Why is anyone listening to the republicans?

[JohnRich 4]

Because this isn't Iran.

[kbordson 8]

Quote

'I'm fiscally conservative and socially fabulous!'

Nicely put post and I like that quote!!

[chuckakers 370]

Quote

No really I want to know.

How do you constantly be wrong, cost countless humane lives, raped the constitution, and hurt this country more then any terrorist could ever and still take your self seriously or be viewed with any validity?


I am lost.. Why would any one give any merit to what the rep. have to say?

To the Reps themselves. How fucked up do you have to make things to actually reevaluate your views? Is that even possible?

Funny. You could replace "republican" with "democrat" and your statement would be just as true.

I say fire 'em all. Pitchfork anyone?

Chuck Akers
D-10855
Houston, TX

[billvon 2,400]

> It doesn't take one person to make the decision to go to war . . .

It did in that case. One person ordered the troops in. No one else. Sure, lots of other people passed resolutions and made speeches - but one person is the commander in chief, and one person gave the order to invade. No one else could have.

Now, Congress could have declared war, which is the only avenue open to them by the US constitution. If you can produce that declaration of war I'd agree with you that the president was merely doing what he was ordered to.

> I dont think it is fair for our government to play robin hood.

So are you lobbying to shut down veteran's hospitals? Or are you OK with some Robin Hood causes and not others?

>I'm content to pay taxes, but not at the rates the left wing dictates.

Personally I am willing to pay taxes to save a US child's life, but less willing to pay taxes to kill innocent Iraqis. Perhaps you have a different set of values; that's fine.

[billvon 2,400]

>Seems like alot of policy makers on both sides saw it as a matter of
>national security.

Yep. And one person ordered the military to invade.

[billvon 2,400]

>Just because some other guy would have done even more bad stuff is
> no reason to excuse the current bad stuff.

Agreed 100%. But you can be glad that we got the least bad of the two options.

[turtlespeed 212]

Quote

>Just because some other guy would have done even more bad stuff is
> no reason to excuse the current bad stuff.

Agreed 100%. But you can be glad that we got the least bad of the two options.

But we didn't.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[TankBuster 0]

Quote

>Seems like alot of policy makers on both sides saw it as a matter of
>national security.

Yep. And one person ordered the military to invade.

Well, not exaclty.

http://uspolitics.about.com/od/wariniraq/a/jt_resolution.htm

The forecast is mostly sunny with occasional beer.

[TomAiello 25]

Quote

>Just because some other guy would have done even more bad stuff is
> no reason to excuse the current bad stuff.

Agreed 100%. But you can be glad that we got the least bad of the two options.

I'm still not convinced of that, actually. I do see some things where I think Obama has done better than McCain would have (the tightrope around the Iranian elections, for example), but I've been pretty disappointed with Obama, and I really feel like he's gotten a free pass for escalating the war of his choice because his party matches the majority in Congress. If the President and Congress were from opposite camps (i.e. McCain was President), I suspect we'd have seen a lot more criticism of the Afghan escalation strategy.

-- Tom Aiello

[email protected]
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[bullin82 0]

I love how these things turn into fingure pointing on both sides lol. ALL politics have become currupt no matter what side you like. Theyll each say what we all want to hear at that time then when there in power they just do whatever they want with no regard to anyone but there checkbook.

Thats why i say....VOTE FOR ME 2020!!!!!

[kallend 1,623]

[reply but I've been pretty disappointed with Obama, and I really feel like he's gotten a free pass for escalating the war of his choice because his party matches the majority in Congress. If the President and Congress were from opposite camps (i.e. McCain was President), I suspect we'd have seen a lot more criticism of the Afghan escalation strategy.

[bullin82 0]

[kallend 1,623]

Quote

The Afghan war was the direct result of 9/11 and was pretty much everyone's choice. If GWB hadn't lost focus and gone off on his silly deceptive tangent in Iraq, we wouldn't be having such a tough time in Afghanistan now.

[rushmc 18]

Quote

The Afghan war was the direct result of 9/11 and was pretty much everyone's choice. If GWB hadn't lost focus and gone off on his silly deceptive tangent in Iraq, we wouldn't be having such a tough time in Afghanistan now.

