Anyone for Obama?
- Thread starter mulestar
- Start date
S
shortstop20
Well-known member
How many Pearl Harbor's could you put into the death toll of WWII? Was WWII not worth it?
Some people have some pretty unrealistic time frames for the war. You are very naive if you thought we'd be in and out in 2-3 years.
Some people have some pretty unrealistic time frames for the war. You are very naive if you thought we'd be in and out in 2-3 years.
why does the media still pretend there is no Ron Paul? Last I heard he was still in the race, got second in Nevada when there were still 5 people running, and knows where the Constitution got buried in Washinton.
I don't see alot of difference in the everyday things we face for the other three.
1- energy independence
2- more taxes???/ socialized medicines
3- protected borders(I may be off on this one)
The media has told us who we will vote for and who has NO CHANCE OF WINNING; why believe them? Ron may be a long shot, but I LIKE the idea of the states controling their own resources, and not letting "the man" shut them down from protecting it(let burn policy, roadless areas turned wilderness, 4 sleds a day in Jellystone, no drilling for oil without paying off the greens, ect) rant off
I don't see alot of difference in the everyday things we face for the other three.1- energy independence
2- more taxes???/ socialized medicines
3- protected borders(I may be off on this one)
The media has told us who we will vote for and who has NO CHANCE OF WINNING; why believe them? Ron may be a long shot, but I LIKE the idea of the states controling their own resources, and not letting "the man" shut them down from protecting it(let burn policy, roadless areas turned wilderness, 4 sleds a day in Jellystone, no drilling for oil without paying off the greens, ect) rant off
I'm with you on Ron Paul. He is the only Republican in the debates who made sense to me and who would admit that it was a mistake to go into Iraq. He is also a TRUE fiscal conservative.
I don't like any of the current choices at all. I would probably vote for the Libertarian candidate except that it looks like it may be Bob Barr, he might be to much on the religious right for me....have to to some more research.
I don't like any of the current choices at all. I would probably vote for the Libertarian candidate except that it looks like it may be Bob Barr, he might be to much on the religious right for me....have to to some more research.
The difference is that with Pearl Harbor we were attacked and went to war with the country that attacked us. With 9/11 we were attacked invaded country rightfully in search of those who attacked us, then our ADD kicked in and we gave up on the Afghanistan war and for some reason decided to invade Iraq a country that had nothing to do with 9/11.
thank you. Pear harbor there was a entire country attacking us, and declaring war on as as a whole. Not the same case here.
why does the media still pretend there is no Ron Paul? Last I heard he was still in the race, got second in Nevada when there were still 5 people running, and knows where the Constitution got buried in Washinton.
1- energy independence
2- more taxes???/ socialized medicines
3- protected borders(I may be off on this one)
The media has told us who we will vote for and who has NO CHANCE OF WINNING; why believe them? Ron may be a long shot, but I LIKE the idea of the states controling their own resources, and not letting "the man" shut them down from protecting it(let burn policy, roadless areas turned wilderness, 4 sleds a day in Jellystone, no drilling for oil without paying off the greens, ect) rant off
I was a big Paul supporter. He really doesn't have much chance of winning now. I think he did a good job with his campaign, even if he just brought attention to certain ideas.
You do know that he is leaning towards supporting Obama don't you?
O
Ollie
ACCOUNT CLOSED
I don't think we should have gone into Iraq. It wasn't the smartest thing to do. It would have been better to let the situation simmer a couple years more and become a bigger problem. I am not trying to be a smart azz, I am serious.
Had Iraq continued on the cource they were on it would have gotten a lot more countries in the region involved. Instead we went in and now we are stuck.
There is major progress being made (finally), however you are going to see the terrorist really ramp up attacks thru nov. The dems have made sure that it will happen, they are counting on the terrorist to make the war an issue again. The leaders of the terrorist have already come out and stated they wanted Obama to win. They said it would be tantamount to them winning the war with america.
In WW2 we had countries at war. If you took the country you won the war.
This is a new type of war. A war of idioligy (sp?). It is about religion. If you take a country you just push the terrorist into another area and they attack from there. You have to defeat the ideas before you can defeat the terrorist. The government is FINALLY figuring this out. That is why the local are turning against the terrorist in Iraq. That is why it is becoming harder and harder for them to recruit. The other issue is that the locals figured we wouldn't stick around to finish what we started so they weren't willing to stick their necks out to help us or themselves. They are seeing that there might be a better life and they are starting to help us and themselves.
