The ..2012.... Political thread
-
you guys sure get ugly when you're running scared. Basically the bush administration took advantage of the after shock of 9/11 to start an unnecessary illegal war by lying about the reasons. that's it in a nutshell. Here are more reasons to be a proud democrat....
What makes you republicans proud got any answers : : : : : : -
I wouldn't let Dodd/Frank touch another bill in their life. For all the problems they caused in the housing market - totally destroying so many people's lives - if they are not in jail ..... then keep them away from any possibility of creating more problems - but NO they have their hands in on another - with unintended consequences .... they want to help people out and hurt the banks and end up having the banks charge more for things like debit cards and more fees on everyone's accounts and there you go ..... the people you want to help get screwed big time ..... nice going you train wrecks.
-
The_Fool:
I wouldn't let Dodd/Frank touch another bill in their life. For all the problems they caused in the housing market - totally destroying so many people's lives - if they are not in jail ..... then keep them away from any possibility of creating more problems - but NO they have their hands in on another - with unintended consequences .... they want to help people out and hurt the banks and end up having the banks charge more for things like debit cards and more fees on everyone's accounts and there you go ..... the people you want to help get screwed big time ..... nice going you train wrecks.
You seem to be WAY off base with your accusations. Will you please elaborate exactly what you are talking about...I don't think you can
-
A U.S. Marine...vents his frustration...exorcizes a few demons...and reminds us...about what honor really is
-
rich n:
service_gamer:
Iowa Hawk:
rich n:
Iowa Hawk:
mustangsally10:
I'm pretty happy with most of what Obama has accomplished so far:etc, etc.
And I thought everything sucked because the Republicans wouldn't allow the little guy to do anything. Thanks for clearing that up.
And basically that list is referenced from the Daily KOS and no where else...
Rich, at least it is a tiny minority that ingests and believes the nonsense from that site.
mustangsally10:
bush's excuse to kill Saddam and invade Iraq was 9/11...Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11...do you get that now?
You just make it up as you go, don't you? Do you honestly believe the nutty things you say or it is all just to stir the pot, or are you really that misinformed? Bush's rationale for going to war with Iraq was spelled out in UN Resolution 1441, which had nothing to do with 9/11. "Do you get that now?" But you throw it around as fodder for your argument when no one here even made the claim. I don't agree with some of the things Susy says here but she seems intellectually honest and grown up. You, on the other hand, are the exact opposite. I can't wait for your halfbaked boilerplate response.
True, from a fundamental standpoint Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, but it had everything to do with WMDs, which simply didn't exist. So one way or another we were lied to as a nation.
You should go back and read that resolution...
This is my mistake as I was too vague, but replace 'Iraq' with 'the war in Iraq.' And I don't want to be too forward, but if you are suggesting that the resolution vindicates the administration's rationale for invasion, I vehemently disagree.
-
mustangsally10:
...tell me why are you a republican...what have the republicans done for you or even for the US in modern times??
There it is, folks, the classic parasite-liberal mindset. There?s Sally, crouched in her Daily Kos echo chamber, arms folded, foot tapping, waiting for her politician to DO SOMETHING for her. What a waste. Sally, I?m not waiting for any politician to do anything for me. I expect them to abide by the Constitution, respect the separation of powers, and basically stay the hell out of the way. My life is what I make of it, not what a politician makes of it for me. And how did you decide I?m a Republican -- because I detest the reptile in the White House? I?m a Conservative, not a Republican. There are plenty of Republicans who have disgusted me over the years, too. One of the worst things George Bush ever said was, ?I violated the principles of the free market to save the free market.? No, George. What you should have said is, ?I violated the principles of the free market.? Period. John Kennedy had a good quote. Sally, he was the 35th president of the United States, back in the early ?60s. He was a Democrat and he was more conservative than most of today?s Republicans. He said, ?Ask not what your country can do for you.? I?ll bet you don?t even know the next line. It is obvious you wouldn?t agree with it.
-
mustangsally10:
... Basically the bush administration took advantage of the after shock of 9/11 to start an unnecessary illegal war by lying about the reasons. that's it in a nutshell...
Bless her heart, more fairy dust from the fertile imagination of our Sally. I'm no fan of the UN, but that resolution received a unanimous vote from the Security Council. (Sally, that means all of the members voted in favor of it. It wasn't only George Bush who decided to invade.) What do you mean by "illegal" and by "lying"? Please explain, and try to be coherent. And don't repeat that tired line about no WMDs. We know Hussein had WMDs. Do you know how we know, in addition to all the available intelligence? We know because HE USED THEM. Did you know that, Sally? Read it again - Hussein USED weapons of mass destruction, and he never did account for getting rid of them as required by multiple UN resolutions.
-
That is true I agree with that analogy. What I am concerned about is the turn all this is taken. I noticed that the hate mongers seem to be coming out of the woodwork and seem to be trying to shove their viewpoint publically down others throats. It is really distasteful. love doris
-
keithmestl:
mustangsally10:
... Basically the bush administration took advantage of the after shock of 9/11 to start an unnecessary illegal war by lying about the reasons. that's it in a nutshell...
