Speach was excellent, substance was a little lacking...Time will tell...The debates are where the rubber meets the road.
While I think it's great that we have a woman in this position; and she's obviously one tough cookie, I don't think she's really the prime choice here. So far all I've seen her do is ignite the base of the GOP and not talk about any issues. This whole Republican convention has been about who John McCain and Sarah Palin are instead of focusing on the issues. I have a feeling that we'll see a bit of a backlash against the Palin ticket after Oct. 2nd. Her record isn't as great as it sounds. She says she didn't want a bridge to nowhere yet, she actually approved the earmark the year before, then she raised taxes in Alaska.
I want to know how she's going to handle such delicate issues at home and take care of a special needs child while trying to take care of delicate issues globally. For me, however, it's a moot point as I wouldn't vote for that ticket anyway. McCain is just not the candidate for me. Palin is just one more reason for me not to vote for that ticket. Anyone against abortion and gay rights is not someone I want to put my name with. Yes I'm an independent if anyone is wondering.
I want to know how she's going to handle such delicate issues at home and take care of a special needs child while trying to take care of delicate issues globally. For me, however, it's a moot point as I wouldn't vote for that ticket anyway. McCain is just not the candidate for me. Palin is just one more reason for me not to vote for that ticket. Anyone against abortion and gay rights is not someone I want to put my name with. Yes I'm an independent if anyone is wondering.
Also being Independents........there are some things we think both parties have to offer......We think she did and awesome job in her speech last night and has secured our votes so far. She seems to have done an awesome job in her state, and may have something to offer to the country as well. She has a no bullshit attitude which is very refreshing from the same ole same ole. The real interesting point we think will come up tonight in the interview of Obama with Bill O'Reilly since he will have some really tough questions that have not been asked of him.......Lets see what kind of answers he will have.......Im sure she is busy enough at work as the governer of her state, and her baby im sure is taken care of. Would love to see her naked as well...........lol
There's no doubt that many mothers can handle home and career. It wasn't my intention to say they couldn't. What I was merely trying to point out is that some of the distractions she has at home are huge just as the distractions across the globe are huge. I just don't see the swing vote really going the McCain way. Sure they will pull some of the independent vote, but I don't see it being enough.
As far as having a no-bullshit attitude. That's exactly what we thought we were getting in Bush #2. Look where that got us.
I just read an interesting little article about the speeches last night and how hard the McCain camp stretched the truth.. take a look if you want:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080904/ap_on_el_pr/cvn_fact_check
As far as having a no-bullshit attitude. That's exactly what we thought we were getting in Bush #2. Look where that got us.
I just read an interesting little article about the speeches last night and how hard the McCain camp stretched the truth.. take a look if you want:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080904/ap_on_el_pr/cvn_fact_check
I take personal offense to saying "she can't take care of me cause she has kids" What?
I think she could probably do a better job because of it. And take care of you how? wipe your ass for you?
No one can multi task like a mother...but regardless that's a bullshit call that NO ONE has ever said about ANY male candidate.
Her ability to be a VP has nothing to do with ANY of that. Way to grasp at straws!
Mrs.
I think she could probably do a better job because of it. And take care of you how? wipe your ass for you?
No one can multi task like a mother...but regardless that's a bullshit call that NO ONE has ever said about ANY male candidate.
Her ability to be a VP has nothing to do with ANY of that. Way to grasp at straws!
Mrs.
MAGNOLIACPL I agree she was very impressive. But also understand that you get more than just a confident hot VP. What is your stance on a woman's right to choose.? Because even though she didnt say it last night, she is against freedom of choice.
Just a thought.
CB
Just a thought.
CB
oh jesus.
I never said that Palin couldn't do both. What I was saying is I wonder how personal issues would come into effect with global issues. I.E. her son has complications from his disease and she's overseas at some conference.. how is she going to deal with that? I would be asking the same question if Biden had a child like that.. in fact, I question how he's going to deal with things if his son gets killed while he's on duty in Iraq. So put away all the little offense to someone saying what an issue could be. If you like the woman then fucking vote for her.. if you don't like her then don't vote for her. Motherhood isn't the issue, but the republicans obviously don't want to talk about issues considering they haven't spoken a damn word of it since the convention started.
I never said that Palin couldn't do both. What I was saying is I wonder how personal issues would come into effect with global issues. I.E. her son has complications from his disease and she's overseas at some conference.. how is she going to deal with that? I would be asking the same question if Biden had a child like that.. in fact, I question how he's going to deal with things if his son gets killed while he's on duty in Iraq. So put away all the little offense to someone saying what an issue could be. If you like the woman then fucking vote for her.. if you don't like her then don't vote for her. Motherhood isn't the issue, but the republicans obviously don't want to talk about issues considering they haven't spoken a damn word of it since the convention started.
after hearing her speak all i can say is she sounds like and intellgent lady with a lot going for her. so she does not have any forein policy experience, however who does except the president. she has made some good moves in alaska that has helped her state and the nation.
she is not against the freedom of choice. what is going on is it took two people to produce that child so for one person to say it is my choice and to cut the other person out of the decission process is wrong. who here does not know what happens when you put tab a into slot one? and there is so many ways to prevent the std/ child.
she is not against the freedom of choice. what is going on is it took two people to produce that child so for one person to say it is my choice and to cut the other person out of the decission process is wrong. who here does not know what happens when you put tab a into slot one? and there is so many ways to prevent the std/ child.
CBUTAH..........A womans right to choose what she she wants to do with her body is her decision im my view, and should'nt be controlled by goverment or anyone else not even her man......I think women should be able to free think as they choose to.....strong ones do..... and they are what I admire the most in females. Id never assume that I could make a better decision for them. Like I said before there are some things that I agree with on both sides of the aisle and some I don't......its what makes me a true independent.
B.
B.
she's not against the freedom of choice?? she wants to overturn Roe vs. Wade and ban abortion altogether.
she's asked for a total of $750 million in federal funds which is the largest per capita amount request in the nation. She was for the bridge until everyone made fun of it and only then did she back out.. doesn't sound like a maverick to me.
PALIN: "The Democratic nominee for president supports plans to raise income taxes, raise payroll taxes, raise investment income taxes, raise the death tax, raise business taxes, and increase the tax burden on the American people by hundreds of billions of dollars."
THE FACTS: The Tax Policy Center, a think tank run jointly by the Brookings Institution and the Urban Institute, concluded that Obama's plan would increase after-tax income for middle-income taxpayers by about 5 percent by 2012, or nearly $2,200 annually. McCain's plan, which cuts taxes across all income levels, would raise after tax-income for middle-income taxpayers by 3 percent, the center concluded.
Obama would provide $80 billion in tax breaks, mainly for poor workers and the elderly, including tripling the Earned Income Tax Credit for minimum-wage workers and higher credits for larger families.
He also would raise income taxes, capital gains and dividend taxes on the wealthiest. He would raise payroll taxes on taxpayers with incomes above $250,000, and he would raise corporate taxes. Small businesses that make more than $250,000 a year would see taxes rise.
She's not responsible for any oil supply.. just like Bush isn't responsible for what was produced in Texas. She's not in control of the National Guard in times of War, that's a pentagon decision.
Here's another whopper from last night:
FORMER MASSACHUSETTS GOV. MITT ROMNEY: "We need change, all right
she's asked for a total of $750 million in federal funds which is the largest per capita amount request in the nation. She was for the bridge until everyone made fun of it and only then did she back out.. doesn't sound like a maverick to me.
PALIN: "The Democratic nominee for president supports plans to raise income taxes, raise payroll taxes, raise investment income taxes, raise the death tax, raise business taxes, and increase the tax burden on the American people by hundreds of billions of dollars."
THE FACTS: The Tax Policy Center, a think tank run jointly by the Brookings Institution and the Urban Institute, concluded that Obama's plan would increase after-tax income for middle-income taxpayers by about 5 percent by 2012, or nearly $2,200 annually. McCain's plan, which cuts taxes across all income levels, would raise after tax-income for middle-income taxpayers by 3 percent, the center concluded.
Obama would provide $80 billion in tax breaks, mainly for poor workers and the elderly, including tripling the Earned Income Tax Credit for minimum-wage workers and higher credits for larger families.
He also would raise income taxes, capital gains and dividend taxes on the wealthiest. He would raise payroll taxes on taxpayers with incomes above $250,000, and he would raise corporate taxes. Small businesses that make more than $250,000 a year would see taxes rise.
She's not responsible for any oil supply.. just like Bush isn't responsible for what was produced in Texas. She's not in control of the National Guard in times of War, that's a pentagon decision.