[rushmc 18]

Quote

Quote

The Afghan war was the direct result of 9/11 and was pretty much everyone's choice. If GWB hadn't lost focus and gone off on his silly deceptive tangent in Iraq, we wouldn't be having such a tough time in Afghanistan now.

were only haveing a tough time in Afghanistan is because were to worried on what people will think of us and not letting the soliers do there job the wayits men to be done. Theres so many restrictions and regulations now its like we agreed to have a handycap so the other side has more of a fighting chance.

[dsandreas 0]

> I dont think it is fair for our government to play robin hood.

So are you lobbying to shut down veteran's hospitals? Or are you OK with some Robin Hood causes and not others? <


Veterans have paid their dues...as have others who contributed to Medicare every paycheck. Giving free health insurance to 1) people who can afford it and decide not to and 2) illegal immigrants is a ridiculous proposition....no thanks.

Your comparison is not a fair one.

[billvon 2,400]

>Veterans have paid their dues...as have others who contributed
>to Medicare every paycheck.

Fair enough. So people who serve the country and people who pay taxes deserve some free stuff.

> Giving free health insurance to 1) people who can afford it and decide
> not to . . .

No one is proposing that.

> and 2) illegal immigrants . . .

Once again, I suspect you're not going to let that 12 year old girl die bleeding in the street because she's not a US citizen. That means someone has to pay for it. You just want someone _else_ to pay for it.

[BDashe 0]

Quote

> It doesn't take one person to make the decision to go to war . . .

It did in that case. One person ordered the troops in. No one else. Sure, lots of other people passed resolutions and made speeches - but one person is the commander in chief, and one person gave the order to invade. No one else could have.

Not going to get into this dead end debate, i've stated my piece


Now, Congress could have declared war, which is the only avenue open to them by the US constitution. If you can produce that declaration of war I'd agree with you that the president was merely doing what he was ordered to.

> I dont think it is fair for our government to play robin hood.

So are you lobbying to shut down veteran's hospitals? Or are you OK with some Robin Hood causes and not others?

Exactly. I agree with some programs, like VA, and very few others. the reason I dont like the lefts taxes is because they spend too much saving the whales, figuratively... and literally i suppose. wouldnt have to tax so much if they didn't piss it away all the time. We need certain aspects of the government, we dont need a lot of it. People and politicians dont understand the difference between wants an needs, which I'll get into in a moment. typically, all our wants cost more than the needs we have the money for. easy fix, tax the rich, that's bullshit because they can't do shit about voting cuz despite paying for 80% of the country, their vote counts as much as those living off thier dollars, THAT, is not fair- to have no say in where your money goes. dont BS me that he still has the right to vote, sure, but he cant vote against 95% of the population and win. its VERY easy to spend someone else's money, which is unacceptable


>I'm content to pay taxes, but not at the rates the left wing dictates.

Personally I am willing to pay taxes to save a US child's life, but less willing to pay taxes to kill innocent Iraqis. Perhaps you have a different set of values; that's fine.

of course, use the tear jerk, bleeding child, outlying, infrequent example against a necessary part of our government- the military. Truth is, bill, we need a military. I dont always agree with how it is used, but we need it. That bleeding girl, i would hope we would help and i doubt anyone would let her bleed out because she is illegal. She is in an emergency situation, we're human, help her, that's what emergency services do and that is just fine. Her family's regularly scheduled maintenance? fuck that. we don't NEED to do shit for them, if they get an owey, i dont want to foot the bill. if they want a flu shot? fuck them. unfortunately we have to do it on an absolute scale, there may be some great producing illegals in our country, but they arent citizens or paying taxes so they shouldnt get my money. we do not NEED to help them when the same family who is legal has the same struggles, they get priority and access.

