I fully support your right to think that. It's your freedom to think whatever you like and post it here. However, when you take your thoughts and put them into action by voting for someone who is as anti-gay as you, and give absolutely no defense to gay rights but try to trivilize them when I point out what's wrong with Ron Paul, then you are discriminating. And that's not the same as "tolerating".

Why don't you just admit this: You have no actual defense against my points because you really DON'T CARE for gay civil rights. It is trivial to you because you think homosexuality is morally wrong. This is exactly what I was explaining earlier: about how the Republicans argue against gay rights. They can't justify against gay rights with objective observations, scientific experiments, or logic...just simply a traditional/religious biased view, just like you.

quote:

Originally posted by shaolin_Z Do you recall me applauding him for those?

I recalled you saying my points were all stupid and trivial. But no, you didn't outright praise him for those. However, you didn't say anything bad about it either. So I'm assuming you're passive and don't care. No need to worry.

quote:

Originally posted by shaolin_Z So do you really think these are trivial issues trumped by a much bigger issue of "gay rights?"

Shaolin_Z, I completely agree with you that there are far more issues that deal with larger problems and more people than just the gay population of the United States. That's a no brainer. What I don't get is how there is absolutely no reason why gays can't have equal rights. It's a simple question I'm asking and the only answer I get is, "You're stalling other important issues with your trivial issues." But I'm not stalling anything. Republicans are. They are to blame for taking their time to draft, bring to the floor, and vote on issues dscriminating against gays. They could have used that time to work on real issues.

It would be a miracle if you responded to this post and without being passive so that I can see whether you get the overall picture. But you'll probably get fumed by the ongoing name-calling we've thrown at each other and completely read over this post.

Check your pm box^^^

quote:

Originally posted by shaolin_Z I didn't avoid your point at all. I showed it had nothing to do with restoring the contitutional protected civil libereties, but rather expanding constitutional protected civil liberties. How's that avoiding your point again?

You played on semantics. You knew what I meant that Ron Paul was distorting the constitution with the gay marriage ban. But instead of addressing exactly that, you went on a tangent explaining how a gay marriage ban is not the same as restoring the constitution. Yes, that's obvious. But now address my point: Ron Paul is distorting (which I believe is just as bad as not restoring) the constitution with a gay marriage ban.

Can you address the point? We'll see...

quote:

I was talking in relative terms, and you know that. But apparently you'd rather misrepresent what I said. That's nothing new really, you've done it before on different issues. If you want, I'll dig up some of those threads.

I understand that there are more important issues than gay rights. But when you call my issues "trivial bullshit," that doesn't sound like you're saying anything other than empty jargon. How do I misrepresent you when you don't make a valid point? You misrepresented your point to begin with.

quote:

Umm.. ok, I now know not to ever take you seriously again. And I think you've proven beyond all doubt that you're a complete moron.

How am I a moron? Other than the fact that you just called me a moron...

quote:

Wow, just wow. Apparenly you don't understand jack about tyranny, power, and have obviously never studied history.

That was humor I used. You just don't like it because you were at the other end of the joke. How do you figure I never studied history? Oh I know. Because you are a Muslim, that's why.

quote:

I don't care about the fact that you're gay. The fact that you're a highly selfcentered nuerotic pretentious blind sheep is what makes you a jack ass, not your sexual orientation.

I'm not a blind sheep. I'm so cool I don't follow anyone's rules, not even my own.

Go blow yourself up in public.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.