Here's another whopper from last night:
FORMER MASSACHUSETTS GOV. MITT ROMNEY: "We need change, all right
really my argument has nothing to with the fact that she's a woman. I'm glad that for once the boundaries of government are being broken with a black man and a woman in the mix. Sarah is a strong willed woman and she's able to handle things. I wasn't saying the issue was her family... I'm just wondering how she would handle things. That's all. Hell I wonder how anyone will handle things. Some people just crack.
I do alot of my own research and figure out who I would vote for. Hell I wish all parties would be disbanded and people have to gain support for their issues only. Top vote getter is president, second is vice president. fuck the parties and all the rhetoric that both of them spew. For me, Palin just isn't right because of social issues, not the lack of foreign policy.
I do alot of my own research and figure out who I would vote for. Hell I wish all parties would be disbanded and people have to gain support for their issues only. Top vote getter is president, second is vice president. fuck the parties and all the rhetoric that both of them spew. For me, Palin just isn't right because of social issues, not the lack of foreign policy.
I have two issues with this topic.
One - debating presidential candidates is rather pointless for us common citizens. Regardless of what we may think the popular vote hasn't elected a president since the early 1800's. Back then our "Founding Fathers" felt that the public was too stupid to be able to make a properly educated decision for president so they created the Electoral College. It is the members of this body that actually elects a president, and a VP for that matter. Now while the electoral vote has never completely overridden the popular vote nationally, there have been numerous years where the popular vote was very close to a 50/50 split and yet the electoral vote was overwhelming in favor of a particular candidate. All through out the campaign to this point the delegates were about securing "delegate votes" for the most part they could care less what the general truly thinks, again its the delegates to the conventions that determine who runs for the office.
Two - why is it that anytime a woman runs for any type of political office, she is questioned about how she can handle that office and her home life? When has ANY man been questioned about his ability to handle a political office and a challenging home life? Why do we have such a double standard when it comes to women in power?
One - debating presidential candidates is rather pointless for us common citizens. Regardless of what we may think the popular vote hasn't elected a president since the early 1800's. Back then our "Founding Fathers" felt that the public was too stupid to be able to make a properly educated decision for president so they created the Electoral College. It is the members of this body that actually elects a president, and a VP for that matter. Now while the electoral vote has never completely overridden the popular vote nationally, there have been numerous years where the popular vote was very close to a 50/50 split and yet the electoral vote was overwhelming in favor of a particular candidate. All through out the campaign to this point the delegates were about securing "delegate votes" for the most part they could care less what the general truly thinks, again its the delegates to the conventions that determine who runs for the office.
Two - why is it that anytime a woman runs for any type of political office, she is questioned about how she can handle that office and her home life? When has ANY man been questioned about his ability to handle a political office and a challenging home life? Why do we have such a double standard when it comes to women in power?
Posted By: MAGNOLIACPL I completely agree. There are good issues on both sides.
Ahhh, Goldenhanz, you have found the essence to the question. The answer is simple yet complex. It is both societal and biological.
1) Family is an issue for political women because in our society, and in most if not all countries of the world, the woman is the caretaker of the family. I am not saying this as an absolute, but simply is a reality that the vast majority of women worldwide spend greater time, effort and energy on their family whether it be with a baby, child, sick child, sick parent, absent father or just the average unruly teenager. As such, a woman who has chosen to have a family, based on her innate desire to protect her brood, will, hopefully for her family's sake, protect her family over her career or job. Men are much less likely to give up what they want for their family. It is really about men being selfish and women being selfless. Hunt and eat instead of nurture and survive. (now if any of you jump on me for that, why don't you look at your own relationships, that of your parents, kids, etc. and show me, not examples, but where men are more often the ones giving up for their family). It goes back to man's survival instincts. The men foraged, hunted and died young, while the mother nurtured, taught and cared for the family to keep the blood lines going. Often significantly outliving their male mates. That this is no longer necessary in today's society due to advancements in technology and the (at least in developed nations) equality of men and women, is not relevant because of biology. That is why her family is an issue.
2) As noted above, society plays a critical role in making an issue out of a woman being political and having a family. Think of Leave it to Beaver, All in the Family, Partridge Family, Brady Bunch (I know there are probably the same today, but most of us on this site grew up with those shows which helped to identify what a family was). And, since this is a swinger site, look at the show Swingtown. The dad makes the money, the mom stays home, cooks, cleans and actually parents, (unlike the men who tend to punish). I'd like to say the 50s, 60s and 70s are so far behind us but the social morays have stayed in tact as much as possible given a 60% divorce rate. Our laws make the mom the caretaker. In Utah, a mom is the presumptive custodian. For a man to win a custody battle and be granted primary physical custody requires him to prove the mother is unfit (unless she agrees of course and then there is no custody dispute). Why, because women, in our society, take care of the kids. Is it wrong that this is the way it is? As a divorced dad who refused to put his kids through the pain of attempting to prove their mother was unfit, I say hell yes. I digress. To summarize, in the USA, women are still considered the caregiver, as such, a woman politician, CEO, Principal, doctor or lawyer, are and will be for the foreseeable future seen as the glue that binds the family, and their family will always be at issue. As such, a person like Palin with a special needs child (which for any of you who think that a special needs kid is ever just like a normal kid, you are diluted) will have to address that issue, fair or not. It is what the society we live in sees as important.
And hot or not, you need to find and watch her speech at her church, it is a bit chilling for anyone who is not evangelical even if you are religious.
B.
1) Family is an issue for political women because in our society, and in most if not all countries of the world, the woman is the caretaker of the family. I am not saying this as an absolute, but simply is a reality that the vast majority of women worldwide spend greater time, effort and energy on their family whether it be with a baby, child, sick child, sick parent, absent father or just the average unruly teenager. As such, a woman who has chosen to have a family, based on her innate desire to protect her brood, will, hopefully for her family's sake, protect her family over her career or job. Men are much less likely to give up what they want for their family. It is really about men being selfish and women being selfless. Hunt and eat instead of nurture and survive. (now if any of you jump on me for that, why don't you look at your own relationships, that of your parents, kids, etc. and show me, not examples, but where men are more often the ones giving up for their family). It goes back to man's survival instincts. The men foraged, hunted and died young, while the mother nurtured, taught and cared for the family to keep the blood lines going. Often significantly outliving their male mates. That this is no longer necessary in today's society due to advancements in technology and the (at least in developed nations) equality of men and women, is not relevant because of biology. That is why her family is an issue.
2) As noted above, society plays a critical role in making an issue out of a woman being political and having a family. Think of Leave it to Beaver, All in the Family, Partridge Family, Brady Bunch (I know there are probably the same today, but most of us on this site grew up with those shows which helped to identify what a family was). And, since this is a swinger site, look at the show Swingtown. The dad makes the money, the mom stays home, cooks, cleans and actually parents, (unlike the men who tend to punish). I'd like to say the 50s, 60s and 70s are so far behind us but the social morays have stayed in tact as much as possible given a 60% divorce rate. Our laws make the mom the caretaker. In Utah, a mom is the presumptive custodian. For a man to win a custody battle and be granted primary physical custody requires him to prove the mother is unfit (unless she agrees of course and then there is no custody dispute). Why, because women, in our society, take care of the kids. Is it wrong that this is the way it is? As a divorced dad who refused to put his kids through the pain of attempting to prove their mother was unfit, I say hell yes. I digress. To summarize, in the USA, women are still considered the caregiver, as such, a woman politician, CEO, Principal, doctor or lawyer, are and will be for the foreseeable future seen as the glue that binds the family, and their family will always be at issue. As such, a person like Palin with a special needs child (which for any of you who think that a special needs kid is ever just like a normal kid, you are diluted) will have to address that issue, fair or not. It is what the society we live in sees as important.
And hot or not, you need to find and watch her speech at her church, it is a bit chilling for anyone who is not evangelical even if you are religious.
B.
Posted By: KOIMOO Wrote:
she is not against the freedom of choice. what is going on is it took two people to produce that child so for one person to say it is my choice and to cut the other person out of the decission process is wrong. who here does not know what happens when you put tab a into slot one? and there is so many ways to prevent the std/ child.
Actually, she has a very very conservative agenda and is completely against abortion rights. You can kiss Rowe vs Wade goodbye if they get in.
But it doesnt stop there. She is dead set against Sex Education in schools and is very narrow in her thoughts on the subject. She truly believes that Abstinance is the only option before marriage. She doesnt believe in contraception, sex education for teens.
