|
Post by FertileSquid on Sept 12, 2008 4:08:30 GMT -5
I used to be VERY democratic. after actually listening to them all speak, I've taken my vote very seriously, it isn't about party, it's about what we believe adn which candidate follows that best! usually it's been an independant tht's gotten my vote, but despite my early turn, the republicans are more in the live of getting my vote this year... Have we forgotten that, as I sy quite a bit, 200 years ago Republicans were FOR the advncement of our country, they were agasint slavery, they wer FOR building us to a supreme power to hold our own!!!! These days, they're about MONEY, they're about more slavery by means of the "lower" class. Palin, is NOT like that, she sees the people as a whole nd does not take class into her decisions, as seems to be stated by her opposition lately. Yes, she has some points that I don't agree with, but for what she DID do in office and her positions stated, I would follow her!!
Hillary, on the other hand, has always been more of a combo, "feminist/fascist" beyotch. Some of her views are good, but not on the general public level. On that ticket thoug, I would support Biden in his cmpaign no doubt! I can't see at all how Hillary would cary a better bid than he would!
|
|
|
Post by Dance Away on Sept 12, 2008 9:07:00 GMT -5
Hillary, on the other hand, has always been more of a combo, "feminist/fascist" beyotch. That line made me burst out laughing!!! She's a ...what's the word I'm after ...technocrat? (oh shit, now I gotta go google that damn word) ...umm no, I don't think that's the word I'm after. What, Hillary talks like a lawyer? (Obama does too) She parses (oh shit, now I gotta go google "parse') her words, and Obama does too, and many in the public are turned off by that? Someone help me nail down what I'm what I'm trying to say here! If the McCain/Palin ticket wins this campaign, THEY EARNED IT !!! I'm acknowledging here that the McCain/Palin campaign may be playing a smarter political game than the Obama/Biden campaign. HEY SQUID, Your knowledge of what's happening on the political scene Alaska, and your talent to articulate that in your writing on this board ...BLOWS MY MIND AWAY!!! MY JAW DROPS IN AWE OF THE KNOWLEDGE AND WISDOM YOU HAVE IN YOUR BRAIN. Perhaps, in your future, you should consider running for public office.
|
|
|
Post by tetherednchained on Sept 12, 2008 18:36:34 GMT -5
Hillary, on the other hand, has always been more of a combo, "feminist/fascist" beyotch. HEY SQUID, Your knowledge of what's happening on the political scene Alaska, and your talent to articulate that in your writing on this board ...BLOWS MY MIND AWAY!!! MY JAW DROPS IN AWE OF THE KNOWLEDGE AND WISDOM YOU HAVE IN YOUR BRAIN. Perhaps, in your future, you should consider running for public office. If I'm not mistaken he lived in Alaska for a long time. Maybe he said that already. Mike is a good guy. He does know alot about her.
|
|
|
Post by FertileSquid on Sept 12, 2008 20:45:56 GMT -5
yep, spent 6 years there. Though overall I've been cursed since a young age with politically active parents, went through my activist stge in high school, campaigned for Paul Wellstone nd a few local officers. Then tried to get away from it, but to my dismay upon moving to alaska, ended up with a number of friends tht were in the alaska house and senate, then moving back here, everyone is expecting to hear from "the son of Prof. Michael E. O'Neal"... so yeah, i tend to end up involved or at least poking my nose into the depths of politics whether i really want to or not....
|
|
|
Post by FertileSquid on Sept 12, 2008 20:48:01 GMT -5
Maybe he will back out and Mrs. Clinton will be the pick after all?! As much as that would have me creaming my paths. You find her endless supply of pantsuits erotic??? I have never even when drunk could ever even get the Winkmeister up while running thoughts of Hillary through my head!!
