Who are you voting for. [Archive]

CarlE

11-27-2007, 11:06 AM

If you were going to vote for Guliani, (like i was) DONT! hes not Pro-Gun, and he is PRO-ABORTION!.
Do America a favor and vote for Ron Paul. He will help the troops, stop abortion, let us keep our guns (those who have the right, and take away from those who dont), , he will get rid of income taxes, limit our involvement in the UN. And much more.

He is FOR America.

Um, could you tell me how in God's name you think he's going to be able to accomplish this? Hell, I could say I was going to do this, and we sure would want to but come on. This is as pie in the sky as you can get. How does he propose getting rid of income taxes?

DragonTigerNemesis

11-27-2007, 11:12 AM

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5iIRrv90LfBH2XZpNPhCTNFjQMQGwD8T5E71O0

:scratchchin:

SuperBran

11-27-2007, 11:31 AM

Um, could you tell me how in God's name you think he's going to be able to accomplish this? Hell, I could say I was going to do this, and we sure would want to but come on. This is as pie in the sky as you can get. How does he propose getting rid of income taxes?

LOL. i was thinking the exact same thing when i read his political views/goals.

lobbs

11-27-2007, 12:10 PM

yea, your right, it might not go that far, but he does want to cut them. really though, the only reason im voting for him is because he is Pro-Gun, and Pro-Life, and wants to protect our borders. That one guy whos running who was on Law & Order, hes second on my list, but im sticking to Ron Paul for now anyway.

Obie Wan

11-27-2007, 01:55 PM

Here's a better question: why should we care at this point?

This front-loaded primary schedule makes primary votes meaningless in much of the country. Unless you live in a state that has an early primary, there's little reason to even pay attention at this point. In all likelihood, the nominees will have been determined by the time we get to vote in March. All we can do is wait for November to cast a vote that might count.

TigerCoach

11-27-2007, 03:11 PM

William Jefferson Clinton was going to reform health care and give everyone in the U.S. a "health care card" back in 1996 (no details concerning whether illegal immigrants would have also received one, but because of his party backing, the consensus is yes). If he couldn't pull that off, how is this guy we've never heard of going to do anything, let alone get elected?

I'm voting for the person who proposes a tax reform and institutes a "consumption tax" versus an income tax.

OTC TIGER

11-27-2007, 03:13 PM

I know I'm sure as he!! not going to vote for anybody who proposes to raise
withholding taxes on upper income earners to fix social security..:furious:

dataintsmiff

11-27-2007, 05:03 PM

I'll vote for anyone except Hillary Clinton or Osama Obama, basically anyone who is not a raging lunatic liberal with views so far to the left that they are almost falling off of the earth!:furious:

CarlE

11-27-2007, 05:07 PM

I'll vote for anyone except Hillary Clinton or Osama Obama, basically anyone who is not a raging lunatic liberal with views so far to the left that they are almost falling off of the earth!:furious:

Osama Obama??? Hmmm, I'll bet your voting for Ron Jon Paul, or whatever his name is, right?? LOL.

dataintsmiff

11-27-2007, 06:27 PM

No, my vote will definitely be Republican, I'm unsure as to who that may actually be though...time will tell, I know it won't be Hillary or Obama!:puke:

TigerFan2000

11-27-2007, 07:24 PM

I'll vote for anyone except Hillary Clinton or Osama Obama, basically anyone who is not a raging lunatic liberal with views so far to the left that they are almost falling off of the earth!:furious:

My guess is that you'd never vote for a woman or person of color. Don't hide your true feelings by citing their democratic status...Amazing!:doh:

CarlE

11-27-2007, 07:29 PM

My guess is that you'd never vote for a woman or person of color. Don't hide your true feelings by citing their democratic status...Amazing!:doh:

You are kidding, right? Because I PROMISE you I would never vote for the skank or Obamalamadama. And it's ONLY because they are Democrats. It's amazing how you Communists can pull race and gender into ANYTHING. What if I think they're both liberal idiots not qualified to carry even Jimmy Carter's jock-strap? Is it OK not to vote for them then?

massillon catholic

11-27-2007, 07:31 PM

You are kidding, right? Because I PROMISE you I would never vote for the skank or Obamalamadama. And it's ONLY because they are Democrats. It's amazing how you Communists can pull race and gender into ANYTHING. What if I think they're both liberal idiots not qualified to carry even Jimmy Carter's jock-strap? Is it OK not to vote for them then?

