If you hate this administration...
- Thread starter LordOpie
- Start date
honestly, i´d rather have the republicans in da house, and a democrat president (anybody but bush for the matter).
that means more "free trade" swinging this way, outsourcing, $$$ dumped into the economy and a slightly cheaper dollars. (which kinda sucks because i get paid in the mighty US buck, and exports will take a bit of a hit... but good for most because of the higher imports purchasing power).
**** the world!!!! yeahhh!!! :biggrin:
that means more "free trade" swinging this way, outsourcing, $$$ dumped into the economy and a slightly cheaper dollars. (which kinda sucks because i get paid in the mighty US buck, and exports will take a bit of a hit... but good for most because of the higher imports purchasing power).
**** the world!!!! yeahhh!!! :biggrin:
The next president should have big jugs. She'd REALLY have executive power because no-one would really be listening because they'd be distracted by the jugs.
The "Bush Doctrine" will take a few adminsitrations to clean up. All of the presidential orders he has signed off on will take forever to get rid of.
Agreed, I honestly feel sorry for the next poor bastard elected PoTUS...what a mess he or she will have to clean up.
In 2004 I hoped for 4 more years because everybody in this world thought that Kerry would change the crazyness of Bush's USA. I knew that was bullhshiz and that it would only give a false belief in its new policies.
Now afterwards I don't know, Kerry might have continued the neo con agenda under a new vail but he might also not have been as bad. With bush it's getting worse by the month and he's still got more than two years of rule..
The only hope we have is if both houses go to the democrats, that said, Michael Moore showed very clear in his book, Dude Where's My Country, that democrats under the Clinton admin most often voted like republicans (to different extent).
Soo, if that happens again we're still as ****ed as if both houses go to the republicans. What to do? Personaly I have the last two electioins voted for parties that are not in the parliament, in hope for them to enter. I have lost faith in all parliamentary parties as they are now "institutionalized". Fresh blood is needed every now and then.
Now afterwards I don't know, Kerry might have continued the neo con agenda under a new vail but he might also not have been as bad. With bush it's getting worse by the month and he's still got more than two years of rule..
The only hope we have is if both houses go to the democrats, that said, Michael Moore showed very clear in his book, Dude Where's My Country, that democrats under the Clinton admin most often voted like republicans (to different extent).
Soo, if that happens again we're still as ****ed as if both houses go to the republicans. What to do? Personaly I have the last two electioins voted for parties that are not in the parliament, in hope for them to enter. I have lost faith in all parliamentary parties as they are now "institutionalized". Fresh blood is needed every now and then.
It is testament to the idiocy of the current (mis)administration that all the post 9/11 goodwill (towards the US) generated all around the world has turned 180 degrees in a few short years of Dubyas "You either with us or against us" foreign policy.
Its time for us to realize that both parties are essentially the same, driven by and for rich guys who care little for the rank and file Joe Lunchpail type. It is time for a viable 3rd party...
Its time for us to realize that both parties are essentially the same, driven by and for rich guys who care little for the rank and file Joe Lunchpail type. It is time for a viable 3rd party...
I don't even think it's a party issue to be honest. Much of the party's direction is driven by the people at the helm.
This group of cronies are all cold war warriors with no more battles to fight looking for one last hurrah. To get this, they managed to sucker 50% of the American people and 99% of the gullible religious fanatics into voting for them by pushing buttons on one or 2 ridiculously un-important issues. Basing an entire election on whether 2 dudes can get hitched or whether a mom can have an abortion is monumentally retarded. Of course from a campaign standpoint, it was genius.
Foreign policy, a working economy, security and not having thousands of your citizens off dying in foreign countries for no reason are important things to base an election on.
Much of what the Republican party stands for (small government, responsible security, responsible spending) are important, responsible, dependable ways to run a country. This administration has completely bastardized that by spending large and irresponsibly, governing large and pissing 3/4 of the world off making you less safe than you were when they went into power.
