Fair
45°F
High: 61°F
Low: 34°F
Currently : Clear
7 Jan 2009
> Five-day forecast
 Search
   
 
   

Business Directory
Add your Business
Coupons
Add your Coupon
Classifieds
Add Your Classified
Subject: Triumph of the Red-State Fascists
Prev Next
You are not authorized to post a reply.

Page 3 of 4 << < 1234 > >>
AuthorMessages
jhallUser is Offline

Posts:1351


03/04/2008 12:59 PM Alert 

I'm perfectly capable of an intelligent response... but what you post, while it may be fact, is a completely different statistic having nothing to do with the same topic. Quit dodging around the facts.


So here is your intelligent response...

The attacks I listed were ALL deliberate, calculated murders and acts of war against innocent civilians, men, women and children. The question you need to ask yourself is if Billary were in office and we were in Iraq, which might I add was planned out during the Clinton administration and voted in favor of by both Bill, when he was is office and Hillary while she is in her senate seat, would you feel the same about this war? Or is it because a republican is at the helm that you throw all reason out the window and do what the media along with their do gooder hippie mentality that eventually will lead us to a completely government run and controlled society tells you to. So go ahead and drink your koolaid.


All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.
--Edmund Burke
drummer72User is Offline

Posts:3886


03/04/2008 2:15 PM Alert 
Posted By GilaGuy on 03/04/2008 9:05 AM
Posted By missPolitick on 03/03/2008 9:10 AM
No, I don't. I'm not sure I follow you GilaGuy.


It happens.

My question was this:  Since you have mentioned that you find terrorism to be your biggest concern, what gives you the feeling that someone with no relatable experience would be the best choice to counter that?

Posted By drummer72:

Bush did fearmonger. Everytime the administration was catching heat around the last election the terror level would rise. I haven't heard a thing about the terror level since. Bush also inferred that if you elected a Democrat the country would be unsafe, nonsense.

Again, all subjective and ripped from leftist talking points.  I think the terror alert system is pretty ridiculous but there was no correlation between the raising of alert levels and the Bush Administration "catching heat."  Primarily, this is an impossible point to make because the definition of "catching heat" varies from one person to the next.  Not to mention the fact that the Bush Administration has been "catching heat" for years (some it it quite justifiable, in my opinion) which makes it impossible to pick a certain time to parse.  Beyond that, the terror alert level was raised only when there were credible and/or actionable threats received.  This information was not only never in dispute by anyone inside our outside the Administration (even those Democrats privy to the information), it was corroborated by George Tenet, a Clinton appointee who was known to be no fan of President Bush.

Bush's inference that the electing of a Democrat would lead to less stability wasn't fearmongering any more than Kerry's "we need to end this war before more of them come after us" schtick was.  It was typical election-year drivel designed to point out the opponent's weakness.  Kerry wished to call it a day in Iraq, Bush thought that would open it up into a Somalia-like terrorist haven.  His inference, however silly, was based on that notion and that notion alone.  If one wishes to call that fearmongering, then one has to accept that Kerry and his side offered the exact same thing in reverse.  I don't think either of it is true...I think both just tried to paint the other as hell-bent on sending us in the wrong direction.  Typical election-year verbiage.

Posted By drummer72:

I would rather have someone with little experience and the fire in their belly than someone who is corrupt and knows how to get away with it.

I agree with your assessment of Mrs. Clinton, so I can understand that sentiment somewhat.  But what of Obama's corrupt dealings with Rezko? 

If anyone actually thought Obama had "fire in the belly," that thought disappeared last night when he ran out of a press conference in which reporters finally started asking him the sorts of questions they'd been asking other candidates all along.  It was rather embarrassing to behold, and was yet another piece of evidence pointing towards his being a bit too green for the position he seeks.

 

 

 

I DID NOT post those! Where did you get those and why does it say my name??


"Everything for everyone and nothing for ourselves"
drummer72User is Offline

Posts:3886


03/04/2008 2:17 PM Alert 
Posted By jhall on 03/04/2008 10:14 AM
Posted By drummer72 on 03/03/2008 11:19 PM

 

 

Jhall's just upset that he had flat feet and couldn't inlist in the navy.

O drummergirl... you know me so well... *shakes head in confusion*  So how did that self validation topic go? Everyone still think you're a twelve year old girl trapped in a 45 year old perverts body?

 

 

Nice to see you're still funny. In a stupid funny kind of way.


"Everything for everyone and nothing for ourselves"
cavemanUser is Offline

Posts:1276


03/04/2008 7:10 PM Alert 
Posted By jhall on 03/04/2008 12:59 PM

I'm perfectly capable of an intelligent response... but what you post, while it may be fact, is a completely different statistic having nothing to do with the same topic. Quit dodging around the facts.