It appears it is ok for her daughter to have sex, but not the rest of the world.
CB
she is not against the freedom of choice. what is going on is it took two people to produce that child so for one person to say it is my choice and to cut the other person out of the decission process is wrong. who here does not know what happens when you put tab a into slot one? and there is so many ways to prevent the std/ child.
Actually, she has a very very conservative agenda and is completely against abortion rights. You can kiss Rowe vs Wade goodbye if they get in.
But it doesnt stop there. She is dead set against Sex Education in schools and is very narrow in her thoughts on the subject. She truly believes that Abstinance is the only option before marriage. She doesnt believe in contraception, sex education for teens.
It appears it is ok for her daughter to have sex, but not the rest of the world.
CB
the one thing everyone must understand is that IF rowe v wade was overturned, the legal issues go BACK to the states to decide if abortion should be legal. at least if its on a state level, the citizens of those states can be heard.
Id totally do her!
I am also looking forward to O'Reillys interview with Obama. The guy has been getting a pass because the media is in love with him and could care less about what his ideas are.
I am also looking forward to O'Reillys interview with Obama. The guy has been getting a pass because the media is in love with him and could care less about what his ideas are.
Despite what the politicos would have your believe in their campaign speaches, only the Supreme Court can overturn a decision. If I remember right from my high school US history class, the Supreme Court is the final authority on disputes involving issues of constitutionality of laws and lower court decisions.
Personally I wouldn't worry too much about one cadidates views on a topic that can only be overturned by another body, and that is if they even agree to hear arguments on the case.
Personally I wouldn't worry too much about one cadidates views on a topic that can only be overturned by another body, and that is if they even agree to hear arguments on the case.
All we can say is GO Sarah! We think that lady is a welcome change to the political arena and can't wait to see her debate Biden. Now the thing to see will be the interview of Obahma on Oreily tonight!After Bill is done hearing Obahma with his ummms, ahhhs, ooohs MCcain won't have a thing to worry about. Have you ever noticed if Obahma is not behind a podium the ummms and ahhhs are way too many and tonight we will see him tripped up by Oreily.
And who appoints the Supreme Court justices? Granted the appointments in the Bush administration didn't really tip the balance one way or the other as it was 2 conservatives replacing a conservative and a moderate. However, these guys are going to be around for a LOOONG time... A few liberals (Stevens specifically) on the court are going to be gone soon, and will probably be replaced by the next administration. So yes, R v. W could be in jeopardy.
As for the VP speech, I applaud the fact that she got rid of the luxury jet and cook, but that's about all I heard that I liked... However, to another statement she made - ignoring a suspect's miranda rights is a bit shortsighted on her part and very un-American in my mind. Too bad we can't toss her rights aside in this TrooperGate investigation. Abusing power for strictly personal reasons makes me ill, but I'll withhold judgement until after the investigation. From what I've seen so far the DNC did a better job of addressing actual issues rather than slinging mud.
As for the VP speech, I applaud the fact that she got rid of the luxury jet and cook, but that's about all I heard that I liked... However, to another statement she made - ignoring a suspect's miranda rights is a bit shortsighted on her part and very un-American in my mind. Too bad we can't toss her rights aside in this TrooperGate investigation. Abusing power for strictly personal reasons makes me ill, but I'll withhold judgement until after the investigation. From what I've seen so far the DNC did a better job of addressing actual issues rather than slinging mud.
Criminy, such a serious discussion that started with a remark for a Sarah sandwich!
I think she looks like the sexy naughty librarian that I always dreamed about.
Excuse me, Ms. Sexy Librarian, any ideas how I may pay my fine for this overdue book?
I think she looks like the sexy naughty librarian that I always dreamed about.
Excuse me, Ms. Sexy Librarian, any ideas how I may pay my fine for this overdue book?
Which is why he picked her. McCain is trying to play the women/minority card. I guess it throws all the shit talk about Obama's age and inexperience out the window. She's even less qualified. But hey... WTFE! So if he wins we'll have a Senile version of Bush with a inexperienced nobody backin him.... Howz that for ridiculous mud slangin' HAHA!
-D-
-D-
TeqR.....Thank You! so well put!
Heres the ticket, a 72 year old candidate with a long history of health problems, and his choice of a running mate out of nowhere, who was not picked not for her experience, but to target women voters and soccer moms...pure and simple. Its laughable! and yes, I voted for Hillary!
Heres the ticket, a 72 year old candidate with a long history of health problems, and his choice of a running mate out of nowhere, who was not picked not for her experience, but to target women voters and soccer moms...pure and simple. Its laughable! and yes, I voted for Hillary!
I don't really care WHY he picked her after we heard her if she does what she is implying they WILL shake up washington can't wait to see her be put in charge of getting rid of Congressional perks lol. He picked one SEXY fireball can't wait for the debate between her and Biden.
I listened to John McCain's speech tonight. I like the implication that he will cross party lines if he needs to, to do what he thinks is best for the country. Whichever party wins, I hope they do not fuck up the country more than it already is. It would be nice to have enough work in this country for anyone that wants to work. It would be quite nice to not outsource work to other countries and keep the jobs in country.
i have yet to understand why so many people are in favor of strangers teaching our children about sex education. and whats so bad about parents wanting there kids not to have sex till they grow up. where do we as parents draw the line & isnt it our responsibility as parents to teach our kids lifes lessons? i for one never let strangers teach my kids about sex ed. we did it as parents. it was our job not someone elses.
p.s sarah is a hottie....much more pleasing to the eye than hillary. altho obama's wife was cute ....until she opened her mouth and showed how fukin stupid she is.
p.s sarah is a hottie....much more pleasing to the eye than hillary. altho obama's wife was cute ....until she opened her mouth and showed how fukin stupid she is.
Amen Riderz!!!
JETFIRE63 wrote:
<hr>
<font color="#4e6dab"><i>"i have yet to understand why so many people are in favor of strangers teaching our children about sex education. and whats so bad about parents wanting there kids not to have sex till they grow up. where do we as parents draw the line & isnt it our responsibility as parents to teach our kids lifes lessons? i for one never let strangers teach my kids about sex ed. we did it as parents. it was our job not someone elses.
p.s sarah is a hottie....much more pleasing to the eye than hillary. altho obama's wife was cute ....until she opened her mouth and showed how fukin stupid she is."</i></font>
<hr>
Regarding sex education.... The anatomy/biology of sex is fitting to be taught in school as is the importance of teaching them the potential consequences of having unprotected sex at such a young age. It's our job to ensure our kids are taught "life lessons" from a educated source. If you have a parent that is not properly educated or ignorant to the realities of sex, then you have the blind leading the blind. Watch Jerry Springer and you'll see what I mean.
As parents, we can <i>"hope"</i> all we like that our children will wait until they are adults to experience it. However, you know as well as I do, very often, that is not always the case. Teen pregnancy is through the fucking roof, because kids are not properly educated about birth control methods and enlightened regarding myths like "pulling out" etc.
We need to lose the bad/evil stigma the Christian church has put on sex. This is just one of many atrocities the church has inflicted upon our society. I say arm your kids with the know how, just in case they elect not to wait. BETTER TO BE SAFE THAN SORRY!
-D-
<hr>
<font color="#4e6dab"><i>"i have yet to understand why so many people are in favor of strangers teaching our children about sex education. and whats so bad about parents wanting there kids not to have sex till they grow up. where do we as parents draw the line & isnt it our responsibility as parents to teach our kids lifes lessons? i for one never let strangers teach my kids about sex ed. we did it as parents. it was our job not someone elses.
p.s sarah is a hottie....much more pleasing to the eye than hillary. altho obama's wife was cute ....until she opened her mouth and showed how fukin stupid she is."</i></font>
<hr>
Regarding sex education.... The anatomy/biology of sex is fitting to be taught in school as is the importance of teaching them the potential consequences of having unprotected sex at such a young age. It's our job to ensure our kids are taught "life lessons" from a educated source. If you have a parent that is not properly educated or ignorant to the realities of sex, then you have the blind leading the blind. Watch Jerry Springer and you'll see what I mean.
As parents, we can <i>"hope"</i> all we like that our children will wait until they are adults to experience it. However, you know as well as I do, very often, that is not always the case. Teen pregnancy is through the fucking roof, because kids are not properly educated about birth control methods and enlightened regarding myths like "pulling out" etc.
We need to lose the bad/evil stigma the Christian church has put on sex. This is just one of many atrocities the church has inflicted upon our society. I say arm your kids with the know how, just in case they elect not to wait. BETTER TO BE SAFE THAN SORRY!