Its the same thing everytime you oppose their views....racist, homophob, etc. I wouldnt vote for Billary, or Barack either and it has nothing to do with the fact one is a dike and one is black. Rather, it has everything to do with the way they think the country should be run.

CarlE

11-27-2007, 08:03 PM

"One is a dike....". Damn I can't stop LAUGHING at this guy tonight. I swear my insides hurt. :jestera:

massillon catholic

11-27-2007, 08:12 PM

"One is a dike....". Damn I can't stop LAUGHING at this guy tonight. I swear my insides hurt. :jestera:

I'm sure the powers-to-be will ban me soon.

massillon catholic

11-27-2007, 08:21 PM

If you were going to vote for Guliani, (like i was) DONT! hes not Pro-Gun, and he is PRO-ABORTION!.
Do America a favor and vote for Ron Paul. He will help the troops

Hey Mr. Paul, what do you mean by "help the troops"?

Thanks
Voter

dataintsmiff

11-27-2007, 09:25 PM

You have a point Carl, which inevitably proves mine!!

Lakewood

11-27-2007, 09:33 PM

Lakewood

11-27-2007, 09:35 PM

Its the same thing everytime you oppose their views....racist, homophob, etc. I wouldnt vote for Billary, or Barack either and it has nothing to do with the fact one is a dike and one is black. Rather, it has everything to do with the way they think the country should be run.

You're tripping!!

DragonTigerNemesis

11-27-2007, 10:16 PM

You're tripping!!

AND---with a name like "Lakewood", I guess we all know where you are coming!

:angel:

DragonTigerNemesis

11-27-2007, 10:18 PM

OOPS!

I left off the "from."

:blah:

Dr Strangemind

11-28-2007, 07:58 AM

I just don't know about voting for someone with two first names.

Kamd50

11-28-2007, 08:15 AM

I find it rather sad that we can't have an intelligent conversation on a thread about political views without resorting to childish name-calling. Is this how you teach your children to discuss issues when they have opposing ideas with someone else? And a "dike" ? Excuse me? How old are you exactly? Absolutely shameful:doh:

It's not even because I am a Hillary or any other supporter, for that matter, but I certainly have enough respect for whomever started the thread not to turn it into some jr high name-calling fest. Please feel free to do the same in the future.

Red50Go

11-28-2007, 09:59 AM

massillon catholic

11-28-2007, 10:00 AM

SuperBran

11-28-2007, 10:34 AM

I would never vote Democrat or never vote Republican. 2 of the saddest statements you can make, and indicative of our broken government. Luckily not everyone feels like that or why even bother having debates or campaigns anymore? Its not like we have ever had great or lousy Presidents from BOTH parties or anything.

very good post.

i hate when people blindly vote for one party, and ignorantly stereotype the other. that truly is the problem with our company. people vote with absolutely no knowledge of what is going on.

like you said, both parties have their good and bad eggs. i think that if people actually paid attention to the debates and really kept up with the process they might be shocked as to which candidate most closely shares their views.

Kamd50

11-28-2007, 10:45 AM

very good post.

i hate when people blindly vote for one party, and ignorantly stereotype the other. that truly is the problem with our company. people vote with absolutely no knowledge of what is going on.

like you said, both parties have their good and bad eggs. i think that if people actually paid attention to the debates and really kept up with the process they might be shocked as to which candidate most closely shares their views.

I am with you. To vote for someone soley along party lines doesn't say much for how far we have come as an educated society. You have to be able to look beyond your own personal prejudices when it comes to political parties along with race, sex, and religion if you are serious about voting the best possible candidate in as the next President of the United States of America. Nothing anyone should take lightly.

massillon catholic

11-28-2007, 11:55 AM

You have to be able to look beyond your own personal prejudices when it comes to political parties along with race, sex, and religion .

Wait a minute here. Are you trying to tell people how to vote? It is every citizens right to vote how they want and they can vote for whomever they want based on whatever they want. If a person wants to vote for a woman soley because the candidate is a woman they have that RIGHT! The same goes for race, religion and whatever else might turn you on or off about a candidate. For example, I voted for Taft because I wanted to be smarter than the govenor and I was. I might vote for Kucinich because I want to be taller than the president.