So here is your intelligent response...

The attacks I listed were ALL deliberate, calculated murders and acts of war against innocent civilians, men, women and children. The question you need to ask yourself is if Billary were in office and we were in Iraq, which might I add was planned out during the Clinton administration and voted in favor of by both Bill, when he was is office and Hillary while she is in her senate seat, would you feel the same about this war? Or is it because a republican is at the helm that you throw all reason out the window and do what the media along with their do gooder hippie mentality that eventually will lead us to a completely government run and controlled society tells you to. So go ahead and drink your koolaid.

I don't feel the way I do about Iraq due to partisanship. Why is everything liberal and conservative with you? I want to go after the real bad guys but instead Bush decided to half ass Afghanistan and jump into a war that never needed to take place. Al Queda was not in Iraq until the President said so. There may be a few there now but why pick off a few of them in Iraq when headquarters is in the Afghanistan/Pakistan area?

GilaGuyUser is Offline

Posts:789


03/05/2008 1:41 AM Alert 
Posted By missPolitick on 03/04/2008 9:13 AM

GG, I don't understand what you're implying. I feel like, of our wonderful choices of candidates, John McCain would give terrorism the most attention. I don't think he underestimates the capabilities of Al Qaeda. Wouldn't you say he has more experience with it than Clinton or Obama?

Ahh, well don't I feel sheepish!  I had you confused with Marni (evidently my feeble brain is only able to handle one username beginning with "m" at a time! haha) who was the one that favored Mister Obama.  And of course, the inexperienced Obama was the candidate I was referring to in my post.  No wonder you were confused.  Completely my error.

Posted by drummer72:

I DID NOT post those! Where did you get those and why does it say my name??

Well you see, I am just keeping with my running theme today, which is "posting while half-asleep."    You are right, the previously referenced quotes were from caveman, not you.  I went back and edited that post so that it would not confuse others.  These web boards are obviously too complicated for me.   Sorry about that! 

jhallUser is Offline

Posts:1351


03/05/2008 8:41 AM Alert 
Posted By caveman on 03/04/2008 7:10 PM
Posted By jhall on 03/04/2008 12:59 PM

I'm perfectly capable of an intelligent response... but what you post, while it may be fact, is a completely different statistic having nothing to do with the same topic. Quit dodging around the facts.


So here is your intelligent response...

The attacks I listed were ALL deliberate, calculated murders and acts of war against innocent civilians, men, women and children. The question you need to ask yourself is if Billary were in office and we were in Iraq, which might I add was planned out during the Clinton administration and voted in favor of by both Bill, when he was is office and Hillary while she is in her senate seat, would you feel the same about this war? Or is it because a republican is at the helm that you throw all reason out the window and do what the media along with their do gooder hippie mentality that eventually will lead us to a completely government run and controlled society tells you to. So go ahead and drink your koolaid.

I don't feel the way I do about Iraq due to partisanship. Why is everything liberal and conservative with you? I want to go after the real bad guys but instead Bush decided to half ass Afghanistan and jump into a war that never needed to take place. Al Queda was not in Iraq until the President said so. There may be a few there now but why pick off a few of them in Iraq when headquarters is in the Afghanistan/Pakistan area?

when we declared war, was it was on only one terrorist group, or against them all? We were tired of any and all terrorist activities and are putting them to a stop. There may not be as many Al queda in Iraq as there are in Afghanistan or Pakistan, but the Taliban was huge there. Have you ever seen Afghanistan? It is the one of the few countires that has been invaded numerous time but never fully captured. It is one of the harshest climates in the world with both desert and very rugged mountains full of caves. The only way to effectively wipe that out is capet bombing, which sadley kills a lot of innocent people too.  We  still have many troops there still actively working to squelch Al Queda there. But it will take time and resolve.

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.
--Edmund Burke
drummer72User is Offline

Posts:3886


03/05/2008 2:50 PM Alert 
Posted By GilaGuy on 03/05/2008 1:41 AM
Posted By missPolitick on 03/04/2008 9:13 AM

GG, I don't understand what you're implying. I feel like, of our wonderful choices of candidates, John McCain would give terrorism the most attention. I don't think he underestimates the capabilities of Al Qaeda. Wouldn't you say he has more experience with it than Clinton or Obama?

Ahh, well don't I feel sheepish!  I had you confused with Marni (evidently my feeble brain is only able to handle one username beginning with "m" at a time! haha) who was the one that favored Mister Obama.  And of course, the inexperienced Obama was the candidate I was referring to in my post.  No wonder you were confused.  Completely my error.

Posted by drummer72:

I DID NOT post those! Where did you get those and why does it say my name??