Time will tell if the Dems are able to surrender to the idioligy and thus loose the war.
S
sldgy
Guest
What about Mahmoud Ahmadinejad?
OR these guys??
(London)
Zinbabwe Guardian
OPINION
27 March 2008
Posted to the web 27 March 2008
Tanonoka Joseph Whande
ZIMBABWE is holding important elections tomorrow but that Libyan tyrant, Muammar al-Gaddafi, president of "the Great Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya", whatever that is, does not want Mugabe "to be bothered with elections" because "Mugabe should just rule until he dies."
Gaddafi did not say if he wanted Mugabe to rule the United States of Africa until he drops dead. We have no idea if Gaddafi himself would want to submit himself to Mugabe's rule.
OR.. these guys???
http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/tyrants.htm
Just checking
And you are putting "i hope obama dies" in with these guys?
Just checking
I wouldn't exactly say we are winning the war right now. I personally think the Republicans are rooting for more terrorist attacks. If that happens they can continue the fear mongering.
The war is not about religion. The war is about occupation. Tell me what would you do if say Iran came over to say Littleton and built a military base? Would you really be happy about it?
What would YOU do if Iran was conducting a war in your country and they accidentally killed your son when they mistook his school for a bomb factory and it killed him or worse it struck your house and killed your entire family?
I can really say I would be effing pissed off. Pissed off enough to do something about it. Can you blame them?
Iraq is a mess. Pull out of Iraq (like the Iraqi people want) and lets focus on the homeland and Afghanistan.
Robin Williams for President!
first off if you havent been over there you have no room to tell anyone who is winning and who is losing..you dont know so stop.
second, if we were living in fear and constantly being attacked and say the east was attempting to ethnically cleanse the midwest and iran stepped in to help then for god sakes let'em step in and help out.
third, its war, chit happens....take a trip to any of the larger inner cities late at night and tell me what you come up with. Gang ridden neighborhoods are more dangerous than either afghanistan or iraq.
and lastly how many people in iraq have you asked to come to the conclusion that they want us to get out of there?
second, if we were living in fear and constantly being attacked and say the east was attempting to ethnically cleanse the midwest and iran stepped in to help then for god sakes let'em step in and help out.
third, its war, chit happens....take a trip to any of the larger inner cities late at night and tell me what you come up with. Gang ridden neighborhoods are more dangerous than either afghanistan or iraq.
and lastly how many people in iraq have you asked to come to the conclusion that they want us to get out of there?
So unless I have seen it with my own eyes, it must not have happened.
I never saw the holocaust. I never seen Japan Bomb Pearl Harbor, I only saw September 11, 2001 in New York City on TV. Does that mean none of those have happened?
Your logic is horrible at best.
The Bush Administration never used ethnic cleansing as a reason to go to war against Iraq.
If we were trying to stop ethnic cleansing we would have never provided him with gas to gas the Northern Kurds in the 80's. We would also be involved in a lot more conflicts in Africa, and South America. That argument is bull$.hit.
Gang neighborhoods are not anything like some places in the Middle East. You don't see roadside bombs, or kids strapped with c4.
Last, what are you trying to prove exactly?
Excellent response!!!! I take it you have first hand knowledge??
"and lastly how many people in iraq have you asked to come to the conclusion that they want us to get out of there?" Simple, they get all their knowledge from the media!!
O
Ollie
ACCOUNT CLOSED
His point wasn't that if you don't see it, it never happened.
His point is if you haven't actaully seen what is going on over there, you can't have an opinion on what is really going on.
The news (I use the term laughingly) doesn't report more than they have too unless it furthers their own political views, so we never really get the whole picture.
B
buck50
ACCOUNT CLOSED
yes he does!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
S
sldgy
Guest
This whole argument reminds me of rhetoric used in the 60's to discourage the use of LSD.
S
snowmobiler
Well-known member
somebody called me some bad names for quoting what obama said in my last post.LOL.fricken psycos out there.you didnt want to hear some facts you stupid POS?.
Last edited:
This whole argument reminds me of rhetoric used in the 60's to discourage the use of LSD.
They discouraged LSD???