Kamd50

11-28-2007, 11:59 AM

Sigh.........what else would I expect:doh2:

SuperBran

11-28-2007, 12:14 PM

Wait a minute here. Are you trying to tell people how to vote? It is every citizens right to vote how they want and they can vote for whomever they want based on whatever they want. If a person wants to vote for a woman soley because the candidate is a woman they have that RIGHT! The same goes for race, religion and whatever else might turn you on or off about a candidate. For example, I voted for Taft because I wanted to be smarter than the govenor and I was. I might vote for Kucinich because I want to be taller than the president.

no one's criticizing the RIGHT to choose a candidate of your choice. we're criticizing the INTELLIGENCE of blindly choosing a candidate w/o knowing anything about them. there's a huge difference.

the fact that someone might choose someone because they want to be smarter than that person shows the problem with our society.

massillon catholic

11-28-2007, 12:29 PM

.

the fact that someone might choose someone because they want to be smarter than that person shows the problem with our society.

It was a joke!!

dataintsmiff

11-28-2007, 01:53 PM

And I might want to vote for Rudy or Mitt because I believe they are better suited to lead this country than are Hillary or Barack....I mean, how could you even entertain the idea of voting for someone who admits to using cocaine (Obama), which, last time I checked, is a felony in every State in this Union..I vote along party lines (Republican) because they pretty much hold the same values as I do, god, country, and family...Not because someone is a woman or of different color, that has no bearing on my decision as to who I vote for as President of this great country...I served in the military and survived combat next to person of color and have even been commanded by females and for someone to state that I won't vote for Hillary because she's a woman or Obama because he's black, is crazy....maybe you should know who you are talking to before you make a statement like that!....As for calling the person an idiot earlier, I apologize, I shouldn't have resorted to that type of name calling.....:2thumbsup:

SternRulz

11-28-2007, 02:10 PM

SternRulz

11-28-2007, 02:14 PM

It was a joke!!

I got a chuckle out of it!

SuperBran

11-28-2007, 02:17 PM

I mean, how could you even entertain the idea of voting for someone who admits to using cocaine (Obama), which, last time I checked, is a felony in every State in this Union..

but you have no problem voting for a guy who was convicted of drunk driving....not to mention a guy who ducks out of serving during a time of war, yet is so quick to put others' lives in jeopardy?

if you think that all democrats are bad and all republicans are good then we'll save the santa discussion for another time.

SternRulz

11-28-2007, 02:25 PM

And ....I mean, how could you even entertain the idea of voting for someone who admits to using cocaine (Obama)...

Some consider honesty a good quality. Don't think all other candidates are squeaky-clean. Most just don't admit to past indiscretions.

OTC TIGER

11-28-2007, 02:37 PM

[QUOTE=SuperBran;86578]but you have no problem voting for a guy who was convicted of drunk driving....not to mention a guy who ducks out of serving during a time of war, yet is so quick to put others' lives in jeopardy?

As a great President once said...there you go again

Savage puts it well....It's the LOYERS :eyemouth:

OTC TIGER

11-28-2007, 03:18 PM

[QUOTE=SuperBran;86578]but you have no problem voting for a guy who was convicted of drunk driving....

I wasn't aware of Clinton's drinking problem...I thought he had trouble with weed control..:pimp:

massillon catholic

11-28-2007, 03:22 PM

but you have no problem voting for a guy who was convicted of drunk driving....not to mention a guy who ducks out of serving during a time of war, yet is so quick to put others' lives in jeopardy?
.

Are you talking about Kennedy, Kerry, or Clinton?

Kamd50

11-28-2007, 03:29 PM

Wasn't our currect President a cocaine user as well? Being of a certain political party does not exempt one from the vices of this world.

dataintsmiff

11-28-2007, 03:51 PM

Who was a cocaine user?Bill Clinton? Whatever the vice may be, and everyone has them, I don't pretend to think that only Democrats break the law and Republicans do not....I'm just saying that the Repub. Party platform goes more with the way that I live my life...I've always thought that...I don't have to justify those remarks to anyone..You live your life as you are taught by those who raised you...If you believe that electing a President who admitted to cocaine is good for this country, then vote for him...Somehow the comparison between a guy who uses cocaine and one who was arrested for a DUI Doesen't fly!! Might want to re-think that one......:jestera:

SternRulz

11-28-2007, 03:56 PM

...If you believe that electing a President who admitted to cocaine is good for this country, then vote for him...Somehow the comparison between a guy who uses cocaine and one who was arrested for a DUI Doesen't fly!! Might want to re-think that one......:jestera:

Yeah, since they both happened yesterday, it's a pretty big deal.

:doh:

All of us did stupid things when we were young. Doesn't mean we still do them, and that we didn't learn from it.