Well you see, I am just keeping with my running theme today, which is "posting while half-asleep."    You are right, the previously referenced quotes were from caveman, not you.  I went back and edited that post so that it would not confuse others.  These web boards are obviously too complicated for me.   Sorry about that! 

 

 

No problem...


"Everything for everyone and nothing for ourselves"
JasonYUser is Offline

Posts:3446


03/05/2008 4:13 PM Alert 
HAHAHAHAHA! I love jhall's new avatar! I want to see a new anti-conservative one from you drummer so I can laugh about that too......

"My favorite health club is the International House of Pancakes" -- Lewis Black
jhallUser is Offline

Posts:1351


03/05/2008 5:01 PM Alert 
Sorry drummergirl, try again... mine is still better

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.
--Edmund Burke
drummer72User is Offline

Posts:3886


03/06/2008 12:14 AM Alert 
Posted By jhall on 03/05/2008 5:01 PM
Sorry drummergirl, try again... mine is still better

 

 

Don't  know where you get off calling me a girl. 


"Everything for everyone and nothing for ourselves"
jhallUser is Offline

Posts:1351


03/06/2008 9:33 AM Alert 
can't take the heat?

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.
--Edmund Burke
drummer72User is Offline

Posts:3886


03/06/2008 4:07 PM Alert 
Sure I can, but it's impossible to think of myself as a girl,when I have a penis.

"Everything for everyone and nothing for ourselves"
hastings1066User is Offline

Posts:1011


03/06/2008 9:58 PM Alert 

That's more information than I wanted! 

jhallUser is Offline

Posts:1351


03/07/2008 7:22 AM Alert 
haha

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.
--Edmund Burke
HiggsBosonUser is Offline

Posts:641


03/07/2008 10:44 AM Alert 
We are not living in some B movie with evil Nazis, propaganda is much more subtle than that. The question comes down to is the threat of "Islamofascism" as grave as the Bush administration portrays it to be. If you agree with their assessment then naturally you would think there is no fear mongering taking place.

Thanks,
Higgs

Liberalism and capitalism address themselves to the cool, well-balanced mind. They proceed by strict logic, eliminating any appeal to the emotions. Socialism, on the contrary, works on the emotions, tries to violate logical considerations by rousing a sense of personal interest and to stifle the voice of reason by awakening primitive instincts.
-- Ludwig Von Mises
djbaldwinUser is Offline

Posts:246


03/07/2008 1:43 PM Alert 
I think this year it really will depend on vp's for most people. For people that really research barrack hussein obama they realize he has very scary associations and crazy socialist ideas and mcCain has a list just as long. He is a liberal republican and most of us in the gop cringe at his name. It will really depend this year on who the vp's are.

"If everyone had the right priorities in life there would always be a shortage of fishing poles"
Mark Twain
hastings1066User is Offline

Posts:1011


03/07/2008 3:56 PM Alert 

Good point! McC is a hard pill for me to swallow. The problem is that, historically, VPs have been selected to balance a ticket regionally or, to a much lesser degree, philosophically, with little concern about their suitability for filling the shoes of the new President.  A good example was FDR and his VP Truman. Even though he was dying and we were in a world war, FDR kept Truman out of the loop. The poor man became President with very little inside information about the war. He knew nothing, for example about the atomic bomb. I look for both candidates to select a VP candidate on the bases of who will get me more votes, not who will best serve the nation if I die.

RichTigUser is Offline

Posts:0

03/07/2008 4:15 PM Alert 

McCain will choose Charlie Crist.  He is from the South and is younger, which McCain needs to offset the 71 that he is.

The Dems will be Clinton/Obama or Obama/Clinton.

HiggsBosonUser is Offline

Posts:641


03/07/2008 4:32 PM Alert 
McCain is a cyborg, he will never die.

McCain and Condi, take that Hilbama.


Thanks,
Higgs

Liberalism and capitalism address themselves to the cool, well-balanced mind. They proceed by strict logic, eliminating any appeal to the emotions. Socialism, on the contrary, works on the emotions, tries to violate logical considerations by rousing a sense of personal interest and to stifle the voice of reason by awakening primitive instincts.
-- Ludwig Von Mises
missPolitickUser is Offline

Posts:645


03/07/2008 4:36 PM Alert 
Do you think it was a smooth strategic move for Romney to duck out so long ago? I feel like it's given the right more time to warm up to and accept the fact that they're stuck with McCain instead of those two battling it out like Clinton and Obama. I think people are getting sick of the feuding on the left; it seems like they'll be battling till the bitter end.

Despite All My Rage I Am Still Just A Rat In A Cage
You are not authorized to post a reply.
Page 3 of 4 << < 1234 > >>

Forums > General Discussion > Politics > Triumph of the Red-State Fascists



ActiveForums 3.6