The problem is the Democrats are just as irresponsible, and politically inept. I still believe a party with a little common sense could go an awfully long way. The problem now is that the last 2 terms have polarized the public to such a degree, that a middle of the line party now stands less of a chance than ever (although latest poll results show promise of republicans realizing they have been had, and wanting to distance themselves, and democrats realizing their party is completely useless politically).
This group of cronies are all cold war warriors with no more battles to fight looking for one last hurrah. To get this, they managed to sucker 50% of the American people and 99% of the gullible religious fanatics into voting for them by pushing buttons on one or 2 ridiculously un-important issues. Basing an entire election on whether 2 dudes can get hitched or whether a mom can have an abortion is monumentally retarded. Of course from a campaign standpoint, it was genius.
Foreign policy, a working economy, security and not having thousands of your citizens off dying in foreign countries for no reason are important things to base an election on.
Much of what the Republican party stands for (small government, responsible security, responsible spending) are important, responsible, dependable ways to run a country. This administration has completely bastardized that by spending large and irresponsibly, governing large and pissing 3/4 of the world off making you less safe than you were when they went into power.
The problem is the Democrats are just as irresponsible, and politically inept. I still believe a party with a little common sense could go an awfully long way. The problem now is that the last 2 terms have polarized the public to such a degree, that a middle of the line party now stands less of a chance than ever (although latest poll results show promise of republicans realizing they have been had, and wanting to distance themselves, and democrats realizing their party is completely useless politically).
I feel a bit like a broken record sayng this but I'd prefer a split congress/exec branch. All aligned to one party seems to violate proper checks and balances not to mention will always to farther left or right of the average public opinion.
Analysis: Election About Stopping The Next 9/11
By Ronald Kessler
Contrary to what many pundits would have you believe, this election is not about side shows like the meaning of Macaca or Senator John Kerrys assessment of American soldiers I.Q. Instead, voters face choices about the most fundamental issue: our national security and whether we can foil a devastating attack that could kill millions of Americans and wipe out our economy.
In talking about the war on terror, the Democrats have focused on how to beef up port security and why Osama bin Laden wasnt captured years ago at Tora Bora. But the key to stopping an attack is uncovering a plot before a nuclear device has been slipped on board a ship. Nor is bin Laden relevant to the war on terror. He has been neutralized, unable to communicate to his underlings because of fear of being killed.
The Republican administration understands that what is necessary to stop the next attack is a fragment of information that might lead to uncovering a plot. Obtaining that clue requires giving the FBI and CIA the necessary tools and funds to penetrate terrorist cells and make use of intercepted phone calls and emails.
In cutting the CIAs budget by eighteen percent, after taking inflation into account, and reducing the number of covert officers by 25 percent, the Clinton administration provided an example of how not to uncover those clues.
Under Clinton and John M. Deutch, his director of Central Intelligence, the CIA imposed a rule that its officers needed high-level clearance before recruiting an agent with so-called human rights violations.
Yet agents who had murdered or tortured people were the ones who would know what the bad guys were up to. Deutchs rule sent a message to CIA officers throughout the agency that it was better to sit quietly in their offices than take the kind of risks necessary to obtain intelligence on terrorist activities.
President Clinton himself had little use for intelligence. While he read the Presidents Daily Brief prepared by the Agency, six months after taking office he stopped his face-to-face CIA morning briefings.
Meanwhile, under Louis Freeh, Clintons appointee as FBI director, the bureau became so politically correct that agents trailing suspects were not allowed to follow them into mosques. FBI agents could not even sign on to online chat rooms to develop leads on people who might be recruiting terrorists or distributing information on making explosives. The FBI had to determine first that there was a sound investigative basis before it could sign on to chat rooms that any twelve-year-old could enter.
A crime practically had to be committed before you could investigate, Weldon Kennedy, a former FBI deputy director, told me. If you didnt have that, you couldnt open an investigation.
Two days after 9/11, Andrew H. Andy Card, Jr. started to go over the days schedule with President Bush. Bush stopped him. The previous evening, the president had developed plans for reshaping the governments response to terrorism.