And yes...Bush used cocaine.

dataintsmiff

11-28-2007, 03:56 PM

dataintsmiff

11-28-2007, 03:57 PM

And you know he used because you were there with him when he did it?:huh:

dataintsmiff

11-28-2007, 04:00 PM

Yeah, since they both happened yesterday, it's a pretty big deal.

:doh:

All of us did stupid things when we were young. Doesn't mean we still do them, and that we didn't learn from it.

And yes...Bush used cocaine.

Yes we all did....and hopefully learned from it....like I said, if you like him so much, vote for him then...

SuperBran

11-28-2007, 04:04 PM

And, oh by the way, why haven't we heard anything on the news about how horrible things in Iraq have been going lately? Oh yeah, that's because things are going well but the mainstream media in this country don't want you to hear that, they only want you to hear about the atrocities....nobody likes war, I didn't, and I served in a time of war, and was in combat, however, its a fact that war is sometimes necessary whether you agree with it or not..

going well? please. if things were going well we'd have a plan in place on getting out of that hole. the fact remains that iraq is nowhere close to being on the right track.

even if things are going "well" that doesn't make up for the lives lost. our president had no idea what he was doing and refused to admit defeat. instead he just kept letting our soldiers die.

massillon catholic

11-28-2007, 04:12 PM

going well? please. if things were going well we'd have a plan in place on getting out of that hole. the fact remains that iraq is nowhere close to being on the right track.
.

Was Iraq on the right track before the US went in?

SuperBran

11-28-2007, 04:13 PM

And you know he used because you were there with him when he did it?

do the research and you'll know.

Yes we all did....and hopefully learned from it....like I said, if you like him so much, vote for him then...

so you obviously don't think he learned from his mistakes.

i bet you voted for bush, though. i guess he did learn from his mistakes.

but if you want to be selective.....

SuperBran

11-28-2007, 04:14 PM

Was Iraq on the right track before the US went in?

the country, although under a dictator, was a hell of a lot more stable then it is now.

but i guess all of those lives we lost were worth this mess.

SternRulz

11-28-2007, 04:19 PM

And you know he used because you were there with him when he did it?

Yeah...I was his dealer...that's it. Obama too....yeah.

:rock:

It well documented that he flat out refuses to answer the question...even to deny using it. He won't answer any questions regarding drug use prior to early 70s. He's all but admitted it really. It's not my problem if you can't read into the BS.

:jestera:

Red50Go

11-28-2007, 04:20 PM

And, oh by the way, why haven't we heard anything on the news about how horrible things in Iraq have been going lately? Oh yeah, that's because things are going well but the mainstream media in this country don't want you to hear that, they only want you to hear about the atrocities....nobody likes war, I didn't, and I served in a time of war, and was in combat, however, its a fact that war is sometimes necessary whether you agree with it or not..

Hey I voted for Bush, wanted to get Bin Laden & Hussain, I served in the Army, but we are WAY past the point of going well. Like 2-3 years past. No one figured on this cost, and strain on our troops. Its been horribly planned & conducted, on so many levels. That was my point earlier, party lines dont rule my judgement.

Btw, was Vietnam necessary "whether we agreed w/ it or not?" Y or N.

SternRulz

11-28-2007, 04:20 PM

Yes we all did....and hopefully learned from it....like I said, if you like him so much, vote for him then...

We all did? What...use cocaine? Not me...not ever...not once.

Red50Go

11-28-2007, 04:27 PM

Btw, I do feel kinda bad you are just now finding out Bush was a big-time partier. Yes coke. Not the cola. How the heck did you miss all that? Btw, I have no beef w/ guys who made mistakes as teenagers or college days before growing up. I dont even consider them mistakes you want the truth.

dataintsmiff

11-28-2007, 04:43 PM

We all did? What...use cocaine? Not me...not ever...not once.

No, meant make mistakes, we all did, and hopefully all learned from them

dataintsmiff

11-28-2007, 04:46 PM

Hey I voted for Bush, wanted to get Bin Laden & Hussain, I served in the Army, but we are WAY past the point of going well. Like 2-3 years past. No one figured on this cost, and strain on our troops. Its been horribly planned & conducted, on so many levels. That was my point earlier, party lines dont rule my judgement.

Btw, was Vietnam necessary "whether we agreed w/ it or not?" Y or N.

Vietnam was Vietnam, and unfortunately, for all involved, was run by politicians instead of troops on the ground that never got to do what they were trained for....you don't go in to a fight and tie both of your hands behind your back, if you do, you're sure to lose, that's what Vietnam was, and we all should've learned from that...

dataintsmiff

11-28-2007, 04:49 PM

Hey I voted for Bush, wanted to get Bin Laden & Hussain, I served in the Army, but we are WAY past the point of going well. Like 2-3 years past. No one figured on this cost, and strain on our troops. Its been horribly planned & conducted, on so many levels. That was my point earlier, party lines dont rule my judgement.