|
|
|
Post by tetherednchained on Sept 13, 2008 0:51:54 GMT -5
Have we forgotten that, as I sy quite a bit, 200 years ago Republicans were FOR the advncement of our country, they were agasint slavery, they wer FOR building us to a supreme power to hold our own!!!! Another thing that people don't like to talk about is the fact that WW1 and WW2 and the Vietnam war were all under a Democratic presidency. WW1: Woodrow Wilson; Political party, Democratic WW2: Franklin D. Roosevelt; Political party, Democratic Vietnam War: John F. Kennedy; Political party, Democratic Used limited military action at first. Then shortly thereafter escalated into war. For the life of me I can't understand how the republicans get that whole "Warmonger" tag. My, my, my, both sides have changed!
|
|
|
Post by Volk on Sept 13, 2008 11:22:05 GMT -5
I'm sorry...do you think that those Democratic presidents STARTED those wars? and, since we live in the present, it's a FACT that THIS Republican president definitely DID start the current war in Iraq...a war started without provocation.
|
|
|
Post by tetherednchained on Sept 13, 2008 15:17:33 GMT -5
I'm sorry...do you think that those Democratic presidents STARTED those wars? and, since we live in the present, it's a FACT that THIS Republican president definitely DID start the current war in Iraq...a war started without provocation. Oh, no. You took that wrong. They didn't start the wars. I never said that. I was just saying that isn't it kinda ironic that the republicans are considered the warmongers when in the past we didn't actually have to get involved in any of those wars. Well maybe WW2 against the Japanese because they really were the ones that attacked the US. Germany never attacked the US but somehow we felt it was OK to attack them. Why did we attack Germany? The Vietnamese never attacked the US but we got involved in that one too. Why didn't we just sit those wars out?
|
|
|
Post by Volk on Sept 13, 2008 16:28:52 GMT -5
well, we attacked Germany because they were taking over all of Europe. It's true, that a long time ago (and current REAL) Republicans were indeed more "isolationist". Ron Paul brought up a lot of the old views that Republicans used to have. And the bullshit we get today is Sarah Palin saying that the war in Iraq was a "task from God".
|
|
|
Post by tetherednchained on Sept 13, 2008 16:45:03 GMT -5
And the bullshit we get today is Sarah Palin saying that the war in Iraq was a "task from God". Lets take a look at what she actually said and not just what the talking points say she said. Even though the headline is slanted to your side, this is the actual prayer that made the headlines. www.youtube.com/watch?v=9H-btXPfhGs. Sounds to me like the prayer she said was a prayer more about praying that our national leaders are actually following gods plans and not their own. Then she went on to pray for the men and women that are actually in harms way.
|
|
|
Post by tetherednchained on Sept 13, 2008 16:47:28 GMT -5
well, we attacked Germany because they were taking over all of Europe. It's true, that a long time ago (and current REAL) Republicans were indeed more "isolationist". Ron Paul brought up a lot of the old views that Republicans used to have. I am turning into more of an isolationist every day.
|
|
|
Post by Volk on Sept 13, 2008 16:50:18 GMT -5
well, 2 hands working can accomplish more than 1000 hands praying to an imaginary man in the sky. The troops should have never been in harms way in the first place. After 9/11, we should have captured Bin Laden, rounded up everyone responsible and either executed them or put them in jail for life. THEN, we should have begun reforms thru diplomacy with the entire middle east so that they don't just breed MORE terrorists. Bush and all of his neocon oil buddies are the ones who have fucked ALL of us if we get attacked again.
|
|
|
Post by tetherednchained on Sept 13, 2008 17:04:51 GMT -5
well, 2 hands working can accomplish more than 1000 hands praying to an imaginary man in the sky. The troops should have never been in harms way in the first place. After 9/11, we should have captured Bin Laden, rounded up everyone responsible and either executed them or put them in jail for life. THEN, we should have begun reforms thru diplomacy with the entire middle east so that they don't just breed MORE terrorists. Bush and all of his neocon oil buddies are the ones who have fucked ALL of us if we get attacked again. The imaginary man in the sky is an opinion you have and I can respect that. You don't believe. Thats cool but half the country disagrees with you. Also to suggest that she doesn't have anything more than two hands praying for the best possible outcome in this mess is just wrong. I am afraid to bring up that she has two children in the military (one she just saw off) that volunteered to be there because I am afraid you will say that they are being used by the republican party to further their agenda. I DO NOT believe that is the case. I also believe that diplomacy with terrorist nations will not work. Ever.
|
|
|
Post by tetherednchained on Sept 13, 2008 17:15:17 GMT -5
Also you seem to be living in the past. Wishing this war had never happened to begin with.