Bless her heart, more fairy dust from the fertile imagination of our Sally. I'm no fan of the UN, but that resolution received a unanimous vote from the Security Council. (Sally, that means all of the members voted in favor of it. It wasn't only George Bush who decided to invade.) What do you mean by "illegal" and by "lying"? Please explain, and try to be coherent. And don't repeat that tired line about no WMDs. We know Hussein had WMDs. Do you know how we know, in addition to all the available intelligence? We know because HE USED THEM. Did you know that, Sally? Read it again - Hussein USED weapons of mass destruction, and he never did account for getting rid of them as required by multiple UN resolutions.
Aww - take it easy on her...She probably doesn't know what a WMD actually is (probably, like many misinformed people out there) and believe it strictly means nuclear weapons, and doesn't understand that it's a blanket title for anything that can killed a large mass of people in a short period of time (i.e chemical warfare for example - can anyone say 'extermination of many thousands of Kurds' - of course at the hands of Saddam Hussein?)...and as you alluded to, the focus was always on how we never found their stock of these weapons, but never on the question of where did they go or how were they disposed of. Part of the resolution was that they disclosed where/how these weapons were disposed of and this was never done.
-
The hate mongers are coming out now because they are running scared. They are rehashing old arguments and being personally nasty and rude. The reason is because President Obama is having success in many areas and he and his team are exposing the hypocrisy of the republican party. As President FDR said:
I welcome their hatred"
So I welcome their hatred too it just means they are seeing defeat. So Bring it On. There is a direct relationship between their nastiness and President Obama's success. Their team of candidates looks dismal and it's fun to think of the debates ahead when Obama gets to debate one of them directly. Make the popcorn So let's have fun watching their heads explode
-
Face it, President Obama is a failure - epic style...anyone (even another Dem, if push came to shove) would be better than this failure. But I don't see that happening since going back to the beginning of the electoral vote, there has never been a new president from the same party voted in to replace a one term president (only in the cases of impeachments or assasinations has that occurred)
-
mustangsally10:
rich n:
mustangsally10:
rich n:
mustangsally10:
If you read Daily Kos you might be as informed as I am.... Obama Quote:
"The United States is committed to the Libyan people. You have won your revolution." 11:11 AM PT: President Obama also recognizes the Americans and their families who were killed in attacks plotted by Gadhafi. 11:13 AM PT: President Obama says the NATO mission is now coming to an end. More broadly, he also says "We've taken out Al Qaeda leaders and put them on the path to defeat." We're "winding down" the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.
That's leadership
I what do you think Obama was thinking when he was shaking his hand...I'm going to get you..sucker and he did
I'm actually a little surprised that you would want Obama to get credit for this given it was a cold blooded kill of a head of state w/o the benefit of a trial - while at the same time, you criticized Bush for his handling of Saddam (who was basically the same type of ruthless murderer Gadaffi was), despite Saddam being fairly tried in a court of law...the hypocracy is hilarious...
bush's excuse to kill Saddam and invade Iraq was 9/11...Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11...do you get that now? When the US invaded Iraq bush said we would be greeted as liberators they fought us instead. that is why the war was so difficult and long. The Libyan people were in revolution against gaddafi and he was brutalizing them and they caught and killed him with a little help from their friends. They are now free and on their own unless they ask for help. Our mission there is over. The adults are in charge.
Amen. Now we know who the real uniter-not-a-divider is.
-
mustangsally10:
The hate mongers are coming out now because they are running scared...
What does that mean? You like to dish it, but you don't expect anyone to reply in kind?
... Make the popcorn
Right on!
-
It's one thing to argue that taking Saddam out was ultimately the best thing to do (though considering the quagmire that followed, probably not), but when I read such smarmy responses from those who actually defend the WMD assertions in regards to Iraq, it's pretty galling. If the WMDs that we were looking for were there (yes, we understand that they don't necessarily mean nuclear weapons, or as many conservatives pronounce it, 'nucular'), then why did the administration admit to being incorrect on its chief reason for going to war? And are you really arguing that the UN was all-in on our invasion of Iraq? The best argument you can make is that the UN resolution conceded Iraq wasn't perfect, but made attempts to get 'up to code' (so to speak) and that they would monitor their progress. It's not like they went to our president and said 'Welp, there are some problems, go get 'em cowboy!' If you want to decry liberalism as an excuse to perpetuate revisionist history, that's fine, but I think it might be a bit more welcome on a Toby Keith message board.
-
The Iraq war has left us with a much bigger problem. Saddam Hussein, was Iran's greatest enemy, because of that Tehran's influence in Iraq is much stronger today than is America's. Iran does not control Iraq but Tehran no longer has anything to fear from its western neighbor now that a Shia-dominated government sits in Baghdad, made up of parties whose leaders spent long years of exile in Iran under Saddam . The Iraq war was a debacle we will be paying for for decades.