Instead of passively waiting for the next attack, the U.S. would become the aggressor, taking on terrorists wherever they were. Instead of focusing on catching and prosecuting terrorists after they had killed innocent people, the government would switch its priorities to preventing attacks. Instead of relying on laws that created impediments to tracking down terrorists, the government would enact new laws so the FBI and other government agencies would not be handcuffed.
Bush told Card he wanted to rearrange the days schedule so he could implement those plans. After the usual CIA briefing at 8 a.m., Mueller and Attorney General John Ashcroft began to brief Bush.
They talked about how the terrorists got plane tickets, got on planes, moved from one airport to another, and then attacked our citizens, Card told me. And the president, while he was very interested in that report, said, Mr. Director, thats building a case for prosecution. I want to know what you have to say about the terrorist threats that havent materialized yet and how we can prevent them.
With those instructions, the entire mission of the FBI changed. It became prevention oriented.
While the FBI in the previous six years had stopped forty terrorist plots before they happened, the bureau tended to look no further than the latest case when going after terrorism. In the previous bombing of the World Trade Center in 1993, the FBI had been content to catch those responsible without taking the next step to try to determine if it was part of a larger plot or led to other terrorists.
To help the FBI stop the next plot, Bush proposed the USA Patriot Act. As outlined in an Oct. 31 NewsMax article, before the Patriot Act, because of what was known as the wall, FBI agents working the same case could not talk to each other about the case because some were working it as a criminal case and others were working it as an intelligence case.
The same wall prevented the CIA from sharing information with the FBI. The Patriot Act broke down the wall and allowed the FBI and the CIA to connect the dots.
Two weeks after 9/11, Bush met with General Michael V. Hayden, then director of the NSA, and other NSA officials in the Oval Office.
The president asked, What tools do we need to fight the war on terror? said Card, who attended the meeting.
Hayden suggested changing the rules to allow NSA to target calls and to intercept emails of terrorists if one end of the communication was overseas. Thus, if bin Laden were calling the U.S. to order the detonation of a nuclear device, and the person he called began making overseas calls, NSA could listen in to those calls as well as to bin Ladens original call.
Bingo. As a result of the presidents question, we took a fresh look at what NSA could be doing to protect us, Card said.
Prior to Bushs order, the information from the calls would have been lost. Even the emergency provision of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) was useless because, before listening in on a call, NSA had to obtain Justice Department authorization. By the time approval came through, the call was gone.
The presidents action made it more likely that the NSA would intercept the communications most critical to the defense of the nationthat is, communications we believe to be affiliated with al Qaeda, one end of which is in the U.S., Hayden told me for a Sept. 25 NewsMax article after he became CIA director.
Hayden noted that under the FISA statute, NSA cannot put someone on coverage and go ahead and play for 72 hours while it gets a note saying it was okay.
In August 2005, Bush created the National Counterterrorism Center (NCTC). Despite the medias claim that the FBI and CIA dont talk to each other, at the NCTC, analysts from the FBI and CIA sit side by side, sifting clues and parceling out leads 24 hours a day.
These changes and others have produced solid results. Since 9/11, the CIA and FBI, often with the help of foreign partners, have rolled up some 5,000 terrorists. Dozens of plots have, in fact, been stopped. Others never materialized because the potential perpetrators had already been locked up or booted out of the country. The FBI now has 10,000 terrorism cases under investigation.
Those results have been achieved despite disclosures by the New York Times and other papers of secret operational capabilities, disclosures that are killing us, in the words of one high level FBI counterterrorism agent.
The most important thing has been an overall strengthening of the intelligence community, Fran Townsend, assistant to the president for homeland security and counterterrorism, told me. Its intelligence reform, its greater resources in human intelligence, its the transformation of the FBI, its the Patriot Act, and the technical tools like the NSA terrorism surveillance program and the financial program. The sum of these changes is greater than the parts.
If the Democrats win control of Congress and their rhetoric and votes are to be believed, they would adopt the Clinton administrations spineless approach to fighting terrorism.
They would gut the USA Patriot Act.