There are THOUSANDS of examples outside healthcare/tragic accidents that are much more mundane than a life or death situation, bullshit programs that we DO NOT NEED. California is a great example- our people WANT TOO MUCH and we dont have the money, we are FORCED to find our needs. That makes perfect sense to me- buy what you can pay for. No one is choosing between a dying baby and the military, that is your bullshit, bias, and extremely unrealistic propaganda that everyone sees through. so just stop with the extreme ultimatum 'what if' scenarios so you can retain some dignity. Rational thought: it is a great tool. Write that down.

Look who woke up form a nap!

So there I was...

Making friends and playing nice since 1983

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Yup WE wanted this war.

Because 43rd Administration LIED about the threat.

"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 Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"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

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face." --Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

"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

"[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, signed by: -- Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct. 9, 1998

"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

Yeah, it was ALL Bush, wasn't it?

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

> It doesn't take one person to make the decision to go to war . . .

It did in that case. One person ordered the troops in. No one else. Sure, lots of other people passed resolutions and made speeches - but one person is the commander in chief, and one person gave the order to invade. No one else could have.

That is correct.

Quote

Now, Congress could have declared war, which is the only avenue open to them by the US constitution. If you can produce that declaration of war I'd agree with you that the president was merely doing what he was ordered to.

OBVIOUSLY wrong, since we still have troops there several years later.

Perhaps you should familiarize yourself (yet again) with Public Law 107-243; your grasp of recent history appears to be slipping.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[quade 3]

Quote

Yeah, it was ALL Bush, wasn't it?

And yet . . . while there was suspicion and saber rattling prior to the 43rd Administration, at no point was a war started. Cooler heads prevailed for the simple reason there wasn't enough intelligence to actually start one.

That is until signatory members of the PNAC sat in high positions of authority and preyed upon the religious beliefs of President Bush to convince him he was going to be starting a "holy" war against Iraq. It was not until the 43rd Administration that intelligence was cherry picked or rejected to support the beliefs and used to LIE to the public to whip up support.

The 43rd Administration is either guilt of malfeasance on a massive scale or of conspiracy to start a war for profit motives. Either way, they're huge fuck-ups.

So, who exactly were these PNAC people in the 43rd Administration?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_American_Century#Associations_with_Bush_administration

Gimme a break.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Yeah, it was ALL Bush, wasn't it?

And yet . . . while there was suspicion and saber rattling prior to the 43rd Administration, at no point was a war started. Cooler heads prevailed for the simple reason there wasn't enough intelligence to actually start one.

Read Public Law 105-338.

Quote

...Bush controlled by PNAC blah blah blah...holy war blah blah blah...

Gimme a break.

Yeah, that's pretty much what everyone else thinks when y'all bring that PNAC crap up - it's about like dreamdancer or rhys.

But, since you mention it... how about that separation of church and state that y'all keep whining about?

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[TomAiello 25]

Ah, yes, the last guy's fault, again, isn't it?

Look, I don't care who made mistakes in pursuing the imperial policies in pushing around people in foreign countries. You guys are welcome to argue about how best to implement those policies, which people to bully, who to kidnap and torture, and where you're going to do the torturing.

I'd like to see a broader discussion about whether or not the government ought to be doing those things. But Obama, despite some indications to the contrary during the campaign, is clearly not willing to actually consider that real, fundamental change.

-- Tom Aiello

[email protected]
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[kbordson 8]

Quote

The 43rd Administration is either guilt of malfeasance on a massive scale or of conspiracy to start a war for profit motives. Either way, they're huge fuck-ups.

Yes, it might have even been both. I'll concede that.

But why are you so willing to believe that the 44th Administration couldn't possibly do anything like that?

If one "side" in these politics can be "evil," isn't the whole system flawed?

[TomAiello 25]

Quote

Quote

The 43rd Administration is either guilt of malfeasance on a massive scale or of conspiracy to start a war for profit motives. Either way, they're huge fuck-ups.

Yes, it might have even been both. I'll concede that.

But why are you so willing to believe that the 44th Administration couldn't possibly do anything like that?

Because he thinks there are only two sides in politics, and if you don't have a (D) after your name, you must have an (R). And if you didn't like Bush, then of course, you must love Obama. No room for shades of gray--it's all or nothing, black or white, love or hate.

-- Tom Aiello

[email protected]
SnakeRiverBASE.com