-
service_gamer:
It's one thing to argue that taking Saddam out was ultimately the best thing to do (though considering the quagmire that followed, probably not), but when I read such smarmy responses from those who actually defend the WMD assertions in regards to Iraq, it's pretty galling. If the WMDs that we were looking for were there (yes, we understand that they don't necessarily mean nuclear weapons, or as many conservatives pronounce it, 'nucular'), then why did the administration admit to being incorrect on its chief reason for going to war? And are you really arguing that the UN was all-in on our invasion of Iraq? The best argument you can make is that the UN resolution conceded Iraq wasn't perfect, but made attempts to get 'up to code' (so to speak) and that they would monitor their progress. It's not like they went to our president and said 'Welp, there are some problems, go get 'em cowboy!' If you want to decry liberalism as an excuse to perpetuate revisionist history, that's fine, but I think it might be a bit more welcome on a Toby Keith message board.
This is all I need to know: Head weapons inspector Hans Blix advised the UN Security Council that while Iraq's cooperation was "active", it was not "unconditional" and not "immediate".
-
I do not believe the UN voted unanimously to go to war. i believe Canada did not support it. I believe most of the nation wanted further inspection and felt Saddam was cooperating. We went to war with artist renderings and a bag of lies. Even in the other real wars we had, photographs to back up going into a war, were produced. You tell me with all the modern day tools we have they could not find ONE actual photo to support their claim. blows my mind how some of you still justify that invasion of a foreign country..may the Repuck's never rise again. The only weapon we found were weapons of mass deception. Saddam and Bin Laden were biter enemies. There were no terrorist in Iraq but there are in Pakistan, Saudi Arabia Afghanistan, Libya, Yemen....oh yeah and behind every Bush! The terrorist were Saudi's and so was Bin Laden. We wanted control the flow of Iraq oil ( notice oil prices went sky high and stayed)and the powers that have way to much control on are banking and media wanted us protecting Israel. Iran will be next they want their oil and they got there hands on Libya so that pretty much all of it. Watch Iraq for Sale.. that will open your eyes to WHY we went to war in the first place..military industrial complex and frigging banking, wall street, scum. Now with all this said we could all vote for the Libertarian and meet in the middle. Really screw both party if we all voted for Ron Paul.
-
rich n:
service_gamer:
It's one thing to argue that taking Saddam out was ultimately the best thing to do (though considering the quagmire that followed, probably not), but when I read such smarmy responses from those who actually defend the WMD assertions in regards to Iraq, it's pretty galling. If the WMDs that we were looking for were there (yes, we understand that they don't necessarily mean nuclear weapons, or as many conservatives pronounce it, 'nucular'), then why did the administration admit to being incorrect on its chief reason for going to war? And are you really arguing that the UN was all-in on our invasion of Iraq? The best argument you can make is that the UN resolution conceded Iraq wasn't perfect, but made attempts to get 'up to code' (so to speak) and that they would monitor their progress. It's not like they went to our president and said 'Welp, there are some problems, go get 'em cowboy!' If you want to decry liberalism as an excuse to perpetuate revisionist history, that's fine, but I think it might be a bit more welcome on a Toby Keith message board.
This is all I need to know: Head weapons inspector Hans Blix advised the UN Security Council that while Iraq's cooperation was "active", it was not "unconditional" and not "immediate".
Here you go: http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0305-01.htm I'll give you one of the quotes from the story, from Hans Blix: "I don't buy the argument the war was legalized by the Iraqi violation of earlier resolutions."
-
The United States Government knew EXACTLY what Saddam did and did not have. How? Because The United States Government gave it to him!
-
service_gamer:
rich n:
service_gamer:
It's one thing to argue that taking Saddam out was ultimately the best thing to do (though considering the quagmire that followed, probably not), but when I read such smarmy responses from those who actually defend the WMD assertions in regards to Iraq, it's pretty galling. If the WMDs that we were looking for were there (yes, we understand that they don't necessarily mean nuclear weapons, or as many conservatives pronounce it, 'nucular'), then why did the administration admit to being incorrect on its chief reason for going to war? And are you really arguing that the UN was all-in on our invasion of Iraq? The best argument you can make is that the UN resolution conceded Iraq wasn't perfect, but made attempts to get 'up to code' (so to speak) and that they would monitor their progress. It's not like they went to our president and said 'Welp, there are some problems, go get 'em cowboy!' If you want to decry liberalism as an excuse to perpetuate revisionist history, that's fine, but I think it might be a bit more welcome on a Toby Keith message board.
This is all I need to know: Head weapons inspector Hans Blix advised the UN Security Council that while Iraq's cooperation was "active", it was not "unconditional" and not "immediate".
Here you go: http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0305-01.htm I'll give you one of the quotes from the story, from Hans Blix: "I don't buy the argument the war was legalized by the Iraqi violation of earlier resolutions."
The question wasn't whether Hans agreed with the war, only that he found Saddam/Iraq to be non-compliant