They would stop interception of calls from al Qaeda to and from the U.S.
They would end tracking of terrorists financial transfers.
They would bestow legal rights on al Qaeda terrorists who are being interrogated about planned plots rights similar to those enjoyed by American citizens.
Finally, they would cut off funds to support the war effort in Iraq, handing al Qaeda a win in what the terrorists themselves have described as a crucial battleground in their effort to defeat America and impose their vision of radical Islam on the world.
Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld had it right when he recalled how wrong appeasement was when dealing with Nazi Germany: Ultimately, the U.S. lost 300,000 lives in World War II. The total killed worldwide was 70 million. War expenditures were 38 percent of Americas GDP per year.
Those who ignore history are condemned to repeat it. Yet today, because terrorists are trying to obtain weapons of mass destruction, the stakes are far higher than in World War II.
The race that were in right now is to prevent an attack with any kind of WMD, Joe Billy, Jr., the FBIs chief of counterterrorism, told me. The implosion of a nuclear device or chemical-biological weapon of some type is really what we live to try to prevent.
Because of George Bushs vision and resolve in the face of vicious personal assaults, we have not been attacked since 9/11.
The question is whether voters will demonstrate the same vision by electing members of Congress who recognize the danger and will keep intact the tools needed by the FBI and CIA to insure our survival.
By Ronald Kessler
Contrary to what many pundits would have you believe, this election is not about side shows like the meaning of Macaca or Senator John Kerrys assessment of American soldiers I.Q. Instead, voters face choices about the most fundamental issue: our national security and whether we can foil a devastating attack that could kill millions of Americans and wipe out our economy.
In talking about the war on terror, the Democrats have focused on how to beef up port security and why Osama bin Laden wasnt captured years ago at Tora Bora. But the key to stopping an attack is uncovering a plot before a nuclear device has been slipped on board a ship. Nor is bin Laden relevant to the war on terror. He has been neutralized, unable to communicate to his underlings because of fear of being killed.
The Republican administration understands that what is necessary to stop the next attack is a fragment of information that might lead to uncovering a plot. Obtaining that clue requires giving the FBI and CIA the necessary tools and funds to penetrate terrorist cells and make use of intercepted phone calls and emails.
In cutting the CIAs budget by eighteen percent, after taking inflation into account, and reducing the number of covert officers by 25 percent, the Clinton administration provided an example of how not to uncover those clues.
Under Clinton and John M. Deutch, his director of Central Intelligence, the CIA imposed a rule that its officers needed high-level clearance before recruiting an agent with so-called human rights violations.
Yet agents who had murdered or tortured people were the ones who would know what the bad guys were up to. Deutchs rule sent a message to CIA officers throughout the agency that it was better to sit quietly in their offices than take the kind of risks necessary to obtain intelligence on terrorist activities.
President Clinton himself had little use for intelligence. While he read the Presidents Daily Brief prepared by the Agency, six months after taking office he stopped his face-to-face CIA morning briefings.
Meanwhile, under Louis Freeh, Clintons appointee as FBI director, the bureau became so politically correct that agents trailing suspects were not allowed to follow them into mosques. FBI agents could not even sign on to online chat rooms to develop leads on people who might be recruiting terrorists or distributing information on making explosives. The FBI had to determine first that there was a sound investigative basis before it could sign on to chat rooms that any twelve-year-old could enter.
A crime practically had to be committed before you could investigate, Weldon Kennedy, a former FBI deputy director, told me. If you didnt have that, you couldnt open an investigation.
Two days after 9/11, Andrew H. Andy Card, Jr. started to go over the days schedule with President Bush. Bush stopped him. The previous evening, the president had developed plans for reshaping the governments response to terrorism.
Instead of passively waiting for the next attack, the U.S. would become the aggressor, taking on terrorists wherever they were. Instead of focusing on catching and prosecuting terrorists after they had killed innocent people, the government would switch its priorities to preventing attacks. Instead of relying on laws that created impediments to tracking down terrorists, the government would enact new laws so the FBI and other government agencies would not be handcuffed.