-D-
I would just like to congratulate all on this thread for helping to contribute to 5 pages of actual "civil" discourse. Wonderful! I knew it could be done!
My two cents: I have ferventy disliked W since his days owning the Rangers. In my humble opinion, he is one of the biggest jackasses we have had in the White House in a long time. If he had not had the personal good fortune of 9/11 happening, I think he would have been run out on a rail just like Nixon (another great jackass). Fortunately for Bush, he was able to wrap himself in the flag and get the entire country to rally behind him for a number of years (turning a blind eye to all his bullshit and woeful domestic policies).
I do believe McCain to be a true patriot and good person at heart - a vast difference from the current egomaniac (curious how so many egomaniacs have absolutely nothing to be egomaniacs about isn't it?). The fault-finding for McCain (aside from political philosophy) runs towards the typical small potatoes stuff that all politicians are subject to (our system at work).
Oh yes, the VEEPs. I am anxiously awaiting the debates. I sort the necessary, obligatory answers from the "thinking on your feet" that only debates can provide. Should be very entertaining!
d
My two cents: I have ferventy disliked W since his days owning the Rangers. In my humble opinion, he is one of the biggest jackasses we have had in the White House in a long time. If he had not had the personal good fortune of 9/11 happening, I think he would have been run out on a rail just like Nixon (another great jackass). Fortunately for Bush, he was able to wrap himself in the flag and get the entire country to rally behind him for a number of years (turning a blind eye to all his bullshit and woeful domestic policies).
I do believe McCain to be a true patriot and good person at heart - a vast difference from the current egomaniac (curious how so many egomaniacs have absolutely nothing to be egomaniacs about isn't it?). The fault-finding for McCain (aside from political philosophy) runs towards the typical small potatoes stuff that all politicians are subject to (our system at work).
Oh yes, the VEEPs. I am anxiously awaiting the debates. I sort the necessary, obligatory answers from the "thinking on your feet" that only debates can provide. Should be very entertaining!
d
Someone explain something to me...why are you all so concerned about how ANY of the candidates stand on Abortion? This is and always will be handled at a state level, just like Gay marriage.
Looks like more of you need to stop listening to long winded blowhards that just want to distract you from the real facts.
If you want to choose a candidate based on what they CAN ACCUALLY DO, look into their voting records, see where they have stood on whats important TO YOU.
Pissing and moaning about someones stand on abortion just proves that you have not spent any time really looking at the candidates and have only listened to the "jackass" mudslinging.
Looks like more of you need to stop listening to long winded blowhards that just want to distract you from the real facts.
If you want to choose a candidate based on what they CAN ACCUALLY DO, look into their voting records, see where they have stood on whats important TO YOU.
Pissing and moaning about someones stand on abortion just proves that you have not spent any time really looking at the candidates and have only listened to the "jackass" mudslinging.
YOu go Sexed. I couldnt have said it better.
CB
CB
"i have yet to understand why so many people are in favor of strangers teaching our children about sex education. and whats so bad about parents wanting there kids not to have sex till they grow up. where do we as parents draw the line & isnt it our responsibility as parents to teach our kids lifes lessons? i for one never let strangers teach my kids about sex ed. we did it as parents. it was our job not someone elses.
Its not about who should teach them. Her position is NO to contraception, NO to pre-marital Sex, NO to Choice. She does have a YES....to Abstinence. THat worked our really well for her family.
CB
Its not about who should teach them. Her position is NO to contraception, NO to pre-marital Sex, NO to Choice. She does have a YES....to Abstinence. THat worked our really well for her family.
CB
I think Palin scares me more than W. I mean she has the same ideals and principles but actually has a brain. If we want to return to pre-1918 Women's suffrage, I guess vote for McCain/Palin, cause it's a comin.
We liked this one about this MILF. Clinton is even voting for her! LOL
http://www.vpilf.com/
:z
:z
Her sex does not matter but her views sure do! It has always amazed me how anyone with an open-minded view of sexual freedom can side with someone that would persecute all involved with anything beyond church sanctioned concepts of relationships. Here we have the manifestation of SNL
Well fuckin said man.
Swingtide,
It has always amazed me that people Vote for a Candidate just because the rest of their "Buddies" are (by Buddies I mean Party).
It has always amazed me that people believe the President is the first, only and final word on every matter in this country.
It has always amazed me that people will dwell on something like abortion when there are soooo many more important issues facing this country, like gas prices, food prices, poor education, Healthcare, I could go on and on.
Bel,
If you really believe that one person can come in and single handly take away your right to choose, then there is nothing I can say....except its 2008!
Issues like Gay marriage, Abortion and Gun Control will NEVER be solved in my lifetime, politicians use these things as scare tactics to grab the "swing" vote, I'm sure the Democrats would love to see that his plan to divert you from the real issues worked.
It has always amazed me that people Vote for a Candidate just because the rest of their "Buddies" are (by Buddies I mean Party).
It has always amazed me that people believe the President is the first, only and final word on every matter in this country.
It has always amazed me that people will dwell on something like abortion when there are soooo many more important issues facing this country, like gas prices, food prices, poor education, Healthcare, I could go on and on.
Bel,
If you really believe that one person can come in and single handly take away your right to choose, then there is nothing I can say....except its 2008!
Issues like Gay marriage, Abortion and Gun Control will NEVER be solved in my lifetime, politicians use these things as scare tactics to grab the "swing" vote, I'm sure the Democrats would love to see that his plan to divert you from the real issues worked.
i say vote for who you want because it doesnt matter what you want they will do whatever they want and all politicians are there for the money not you hell they already got the country ruined
Hey Hey Surfer girl,
I simply stated that you wanted to pick Bush II's speech apart. Is this not true?
Both parties could argue all day about the words used in a speech, whats the point?
I agree with Sinful...what a great country!!!!
What it all boils down to is majority rules.
BTW...I am NOT a Republican, I represent the "swing" vote. People like me are who both parties are targeting. And your party is not doing a very good job, nothing but double talk and mudslinging. Nothing by way of REAL solutions to REAL problems. The fact that Obama is Young is just not enough for me and its all he has to offer.
If you want to vote for someone who has no plan, no experience and no loyalty to your country you go right ahead...I would rather sit on the fence then conform to a Party who tells me who to vote for, and why I shouldn't care about real problems real people are facing right here in the REAL world. All you Dems care about is having another Dem in office...well we all saw how well that works
FYI I also live in a Red State so...it really doesn't matter much around here.
I simply stated that you wanted to pick Bush II's speech apart. Is this not true?
Both parties could argue all day about the words used in a speech, whats the point?
I agree with Sinful...what a great country!!!!
What it all boils down to is majority rules.
BTW...I am NOT a Republican, I represent the "swing" vote. People like me are who both parties are targeting. And your party is not doing a very good job, nothing but double talk and mudslinging. Nothing by way of REAL solutions to REAL problems. The fact that Obama is Young is just not enough for me and its all he has to offer.
If you want to vote for someone who has no plan, no experience and no loyalty to your country you go right ahead...I would rather sit on the fence then conform to a Party who tells me who to vote for, and why I shouldn't care about real problems real people are facing right here in the REAL world. All you Dems care about is having another Dem in office...well we all saw how well that works
FYI I also live in a Red State so...it really doesn't matter much around here.
CLASSY_NOT_TRASHY,
This topic <u>is</u> about sex. "Sarah Sandwich" remember? That is why matters of sex were mentioned and the consequences of it, like abortion and child education. Her views are not inline with freedom and liberty, but religous oppression. I can list a million more reasons I wouldn't vote for that duo. One of the biggest is that McCain is intending to keep most of Bush's current policies. Bush is a fuckin tool with nearly all bad policy. He is a poor president and I don't want four more years of him in another sack of wrinkley skin that is the Paleocon/Neocon puppet, McCain.
Furthermore, I don't find Palin exceptionally attractive. I think her looks and/or gender have little to do with her ability to run the country. All that aside, I wouldn't throw her out of bed, however, I also would vote her into office.
It's funny you mention mudlslinging and claim that it's only the DEM party that's doing it. HAHA! I think perhaps you are an unregistered Republican. Wasn't it the REP party that was making a huge deal about Obama possibly being Muslim. LIKE IT FUCKIN MATTERS! I can show you plenty of ridiculous mudsling from both parties. That's how campaigns run these days.