Thats fine because after learning the truth that the intelligence was wrong about Iraq, wrong on an international level, I wish things would have gone the way you wish they would have.
That facts are that we did invade and there are only two things we can do now.
1) Pull out and hope the Iraq government can fend for themselves. Or 2) Continue to help the government to actually accomplish something that I think could be good in the long run.
I choose #2. Maybe I am to optimistic.
|
|
|
Post by tetherednchained on Sept 13, 2008 17:24:29 GMT -5
Bush and all of his neocon oil buddies are the ones who have fucked ALL of us if we get attacked again. One last thing. You must think that Bush is the reason 9/11 happened. If I am not mistaken 9/11 was the last time we were attacked by Islamic fundamentalist. There were many, many times before Bush even took office that we were attacked, going as far back as Carter. Quite a few even happened while Bill was the prez. He did very little to stop it.
|
|
|
Post by Volk on Sept 13, 2008 18:27:41 GMT -5
no, Bush is not the sole reason 9/11 happened. You're right, there are reasons going back to Carter that we were attacked. But the Republicans can stop using "scare tactics" to justify their qualifications. We weren't attacked because the "terr'ists" hate our freedom. We were attacked because they do not approve of our presence in their countries. We never left Iraq/Saudi Arabia/Kuwait after 1991. What do you think would have happened if we went into Afghanistan and built schools and infrastructure after we rounded up Bin Laden?
|
|
|
Post by pdn on Sept 13, 2008 22:05:53 GMT -5
If I am not mistaken 9/11 was the last time we were attacked by Islamic fundamentalist. Just a general question: Why is it that the Republicans always want to take credit for keeping us safe after 9/11, but take no responsibility for the catastrophic failures in intelligence and leadership leading up to 9/11? I mean, Bush was handed a PDB months before the attack that said bin Laden was determined to strike and one of the methods was by hijacking an airplane and crashing it into a building. His reaction? Nothing. There was no follow-up, no enhanced security, no request for speedier translation of Arabic intelligence. He strugged it off. Yes, America has been safe from international terrorism since 9/11, but Bush took office nine months before that, and he deserves some of the responsibility if he wants to take credit.
|
|
|
Post by BTweety04 on Sept 13, 2008 22:42:16 GMT -5
If I am not mistaken 9/11 was the last time we were attacked by Islamic fundamentalist. Just a general question: Why is it that the Republicans always want to take credit for keeping us safe after 9/11, but take no responsibility for the catastrophic failures in intelligence and leadership leading up to 9/11? I mean, Bush was handed a PDB months before the attack that said bin Laden was determined to strike and one of the methods was by hijacking an airplane and crashing it into a building. His reaction? Nothing. There was no follow-up, no enhanced security, no request for speedier translation of Arabic intelligence. He strugged it off. Yes, America has been safe from international terrorism since 9/11, but Bush took office nine months before that, and he deserves some of the responsibility if he wants to take credit. I find it quite surprising how people assume things happen in the Oval Office/Pentagon/etc. How does anyone know that the President completely ignored any intelligence? So many agencies are created and maintained just to monitor the nation and protect our citizens. How do we know the information wasn't passed along to the CIA, FBI, etc.? People just choose to believe what the biased media decides to hand feed them. I mean Bush is human and he doesn't want to see anyone in our nation harmed . He has publicly said that he worries about the troops and prays for their safety and that they can effectively do their job. My point is I do not think that any human would purposely ignore a warning to harm others.