Bush told Card he wanted to rearrange the days schedule so he could implement those plans. After the usual CIA briefing at 8 a.m., Mueller and Attorney General John Ashcroft began to brief Bush.
They talked about how the terrorists got plane tickets, got on planes, moved from one airport to another, and then attacked our citizens, Card told me. And the president, while he was very interested in that report, said, Mr. Director, thats building a case for prosecution. I want to know what you have to say about the terrorist threats that havent materialized yet and how we can prevent them.
With those instructions, the entire mission of the FBI changed. It became prevention oriented.
While the FBI in the previous six years had stopped forty terrorist plots before they happened, the bureau tended to look no further than the latest case when going after terrorism. In the previous bombing of the World Trade Center in 1993, the FBI had been content to catch those responsible without taking the next step to try to determine if it was part of a larger plot or led to other terrorists.
To help the FBI stop the next plot, Bush proposed the USA Patriot Act. As outlined in an Oct. 31 NewsMax article, before the Patriot Act, because of what was known as the wall, FBI agents working the same case could not talk to each other about the case because some were working it as a criminal case and others were working it as an intelligence case.
The same wall prevented the CIA from sharing information with the FBI. The Patriot Act broke down the wall and allowed the FBI and the CIA to connect the dots.
Two weeks after 9/11, Bush met with General Michael V. Hayden, then director of the NSA, and other NSA officials in the Oval Office.
The president asked, What tools do we need to fight the war on terror? said Card, who attended the meeting.
Hayden suggested changing the rules to allow NSA to target calls and to intercept emails of terrorists if one end of the communication was overseas. Thus, if bin Laden were calling the U.S. to order the detonation of a nuclear device, and the person he called began making overseas calls, NSA could listen in to those calls as well as to bin Ladens original call.
Bingo. As a result of the presidents question, we took a fresh look at what NSA could be doing to protect us, Card said.
Prior to Bushs order, the information from the calls would have been lost. Even the emergency provision of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) was useless because, before listening in on a call, NSA had to obtain Justice Department authorization. By the time approval came through, the call was gone.
The presidents action made it more likely that the NSA would intercept the communications most critical to the defense of the nationthat is, communications we believe to be affiliated with al Qaeda, one end of which is in the U.S., Hayden told me for a Sept. 25 NewsMax article after he became CIA director.
Hayden noted that under the FISA statute, NSA cannot put someone on coverage and go ahead and play for 72 hours while it gets a note saying it was okay.
In August 2005, Bush created the National Counterterrorism Center (NCTC). Despite the medias claim that the FBI and CIA dont talk to each other, at the NCTC, analysts from the FBI and CIA sit side by side, sifting clues and parceling out leads 24 hours a day.
These changes and others have produced solid results. Since 9/11, the CIA and FBI, often with the help of foreign partners, have rolled up some 5,000 terrorists. Dozens of plots have, in fact, been stopped. Others never materialized because the potential perpetrators had already been locked up or booted out of the country. The FBI now has 10,000 terrorism cases under investigation.
Those results have been achieved despite disclosures by the New York Times and other papers of secret operational capabilities, disclosures that are killing us, in the words of one high level FBI counterterrorism agent.
The most important thing has been an overall strengthening of the intelligence community, Fran Townsend, assistant to the president for homeland security and counterterrorism, told me. Its intelligence reform, its greater resources in human intelligence, its the transformation of the FBI, its the Patriot Act, and the technical tools like the NSA terrorism surveillance program and the financial program. The sum of these changes is greater than the parts.
If the Democrats win control of Congress and their rhetoric and votes are to be believed, they would adopt the Clinton administrations spineless approach to fighting terrorism.
They would gut the USA Patriot Act.
They would stop interception of calls from al Qaeda to and from the U.S.
They would end tracking of terrorists financial transfers.
They would bestow legal rights on al Qaeda terrorists who are being interrogated about planned plots rights similar to those enjoyed by American citizens.