-D-
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=b76_1215925782
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=d2b_1172242598
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=434869933a
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=4ec_1186683880
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=e4f_1186477677
This topic <u>is</u> about sex. "Sarah Sandwich" remember? That is why matters of sex were mentioned and the consequences of it, like abortion and child education. Her views are not inline with freedom and liberty, but religous oppression. I can list a million more reasons I wouldn't vote for that duo. One of the biggest is that McCain is intending to keep most of Bush's current policies. Bush is a fuckin tool with nearly all bad policy. He is a poor president and I don't want four more years of him in another sack of wrinkley skin that is the Paleocon/Neocon puppet, McCain.
Furthermore, I don't find Palin exceptionally attractive. I think her looks and/or gender have little to do with her ability to run the country. All that aside, I wouldn't throw her out of bed, however, I also would vote her into office.
It's funny you mention mudlslinging and claim that it's only the DEM party that's doing it. HAHA! I think perhaps you are an unregistered Republican. Wasn't it the REP party that was making a huge deal about Obama possibly being Muslim. LIKE IT FUCKIN MATTERS! I can show you plenty of ridiculous mudsling from both parties. That's how campaigns run these days.
-D-
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=b76_1215925782
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=d2b_1172242598
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=434869933a
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=4ec_1186683880
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=e4f_1186477677
I can't wait for the debates. I personally have no issue with the VPCILF Sarah Palin, but I think that McCain commited political suicide by choosing her as a running mate, simply because it looks like a desperation move in light of how it all went down.
Clinton is the one who destroyed our military that is more than likely the reason 9/11 happened because he botched the attempt to hit their terrorist camps pissed them off and they knew our military was drawn down far beyond what it should have been Bush had to deal with a Clinton fuck up. I was in Germany at the time working a military contract and seen those poor guys/gals that were on the USS Cole as they came through our base after that ship was attacked Clinton should have hit them hard and fast instead he waited and tried some half ass attempt to bomb there terrorist camps why didn't he do more? Instead, he handed over a drawn down military the GW and then the terrorist hit GW had to cleanup Clinton's fuck up. Go ahead and VOTE for Obahma and watch the same thing happen again he will more than likely fund some of his "welfare" programs by cutting military expenses and those terrorist will be licking their chops once again and attack us when we have let our guard down. Vote for the MCcain Palin ticket and we will atleast have someone who won't destroy our military. Can't believe people are buying into Obama's plan and think that only those making over $250,000.00 will get taxes raised if you believe that garbage we have some prime swap land in FL to sell you.
Actually it wasn't Clinton who downsized the Military. It was a Republican congress and Republican Secretary of Defense William Cohen. Both the republicans and the democrats felt that downsizing the military was the right thing to do, at the time.
http://www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=1821
Spending on defense budget in billions.
1988 290.9
1989 304.0
1990 300.1
1991 319.7
1992 302.6
1993 292.4
1994 282.3
1995 273.6
1996 266.0
1997 271.7
1998 270.2
1999 275.5
2000 295.0
2001 306.1
2002 348.9
2003 404.9
http://www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=1821
Spending on defense budget in billions.
1988 290.9
1989 304.0
1990 300.1
1991 319.7
1992 302.6
1993 292.4
1994 282.3
1995 273.6
1996 266.0
1997 271.7
1998 270.2
1999 275.5
2000 295.0
2001 306.1
2002 348.9
2003 404.9
I find that hard to believe republicans normally increase the size of military I'm not going to argue with you on this all I know is I was losing my jr. Nco's due to draw down and it was during the Clinton years. TR you are NEVER wrong so I will let it go by saying as usual you are right.
I am only giving you information that I found. Just because it happened during the Clinton Administration, doesn't make it a Clinton decision. The same can be said for the current administration. Bush wasn't the only one claiming WMD's. Many Democrats were claiming it as well. Bush hung himself on so many other levels. What the evidence doesn't support is that 9-11 was Clinton's fault. That's pure bullshit and you know it.
-D-
-D-
tr, thats not entirely true. clinton was offered ossama twice and he declined. so in part, yes he is at fault. also the clinton admin. put in place the rules against information sharing between the cia,nsa,ect. he is not guiltless
Jetfire,
Blaming Clinton for 9/11 is what was written. Bush was doing business with Osama and his family. Bush attacked Iraq using false accusations of WMD's right after 9/11 like it was the priority when Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. I think far more blame falls on Bush. Bush had an agenda for obvious reasons (OIL, for those dense fuckers out there).
-D-
Blaming Clinton for 9/11 is what was written. Bush was doing business with Osama and his family. Bush attacked Iraq using false accusations of WMD's right after 9/11 like it was the priority when Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. I think far more blame falls on Bush. Bush had an agenda for obvious reasons (OIL, for those dense fuckers out there).
-D-
i guess being one of those dense fuckers.....where is the fucking oil ? not here in our refinery. or is he hiding it in texas?
now check your facts.
the terrorist training camps in northern iraq were a secondary issue .
the primary issue was VIOLATIONS of u.n. security council resolutions. you and everyone else knows full well it was a coalition force going into iraq. so from one dense fucker to another, tell the whole story. not just your view of the story.
now check your facts.
the terrorist training camps in northern iraq were a secondary issue .
the primary issue was VIOLATIONS of u.n. security council resolutions. you and everyone else knows full well it was a coalition force going into iraq. so from one dense fucker to another, tell the whole story. not just your view of the story.
There is <u>nothing</u> linking Saddam Hussein to Al Qaeada prior to the war. All the evidence that was gathered later after the invasion, pointed to training camps, but no one ever found evidence that Saddam's regime was involved financially. Contrarily, all intelligence prior to the war suggested that Saddam would never support these groups. Even if that were not true we still hand no intelligence to link Saddam and Al Qaeada prior to the invasion. That <u>was not</u> the reason we were going.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/006/550kmbzd.asp
There are terrorist training camps are all over the world to include the United States! Does that mean the the Governor of Oregon is a harborer of Terrorists?? There was a training camp in Oregon.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=al+qaeda+training+camps+in+Oregon
-D-
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/006/550kmbzd.asp
There are terrorist training camps are all over the world to include the United States! Does that mean the the Governor of Oregon is a harborer of Terrorists?? There was a training camp in Oregon.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=al+qaeda+training+camps+in+Oregon
-D-
so your only argument is that we went to iraq for oil, nothing to do with the U.N.? again...where is the oil we fought for ? or havent we got to there oil fields yet? sorry tr, i think you watch too much network news or cnn.
anyways...its been fun but this is boring now.....we can settle this over sarahs sexy body. you take the top, i will start at the bottom. who ever gets to her belly button first wins
anyways...its been fun but this is boring now.....we can settle this over sarahs sexy body. you take the top, i will start at the bottom. who ever gets to her belly button first wins
Uh yeah... The legislation didn't pass my friend. You're argument against news is hilarious. Where do you get your updates?? From the pentagon and your spies in Iraq? Come on man don't act like you are anymore well informed than I. Who do you watch? FOX? HAHA!! There are people that hope Bush is tried for his bullshit after his term. Biden is hinting toward their intent to bring a formal investigation should Obama win.
Here you are:
<hr>
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=179_1220573181
<hr>
-D-
Here you are:
<hr>
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=179_1220573181
<hr>
-D-
TR I would agree with you if there wasn't WMD's. Look how long we gave Sadam to prove that he didn't have WMD's who is to say those WMD's were not just relocated to another country like Syria?
Do you have proof that they never existed? Wise up man it was not only Bush it was Blair,and yes even Clinton who said Sadam had WMD's and I have no way to prove it but I'll bet there are some soldiers out there that could prove that in fact WMD's were found of course that would be classified info. I doubt seriously that Billion's was spent to go to confront Sadam and control WMD's without there being positive proof they indeed did exist.
You may be saying if that's the case then why did the current Administration cover up that WMD's were present? Logic tells us had the fact that WMD's were there and we controlled them be unclassified then the WAR to occupy Iraq would have been hard to support as the reason that we went there was to control WMD's.
In my opinion the war was necessary and strong military presence in the mid east is a must that is why my vote will be for the MCcain/Palin ticket.
Do you have proof that they never existed? Wise up man it was not only Bush it was Blair,and yes even Clinton who said Sadam had WMD's and I have no way to prove it but I'll bet there are some soldiers out there that could prove that in fact WMD's were found of course that would be classified info. I doubt seriously that Billion's was spent to go to confront Sadam and control WMD's without there being positive proof they indeed did exist.
You may be saying if that's the case then why did the current Administration cover up that WMD's were present? Logic tells us had the fact that WMD's were there and we controlled them be unclassified then the WAR to occupy Iraq would have been hard to support as the reason that we went there was to control WMD's.