|
|
|
Post by Volk on Sept 13, 2008 22:52:27 GMT -5
well, I'd rather our leaders ACT, instead of praying to an imaginary man in the sky. Like I said, I don't think Bush was at fault for 9/11, and no other president takes solitary blame for it either. The issue is (as was found in the 9/11 commission report), Bin Laden specifically said the reason for the 9/11 attacks was because American troops were stationed in the Arabian peninsula. We are only there for oil (which, is admittedly, in our national interest....cheap gas IS the key to our economy)....but step back for a second, and imagine what would we as Americans do if China or Russia stationed troops in Canada so they could be close to a cheap supply of corn? I read not long ago, that the Earth has a resource supply to support 8 billion people...we are at 6 billion people now. Future wars WILL be fought over resources. SO, having said that...would you rather give up your life, or your gas guzzler? Myself, I live within walking distance of my job, and I grow my own vegetables, and could raise my own meat if I needed to. What will the REST of suburbia do when the shit storm happens? I am sick of politicians lying to me...especially the republicans. They had 8 years to fix our economy, and they even had a chance to change the world for the better after 9/11, and they didn't do a fucking thing except cater to the rich corporations and the religious right. And I will do EVERYTHING I can to get them out of office this year
|
|
|
Post by pdn on Sept 13, 2008 23:38:31 GMT -5
I find it quite surprising how people assume things happen in the Oval Office/Pentagon/etc. How does anyone know that the President completely ignored any intelligence? So many agencies are created and maintained just to monitor the nation and protect our citizens. How do we know the information wasn't passed along to the CIA, FBI, etc.? People just choose to believe what the biased media decides to hand feed them. I mean Bush is human and he doesn't want to see anyone in our nation harmed . He has publicly said that he worries about the troops and prays for their safety and that they can effectively do their job. My point is I do not think that any human would purposely ignore a warning to harm others. I find it quite surprising how people will just discount anything reported by the media. Especially when it is backed up with testimony from people like Condoleeza Rice, Donald Rumsfeld and Justice Department officials who have testified in front of the 9/11 Commission, a bipartisan commission charged with investigating the failures in intelligence that led up to the attacks, as well as other Senate commissions. Maybe you should concentrate your study on the 9/11 Commission's Report, especially chapter 8, which goes into detail about the numerous warnings and clues that the U.S. government overlooked and discounted. The chapter's title? "The System Was Blinking Red." In which you will learn: Richard Clarke, from the NSC told Condoleeza Rice that he thought there were al Qaeda cells within the United States on March 23rd. In the following weeks, several warning were issues from the CIA that Abu Zubaydah was planning an attack in the near future. When the FBI was given the task of gathering intelligence, they were not told it could be a domestic threat. George Tenet and other top officials in May of 2001 were warned that "Bin Ladin network's plans advancing" and "Bin Ladin public profile may presage attack." They had two anonymous tips in May alone, a visitor to the FBI and a phone call to a U.S. embassy that warned that Bin Ladin's supporters were planning an attack within the U.S. On May 17th, the Counterterrorism Security Group met... the first item on their agenda? "Usama Bin Laden: Operation Planned in US." In May, Cofer Black told Condoleeza Rice that the threat of an imminent terrorist attack on the United States was a 7 out of 10. In June a CIA report on Khalid Sheik Mohammad said that he was recruiting people to travel to the U.S. to assist with al Qaeda operatives already here and poised to attack. On June 25, Richard Clarke warned Condoleeza Rice that six separate reports had al Qaeda operatives warning of a pending attack. There's more. Much more. I'd really recommend that you read the report. It opened my eyes to just how absolutely broken our intelligence community has been. I base my information not only on the media which, besides being the boogeyman of the neocons, has some reliability and credibility, but on actual testimony and reports from groups assigned the responsibility of investigation.
|
|