Finally, they would cut off funds to support the war effort in Iraq, handing al Qaeda a win in what the terrorists themselves have described as a crucial battleground in their effort to defeat America and impose their vision of radical Islam on the world.
Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld had it right when he recalled how wrong appeasement was when dealing with Nazi Germany: Ultimately, the U.S. lost 300,000 lives in World War II. The total killed worldwide was 70 million. War expenditures were 38 percent of Americas GDP per year.
Those who ignore history are condemned to repeat it. Yet today, because terrorists are trying to obtain weapons of mass destruction, the stakes are far higher than in World War II.
The race that were in right now is to prevent an attack with any kind of WMD, Joe Billy, Jr., the FBIs chief of counterterrorism, told me. The implosion of a nuclear device or chemical-biological weapon of some type is really what we live to try to prevent.
Because of George Bushs vision and resolve in the face of vicious personal assaults, we have not been attacked since 9/11.
The question is whether voters will demonstrate the same vision by electing members of Congress who recognize the danger and will keep intact the tools needed by the FBI and CIA to insure our survival.
Good point N8, we can't forget to be afraid. If we let our guard down like those pussy Canadians we will be dying by the millions, just like those pussy Canadians.
yep . .
who wrote that, jeb? or katherine harris?
whomever it was, they should get a job writing comedy.
I thought that was the Onion.
Did the article have some citations to back up those "facts"?
"Joe Billy, Jr., the FBIs chief of counterterrorism"
Are we serious? Who is his 2IC? Billy Joe Jim Bob?
'
Are we serious? Who is his 2IC? Billy Joe Jim Bob?
'
as for the original question, I prefer split control. one party has congress, one party has the presidency. don't really care which has which. I also use my vote as a protest if I hate what the current administration is doing, so I'm voting straight democrat. if they get in and are no better, I'll be voting straight republican later.
I must admit that I find a large portion of your posts to be utter nonsense; this one was a refreshing exception to the rule. :biggrin:
I've never been to Newsmax before. Interesting site. I like the add that claims the liberal media is withholding "attraction secrets". I tried to click on it but work blocked it out. It seems to be some kind of dating website that claims liberals are preventing me from getting laid. All this time I thought it was my goiter and overpowering BO. Goddamn liberal media.
i couldn't agree more. i voted the bean counter way last time, not really the vote i wanted, but the lesser of two evils. this time i'll vote my concious...
Already trying to shift the responsibility for a Democratic office's inevitable shortcomings & failures? That excuse never sufficed when explaining the volitile economy that Bush walked into. But then again, comparing the Clinton and Bush economies is like comparing apples and oranges.
The Republican party's ideal size of government (while not at that level right now for obvious reasons) is still what the country needs to promote a healthy economy that can compete with foriegn economies. Let's hope they retain control of the senate.
What the heck is it with you folks? Everyone of those men and women died for a reason. Stop downplaying their sacrifices to fit a political agenda. Matter of fact, just don't ever mention their deaths if you won't even consider why they occured. At least give them that much.
Last I checked, you didn't have to cite common knowledge.
That said, I'm anxious to see a great republican victory this election. I'm assuming from the comments you all have been making about the two main parties you will all be voting liberatarian? That'd be great.
Last I checked, bush was the one signing the presidential orders, not anyone else. He also thinks it's ok to spy on his own citizens, send people to secret prisons without due process and invade sovereign nations with absolutely zero justification.Already trying to shift the responsibility for a Democratic office's inevitable shortcomings & failures? That excuse never sufficed when explaining the volitile economy that Bush walked into. But then again, comparing the Clinton and Bush economies is like comparing apples and oranges.
The Republican party's ideal size of government (while not at that level right now for obvious reasons) is still what the country needs to promote a healthy economy that can compete with foriegn economies. Let's hope they retain control of the senate.
What the heck is it with you folks? Everyone of those men and women died for a reason. Stop downplaying their sacrifices to fit a political agenda. Matter of fact, just don't ever mention their deaths if you won't even consider why they occured. At least give them that much.
Last I checked, you didn't have to cite common knowledge.