In my opinion the war was necessary and strong military presence in the mid east is a must that is why my vote will be for the MCcain/Palin ticket.
Yes... I've admitted to everyone believing they were there. Bush went against everyone in deciding to invade. Everyone else wanted to wait for the U.N. They were not there when we invaded. We had no sattelite intell showing massive movements of WMD's. There still is not proof. This is a dead horse argument.
Furthermore, WE HAVE WMD's. We are the only one's who have ever nuked anyone. We should be visited by U.N. inspection teams and disarmed as well. We have no more right than Iraq does.
Again, we went to Iraq on lies. We accomplished the mission of toppling Saddam, We stayed through the elections, we trained their police. It's time we come home. Democrats asking for a plan of attack and a date of which we either succeed or cut and run is not unreasonable.
Bush is a fucking thief that needs to be tried. He was a joke of a president and I'll not vote for anyone that is willing to carry on that lunatics policies. The war in Iraq is not fought for our freedom or the freedom of Iraqis, it's fought for oil.
If we are so concerned for other countries welfare and freedom, why are we no willingly helping Mexico? Let's quit pretending that this war was to help Iraqi citizens eh? That's a load of fucking shit. The troops are noble because they believe the same as you, they believe that's the cause, but the truth is, Iraq will never be a western democracy. THEY'RE MIDDLE EASTERN!!!! THEY'RE NOT CHRISTIAN!!! THEY'RE MUSLIM!!!
Let me ask you something. Since all these NEO/PALEOCONS are for this war... What is their definition of victory in Iraq? When we've spent all of our money rebuilding it? When we've sacrificed all of our American lives defending freedoms they DON'T WANT! Their culture doesn't work the way ours does. These fuckers have been squabbling for 2000+ fucking years. So what's the greenlight for you to end this ridiculous endeavor in Iraq and focus on those that actually threaten the U.S. directly?
-D-
<b>Obama 2008</b>
Furthermore, WE HAVE WMD's. We are the only one's who have ever nuked anyone. We should be visited by U.N. inspection teams and disarmed as well. We have no more right than Iraq does.
Again, we went to Iraq on lies. We accomplished the mission of toppling Saddam, We stayed through the elections, we trained their police. It's time we come home. Democrats asking for a plan of attack and a date of which we either succeed or cut and run is not unreasonable.
Bush is a fucking thief that needs to be tried. He was a joke of a president and I'll not vote for anyone that is willing to carry on that lunatics policies. The war in Iraq is not fought for our freedom or the freedom of Iraqis, it's fought for oil.
If we are so concerned for other countries welfare and freedom, why are we no willingly helping Mexico? Let's quit pretending that this war was to help Iraqi citizens eh? That's a load of fucking shit. The troops are noble because they believe the same as you, they believe that's the cause, but the truth is, Iraq will never be a western democracy. THEY'RE MIDDLE EASTERN!!!! THEY'RE NOT CHRISTIAN!!! THEY'RE MUSLIM!!!
Let me ask you something. Since all these NEO/PALEOCONS are for this war... What is their definition of victory in Iraq? When we've spent all of our money rebuilding it? When we've sacrificed all of our American lives defending freedoms they DON'T WANT! Their culture doesn't work the way ours does. These fuckers have been squabbling for 2000+ fucking years. So what's the greenlight for you to end this ridiculous endeavor in Iraq and focus on those that actually threaten the U.S. directly?
-D-
<b>Obama 2008</b>
holy shit don,
you really do believe all the drivel that spews from you mouth. i do feel sorry for you. maybe you'd feel better about your life if you moved to canada or mexico. your hatered runs deep for america...love it or leave it
you really do believe all the drivel that spews from you mouth. i do feel sorry for you. maybe you'd feel better about your life if you moved to canada or mexico. your hatered runs deep for america...love it or leave it
Why, because I don't agree with your view? I love this country. I served in it's military for 14 years. How about you? You can't refute what I am saying so you've reduced your argument to personal attacks on me and my allegiance to the country.
Just because you still side with Bush's inept presidency and I don't ... I hate The United States of America??? What the fuck kinda retard logic is that? You can believe that all you like. I could really care less what you think of me. You don't even know me.
Putting my head down and accepting everything the government tells me, isn't being a patriot. If you want to drink the fascist koolaid, perhaps it's you that needs to find a new country to live in. This is America where free thought and the ability to question the government exists. Love it or leave it.
-D-
Just because you still side with Bush's inept presidency and I don't ... I hate The United States of America??? What the fuck kinda retard logic is that? You can believe that all you like. I could really care less what you think of me. You don't even know me.
Putting my head down and accepting everything the government tells me, isn't being a patriot. If you want to drink the fascist koolaid, perhaps it's you that needs to find a new country to live in. This is America where free thought and the ability to question the government exists. Love it or leave it.
-D-
there's no personal attacks on you don.....just ramp down now. it will be all better in november. i know this because i have HOPE and believe in CHANGE . i heard some idiot say that on tv....forgot who it was tho. but if we all beleive and close our eyes and tap our heels together 3 times we will get back to kansas. good luck don. i still like talking to you even if (personal attack alert ) you are a jerk.......
Ramp down? You're the one making personal attacks. How about you "ramp down". Try not telling a veteran that he hates the country. Who's the jerk? hmmmm
I asked questions you didn't answer. What's your green light? What, to you, would be considered a victory in Iraq?
-D-
I asked questions you didn't answer. What's your green light? What, to you, would be considered a victory in Iraq?
-D-
TR...
Victory in Iraq = They pay their own way and repay us for the cost's of setting up their democracy.
<font color="ff0000">Asking a country to pay us for something we forced upon them is hardly good foreign policy</font>
#2 Their government stay's Democratic for the next 50 years or longer...
<font color="ff0000">You can't force democracy where it is not wanted. Especially when all the neighbors have influence.</font>
#3 Iraq actually becomes a thorn in Iran's side as one of the first truly Democratic countries in the Middle East.
<font color="ff0000">It'll never happen. Even if they do, that means we'll have to stay there and force it to happen at the cost of American lives. It's not our place to interfere.</font>
I atleast do not question your "veteran" status, and BTW, thank you for serving. My brother just entered the Navy this last week, and will probably be serving on an aircraft carrier eventually. But back to the topic at hand.
<font color="ff0000">Thanks for not questioning it.. Don't wanna have to scan my DD214</font>
Rumsfeld and his cronies could not have screwed up the whole situation in Iraq anymore then they did a few years ago. BUT!! You don't leave a country in the state that Iraq was in at the time to our enemies. You finish the job, and you stop allowing pussy's like Rumsfield make decisions. You listen to the Generals on the ground level, and you do the job even if it doesn't make you popular on internet forum sites like the one we're on.
<font color="ff0000">Again, the job is finished as far as we are concerned. There will never be an end to the violence. It's always been there and it will always be there. Why are we concerned with Iraq and not South America?? North Korea? Iran? Syria? Come on man that logic can be placed around the world. We are not going to force our western ideals on a eastern society. Not gonna happen.
You wanna talk Troop surge working.. OF COURSE IT DID! That just means that we have to spend that many more billions to ducktape the dam. That logic doesn't work. 240 billion a year to put your finger on a sucking chest wound doesn't last long. You either bankrupt the country or you pullout. HAHA!!
</font>
At this point the SURGE has worked. Even your boy Obama admits it's worked! If you want to argue that we shouldn't have invaded in the first place, then GREAT! But the reality is that we did, and now we need to make the BEST decision at this point and that is too NOT RUN AWAY WITH OUR TAILS BETWEEN OUR LEGS!
<font color="ff0000">HOW LONG DO WE NEED TO BE THERE??? Again we had to spread ourselves even thinner with the surge to bandaid a shotgun wound. How long can we sustain a 240 billion dollar a year war? We can't even give people adequate healthcare or educations here. FUCK IRAQ! Who would we be running from??? Iraqis that don't want us in their fucking country??? </font>
I'm still hoping that we get some type of reparations from this whole ordeal. I'm shocked that the Bush administration didn't make that mandatory issue. If you truly love the military Don, you wouldn't suggest that we pull out prematurely. The military does not need another fall of Saigon on it's hands, and since we started the job, we're going to finish it.
<font color="ff0000">Fall of Saigon???? Come on!!!! We don't need anything in Iraq except for advisors to their military. They can use their own money to rebuild. Reparations??? They don't owe us shit. We invaded their country. We accomplished the original mission. We need to honor our troops by bringing them home. We haven't lost anything. We did what we set out to do. We didn't promise anyone stability in the region.</font>
If the Iraqi's fuck it up again 10 years from now, then so be it. But at that point there will be very little loss of American life, and hopefully they've paid us back partially.
<font color="ff0000">THEY DON'T OWE US! We've cost them nearly as many civilian casualties, if not more, as the war has progressed. We need to pull out of the cities and into the desert and train their people to take over. An Iraqi is just as capable as an American joe. </font>
Victory in Iraq = They pay their own way and repay us for the cost's of setting up their democracy.
<font color="ff0000">Asking a country to pay us for something we forced upon them is hardly good foreign policy</font>
#2 Their government stay's Democratic for the next 50 years or longer...
<font color="ff0000">You can't force democracy where it is not wanted. Especially when all the neighbors have influence.</font>
#3 Iraq actually becomes a thorn in Iran's side as one of the first truly Democratic countries in the Middle East.
<font color="ff0000">It'll never happen. Even if they do, that means we'll have to stay there and force it to happen at the cost of American lives. It's not our place to interfere.</font>
I atleast do not question your "veteran" status, and BTW, thank you for serving. My brother just entered the Navy this last week, and will probably be serving on an aircraft carrier eventually. But back to the topic at hand.
<font color="ff0000">Thanks for not questioning it.. Don't wanna have to scan my DD214</font>
Rumsfeld and his cronies could not have screwed up the whole situation in Iraq anymore then they did a few years ago. BUT!! You don't leave a country in the state that Iraq was in at the time to our enemies. You finish the job, and you stop allowing pussy's like Rumsfield make decisions. You listen to the Generals on the ground level, and you do the job even if it doesn't make you popular on internet forum sites like the one we're on.
<font color="ff0000">Again, the job is finished as far as we are concerned. There will never be an end to the violence. It's always been there and it will always be there. Why are we concerned with Iraq and not South America?? North Korea? Iran? Syria? Come on man that logic can be placed around the world. We are not going to force our western ideals on a eastern society. Not gonna happen.
You wanna talk Troop surge working.. OF COURSE IT DID! That just means that we have to spend that many more billions to ducktape the dam. That logic doesn't work. 240 billion a year to put your finger on a sucking chest wound doesn't last long. You either bankrupt the country or you pullout. HAHA!!
</font>
At this point the SURGE has worked. Even your boy Obama admits it's worked! If you want to argue that we shouldn't have invaded in the first place, then GREAT! But the reality is that we did, and now we need to make the BEST decision at this point and that is too NOT RUN AWAY WITH OUR TAILS BETWEEN OUR LEGS!
<font color="ff0000">HOW LONG DO WE NEED TO BE THERE??? Again we had to spread ourselves even thinner with the surge to bandaid a shotgun wound. How long can we sustain a 240 billion dollar a year war? We can't even give people adequate healthcare or educations here. FUCK IRAQ! Who would we be running from??? Iraqis that don't want us in their fucking country??? </font>
I'm still hoping that we get some type of reparations from this whole ordeal. I'm shocked that the Bush administration didn't make that mandatory issue. If you truly love the military Don, you wouldn't suggest that we pull out prematurely. The military does not need another fall of Saigon on it's hands, and since we started the job, we're going to finish it.
<font color="ff0000">Fall of Saigon???? Come on!!!! We don't need anything in Iraq except for advisors to their military. They can use their own money to rebuild. Reparations??? They don't owe us shit. We invaded their country. We accomplished the original mission. We need to honor our troops by bringing them home. We haven't lost anything. We did what we set out to do. We didn't promise anyone stability in the region.</font>
If the Iraqi's fuck it up again 10 years from now, then so be it. But at that point there will be very little loss of American life, and hopefully they've paid us back partially.
<font color="ff0000">THEY DON'T OWE US! We've cost them nearly as many civilian casualties, if not more, as the war has progressed. We need to pull out of the cities and into the desert and train their people to take over. An Iraqi is just as capable as an American joe. </font>
Sometimes the most seemingly complex things need to be broken down into their elements.
Oil = money = power!
The Iraqi debacle most certainly IS about oil and the benefits derived from CONTROL.
Bush enters office. National tragedy provides Bush with virtually 100% blind backing.
Power struggle ensues in Middle East. We are entrenched more than ever. National wealth begins to disappear.
Big oil starts recording obscene, record profits.
Bush effectively(?) rides his initial wave of support into the sunset with a trail of domestic policy inaction (never interested him in the first place). This leads to financial decay for the common folks (trickle-make-that-stream upward economics).
Approval ratings are some of the worst ever for one of the worst presidents ever. Bullshit to anyone who praises him for his post 9/11 performance. With unparalleled national support, any baboon could have gotten some things right. W
Oil = money = power!
The Iraqi debacle most certainly IS about oil and the benefits derived from CONTROL.
Bush enters office. National tragedy provides Bush with virtually 100% blind backing.
Power struggle ensues in Middle East. We are entrenched more than ever. National wealth begins to disappear.
Big oil starts recording obscene, record profits.
Bush effectively(?) rides his initial wave of support into the sunset with a trail of domestic policy inaction (never interested him in the first place). This leads to financial decay for the common folks (trickle-make-that-stream upward economics).
Approval ratings are some of the worst ever for one of the worst presidents ever. Bullshit to anyone who praises him for his post 9/11 performance. With unparalleled national support, any baboon could have gotten some things right. W
TR I have and never will question your service to this country and I do believe you are a patriot. I just think you have been drinking too much of Obahma's kool aid. Do you really think he is going to only going Tax those who make over $250,000.00 ? This guy is going to kill the small business in this country people are going to be fired so the small business owners can keep their business's open. He want's to raise the minimum wage which will again hurt the small business owner and those on salaries can forget raises because the money that would have went to those raises will now go to pay those raised min wage the raising of minimum wage will cause more to lose jobs. I wish people who work for a living would realize if it were not for the rich you would not have a job! The democrats want the gov to pay for all these "welfare" type programs, health care, food stamps,etc... My eyes were opened when I watched someone walk into a safe way pay with food stamps and seen them come out and get in their nice new caddy and I would be willing to bet your paycheck they voted democrat that is if they even voted. Obahma is not the answer MCcain and Palin WILL change Washington. She has already proven that she is not afraid to go after pork barrel projects I do believe the democrats are afraid of this lady. Palin is going to shake up this election and TR you will have wasted your VOTE for the LOSER!
Norm
Norm
Look guys. I was a Republican in Oregon (a super liberal state) and registered democrat here in Utah (an Uber Conservative state). I didn't vote for Bush, as I didn't really care back then. My wife did vote for Bush. I was a hard charging Infantry type ready to go to combat and do my part in the war, because I tried to go during the first gulf war when I was 17 and we had a reason to go, but my mom refused to sign the permission forms and I turned 18 after it was over. I was one of those people that think we should've kicked Saddam's ass the first time.
Now, in retrospect, after taking the time to evaluate and really look at what took place. I don't think we should've been so hasty to return. It was not politically wise to do so. While I will stand 100% behind the republican party in that Saddam was a fucking douchebag murderer that needed to be toppled, I don't think the means by which we did it were cool.
Now, I agree that it's done and now we've got to make the best out of a bad situation. I don't think "the best" is throwing billions of dollars in a troop surge that will only work for so long. <b>IT'S BANKRUPTING US!</b>
How long do we fight tooth and nail for Iraqi citizens freedom and rights while our own are going without food, healthcare and education. You are willing to do this for Iraqi citizens and scoff at Mexicans, many of whom work hard doing jobs many Americans won't do and for much less pay. We turn our nose up at our neighbors of which have contributed soldiers to fight in every major war in our history. What the fuck is wrong with people that they'll let an greencard Mexican become a U.S. soldier to fight for this country and deny his spouse benefits!? He should be given his citizenship on the spot and his wife should be in the homecoming parade on a fucking float with honors!
I say FUCK IRAQ! We've been there for over 5 years and they've yet to band together and put up a resistance to the so called terrorists. They allow that shit to happen... All the attacks are staged in neighborhood that support the insurgency and Al Qaeda. What does that tell you? IED's are buried in front of Iraqi citzens. What does that tell you? Don't listen to the media. Go to websites where soldiers blog. Go to websites where you can get video of the battlefield that isn't censored by the government. Raw unedited video posted by soldier and marines. That's where the truth is.
I am 100% behind the troops. I think they are doing the very best they can in a shitty situation they have no choice in. They are fighting a war for a people that mostly doesn't care whether they live or die. Of course there are good Iraqi people of course there are asshole U.S. soldiers, but it all boils down to public perception.