That said, I'm anxious to see a great republican victory this election. I'm assuming from the comments you all have been making about the two main parties you will all be voting liberatarian? That'd be great.
Nice try trying to spread the blame around though. Too bad for you only the hardcore card carrying Republicans are stupid enough to believe it.
Also, yes, they did die for nothing. An absolute waste. I'll mention them all I want. They died in a Republican powergrab gone awry.
295,734,134 U.S. Citizens from all ethnic backgrounds and we still have two dominating parties and no black Pres??? I know this has been discussed here before, but I think voting Independent, Green, or just about any party other than Dumbocrats/ Repugnantcans could be whats best for us all. Speaking on a long term basis, of course.
I too will be voting my conscious
I too will be voting my conscious
Really? Every repub on this site and every other I frequented over the years has consistently blamed Clinton for the first five years of weak economy in Bush's admin.
This goes double for republican fed media.
Completely inaccurate. The US needs a stereotypical Dem policy in recessions and a stereotypical Rep policy in booms.
It's called a full-employment budget.
And anyone who suggests that this Admin has been fiscally responsible simply hasn't been paying attention or is a partisan whore.
And it is unfortunate for you that only the hard core Dems believe this. This is why the lefties will never be taken seriously with respect to nat'l security among other "issues" that really matter to real Americans.
BTW, are you calling Iraq a soverign nation? Afghanistan?
Rice is a nutjob. Powell is a pushover and Oabama...well I don't know too much about Obama but he and Oprah get along, and Oprah scares me.
Didn't Obama have some pretty insane things to say a year or so ago to the media?
Didn't Obama have some pretty insane things to say a year or so ago to the media?
Iraq is indeed a sovereign nation. It had no reason to be invaded, it was not involved in anything to do with terror, it had no weapons program and what the US did was againt every single pretext of international law. Dubya is indeed a war criminal, as are his cabinet of cold war cronies.
I will be waiting for the day he is put in a mock trial and ordered hung.
Powell was toting the party line until his conscience got to him, then he stepped aside, but did it in a way that let everyone know that he was unhappy.
factually incorrect and you know it.
Were they involved in 9/11 or terrorizing the US? no, but you said terror in general.
They did have WMDs and wanted to pursue them. Only UNMOVIC kept Saddam in check. Was the UN's inspections working? for the most part. But to say Iraq had none is an intentional deception.
Perhaps if you consider the Dem policies of the early to mid 20th century. The current Democratic party is soft as Jell-0 which is all the more reason for you fellas to vote liberatarian!
You can't be a soverign nation with sanctions placed against you. Sorry it refutes the very definition and pretext of what soverignty is.
We bombed that sh*t in the late 90's, and for good reason.
You are a fool if you believe he had no weapons prior to our duties in Iraq, and no connection whatsoeverto Osama, and what the blacks did in the 60's was against the law, but you see the results today.
Just because lots of people believe something, does not make it true. Ever watch Family Feud where they ask 100 Americans what they think the answer is to some question, and sometimes the #1 answer isn't even a valid response?
In the real world, facts may be backed up with evidence, citations, etc. If you don't have evidence to support your claims, then all you have is an opinon. Opinions are just like a$$holes, everybody has one. The emmissions of each are about equally valuable.
I'm voting for a Green Party candidate for Governor (Whitney). In my house race, it will be a Democrat (Seals). Definitely NOT that torture supporting Republican (Kirk). I'm voting for a Republican (Peraica) for Cook County Board President.
I like to vote for the person who I think might actually do the best job, regardless of party affiliation, but I'm
like that.I support this 100%
I won't because she is a funking liar.
Obama is one of my Senators. He voted against the torture bill and tried to get a sunset provision added into it. He would get my vote for that alone. Regardless of Oprah's opinion.
Care to elaborate?
Like I said, don't know much about him. Sometime back though he was in the news for some insane rant about immigration or something like that. Can't remember what it was, but it was one of the first times I had heard of him in a big way.
Dunno about the rant, but his ideas on immigration seem way out there:
Wow, that is some radical thinking