My suggestion is pull our troops back into the desert in to camps that train their people. Let them start rebuilding their own infastructure. They have the oil funds. Especially now that Saddam is gone and not spending it on gold palaces and shit. We limit our interaction in their cities to Delta Force and dimplomats. We pull the main forces back and stage training facilities to train Iraqi troops. This way, we are providing them training, taking away our liability and risk in the cities and the insurgency is forced to attack in the open and not behind the human shields of the populous. Their biggest weapon isn't IED's it's propaganda and public perception. We kill any civilian over their, WHICH WE DO ALL THE TIME and we are the assholes they say we are. Let's not give them that!!!
AMPUSSY,
I am not for bloated government either. However, I do think a free country does not allow 6% of it's population to economically rule the other 94%, all while not giving fair wages, no healthcare or education. There has to be common ground between capitalism and socialism. No extreme is ever a good thing.
Democrats don't bloat it. Both parties do. Republicans are notorious for underminding these democratic efforts to socialize anything. The first thing they do is cut public funding and blame the Democrats underfunded system for failing. This is true in a lot of the cases. This happened in Oregon with the lottery. Check some of these examples.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4698411
http://cartoons-political.com/WorkingAmericansHitHardByBackstabbingRepublicansControllingCongress.htm
http://www.oregonhousedemocrats.com/2006/03/oregon_secretar.html
http://appropriations.house.gov/pdf/109thCongressBudgetReport.pdf
http://dpc.senate.gov/dpc-new.cfm?doc_name=fs-110-2-141
I do not think this country can take 4 more years of Bush and that is what McCain is. He doesn't offer any change. I think Obama will be the man to bring the most positive change. I think he has way more pressure to do so. I also think that electing him will prove that this country is not going to continue to be held hostage by rich white people. 232 years is a long time with no one else getting it. You wonder why people think we are racist hypocrite cowboys in the U.S. Ask a real European what most of them think.
As far as your "safeway caddy" analogy, that doesn't negate the fact that the program needs to be in place. That just means that it needs to be controlled better. We can start by requiring all those without jobs that need food stamps, healthcare of cash assistance, to work in a community service capacity. Make them earn their keep. We shouldn't be <i>giving</i> away anything.
-D-
Now, in retrospect, after taking the time to evaluate and really look at what took place. I don't think we should've been so hasty to return. It was not politically wise to do so. While I will stand 100% behind the republican party in that Saddam was a fucking douchebag murderer that needed to be toppled, I don't think the means by which we did it were cool.
Now, I agree that it's done and now we've got to make the best out of a bad situation. I don't think "the best" is throwing billions of dollars in a troop surge that will only work for so long. <b>IT'S BANKRUPTING US!</b>
How long do we fight tooth and nail for Iraqi citizens freedom and rights while our own are going without food, healthcare and education. You are willing to do this for Iraqi citizens and scoff at Mexicans, many of whom work hard doing jobs many Americans won't do and for much less pay. We turn our nose up at our neighbors of which have contributed soldiers to fight in every major war in our history. What the fuck is wrong with people that they'll let an greencard Mexican become a U.S. soldier to fight for this country and deny his spouse benefits!? He should be given his citizenship on the spot and his wife should be in the homecoming parade on a fucking float with honors!
I say FUCK IRAQ! We've been there for over 5 years and they've yet to band together and put up a resistance to the so called terrorists. They allow that shit to happen... All the attacks are staged in neighborhood that support the insurgency and Al Qaeda. What does that tell you? IED's are buried in front of Iraqi citzens. What does that tell you? Don't listen to the media. Go to websites where soldiers blog. Go to websites where you can get video of the battlefield that isn't censored by the government. Raw unedited video posted by soldier and marines. That's where the truth is.
I am 100% behind the troops. I think they are doing the very best they can in a shitty situation they have no choice in. They are fighting a war for a people that mostly doesn't care whether they live or die. Of course there are good Iraqi people of course there are asshole U.S. soldiers, but it all boils down to public perception.
My suggestion is pull our troops back into the desert in to camps that train their people. Let them start rebuilding their own infastructure. They have the oil funds. Especially now that Saddam is gone and not spending it on gold palaces and shit. We limit our interaction in their cities to Delta Force and dimplomats. We pull the main forces back and stage training facilities to train Iraqi troops. This way, we are providing them training, taking away our liability and risk in the cities and the insurgency is forced to attack in the open and not behind the human shields of the populous. Their biggest weapon isn't IED's it's propaganda and public perception. We kill any civilian over their, WHICH WE DO ALL THE TIME and we are the assholes they say we are. Let's not give them that!!!
AMPUSSY,
I am not for bloated government either. However, I do think a free country does not allow 6% of it's population to economically rule the other 94%, all while not giving fair wages, no healthcare or education. There has to be common ground between capitalism and socialism. No extreme is ever a good thing.
Democrats don't bloat it. Both parties do. Republicans are notorious for underminding these democratic efforts to socialize anything. The first thing they do is cut public funding and blame the Democrats underfunded system for failing. This is true in a lot of the cases. This happened in Oregon with the lottery. Check some of these examples.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4698411
http://cartoons-political.com/WorkingAmericansHitHardByBackstabbingRepublicansControllingCongress.htm
http://www.oregonhousedemocrats.com/2006/03/oregon_secretar.html
http://appropriations.house.gov/pdf/109thCongressBudgetReport.pdf
http://dpc.senate.gov/dpc-new.cfm?doc_name=fs-110-2-141
I do not think this country can take 4 more years of Bush and that is what McCain is. He doesn't offer any change. I think Obama will be the man to bring the most positive change. I think he has way more pressure to do so. I also think that electing him will prove that this country is not going to continue to be held hostage by rich white people. 232 years is a long time with no one else getting it. You wonder why people think we are racist hypocrite cowboys in the U.S. Ask a real European what most of them think.
As far as your "safeway caddy" analogy, that doesn't negate the fact that the program needs to be in place. That just means that it needs to be controlled better. We can start by requiring all those without jobs that need food stamps, healthcare of cash assistance, to work in a community service capacity. Make them earn their keep. We shouldn't be <i>giving</i> away anything.
-D-
I don't care what people may say or think about me but..... McCaine is a dufus. He is an older more altzheimered version of the ninconpoop that is currently in office. Top that with a health problem just beyond the horizon. Would you pay for a rusted out 1932 ford?, pretty much what you get with McCaine. As for Sarah...... Pretty.... definitely very right wing..... Got some real radical ideas as to how people whould live their lives. WTF is government doing trying to run our lives.... Is this some 3rd world country with dicktatorial(I know how to spell it, just thought that government is sticking it to us so Dick seems to be the right spelling) halfwits running this country. If we ran our families, our homes like the asses in power, we'd be put in jail. We really need to do what Thomas Jefferson said we should do..... Have a revolution every 25 years and one is way over due..... Government is not of, by or for the people at all. We are to blame.....maybe not us particularly but We the people... Our parents and grandparents and maybe even us......We let them gfet away with shit we would not take from an individual. We go along with a war that was against a country that was not being hostile to US and destabilize that country abd several others as well.... Oh yea, Osamma Bin Laden did that.... and we all believe that our government would not kill our own people and we believe that our government would not tourcher people... That's something other countries do and the world court would put people in prison for.... Like the german war criminals of WWII... This government will not change until wetell it to and not by voting in better people but getting others out into the light of day and smear them with the shit they have been doing for years....
I'm not Repubelican not demogog or is that democrap.... I don't need a party to tell me what is the way to go..... I have a set of morals and a certain amount of intelligence to dictate foe me.... We need a multi-million person march on DC and news coverage. Let people say what is on their minds and tell about some of the crap that the goverment is playing. Yes playing with our money our lives and our children's lives.... If this sounds strong.... so be it ... Government sucks and is really fucked up.... get the assholdes out and make government responsive to the people... Currently we have a government of the government, by the government and for the government...... Who shall not perrish from the DC....FTA.
I'm not Repubelican not demogog or is that democrap.... I don't need a party to tell me what is the way to go..... I have a set of morals and a certain amount of intelligence to dictate foe me.... We need a multi-million person march on DC and news coverage. Let people say what is on their minds and tell about some of the crap that the goverment is playing. Yes playing with our money our lives and our children's lives.... If this sounds strong.... so be it ... Government sucks and is really fucked up.... get the assholdes out and make government responsive to the people... Currently we have a government of the government, by the government and for the government...... Who shall not perrish from the DC....FTA.
you forgot repubiturd. HAHA! Well said man.