Btw, was Vietnam necessary "whether we agreed w/ it or not?" Y or N.

I remember everyone supporting Bush when he stood atop the rubble of the WTC with a megaphone and said "you'll hear from us real soon"...everyone was saying, "yeah, let's go get em"....he stated then that this war would not take weeks or months, but years to win or make progress, well, the proof is there, it has taken time, and things are going good there, and oh by the way, have we been attacked on our own soil since 9/11??? I thought not!

dataintsmiff

11-28-2007, 04:52 PM

the country, although under a dictator, was a hell of a lot more stable then it is now.

but i guess all of those lives we lost were worth this mess.

Iraq stable under a dictator like Hussein? I wish you could've asked the thousands that he slaughtered and tortured to death and those he held captive for most of their lives, or the millions that lived in poverty and were starving when he was in control, but I guess some people never think about that stuff do they?

SuperBran

11-28-2007, 11:23 PM

Vietnam was Vietnam, and unfortunately, for all involved, was run by politicians instead of troops on the ground that never got to do what they were trained for....you don't go in to a fight and tie both of your hands behind your back, if you do, you're sure to lose, that's what Vietnam was, and we all should've learned from that...

wow, that sure sounds familiar. hmmmmm.

kinda like how bush proclaimed "mission accomplished," pulled back, and then watched as our troops sustained more casualties then they did during the actual "war."

SuperBran

11-28-2007, 11:29 PM

....he stated then that this war would not take weeks or months, but years to win or make progress, well, the proof is there, it has taken time, and things are going good there

things are going good there???? LOL. i'm not sure what fantasy world you live in if you actually believe that. the truth is that the country is incredibly unstable, cannot look after itself, and bush has absolutely no plan in place except "stay the course." please don't believe all the garbage.

and oh by the way, have we been attacked on our own soil since 9/11??? I thought not!

and oh by the way, do you have ANY clue as to how terrorist cells work? they don't just hit you over and over again....they hit you then wait until they can catch you off guard again. that's what they HAVE to do. look how long it was since we had thelast major terrorist attack on our soil.

SuperBran

11-28-2007, 11:33 PM

Iraq stable under a dictator like Hussein? I wish you could've asked the thousands that he slaughtered and tortured to death and those he held captive for most of their lives, or the millions that lived in poverty and were starving when he was in control, but I guess some people never think about that stuff do they?

um, here's a good tip. actually read, COMPREHEND, and then answer.

did i say that iraq was stable under hussein? absolutely not. i said that it was more stable then it is now. right now it's pure chaos. you talk about the thousands that were slaughtered and tortured. how about the thousands of troops that have died fighting this meaningless "war." bush stormed in with the justification that hussein had WMD. that turned out to be wrong and now he's failing to restore order in the country.........while we sit back and watch young soldiers died each week. my god, they can't even elect officials w/o having them assassinated. if you actually think that the country is more stable right now then you've got your head in a hold.

MR EMPTY PANTS

11-29-2007, 12:49 AM

Red50Go

11-29-2007, 09:13 AM

i want to congradulate all you patriotic american posters on here. people are finally waking up and seeing the democrats for what they truely are: DEFEATISTS, ANTI-AMERICANS, SOCIALISTS, TREASONISTS AND WORST OF ALL HATEFUL LIARS WHO USE ANY MEANS TO GAIN POWER.

i`m not completely happy with gw bush by any means but i`ll take 10 w`s over any socialist/communist any day.

remember to vote republican in nov 2008.

Yikes. And Republicans are, well, like you. Touche.

Btw, care to guess how many Democrat mothers, fathers, sons & daughters are over in Iraq or Afganistan right now, as we sit here behind a keyboard? Maybe we should take some of them over 10 W's and a war cabinet - WHO NEVER SERVED.

SuperBran

11-29-2007, 09:35 AM

lobbs

11-29-2007, 09:35 AM

Hey Mr. Paul, what do you mean by "help the troops"?

Thanks
Voter

I meen, he will bring them home. He's for the troops, he'd just rather have them protecting OUR country. The troops have done everything they could for that country and if they arnt grateful for every second were over there well then F**K Them. Now i know alot of them like us over there (so i herd), so then why are they not taking control of there neighbors and stopping them from planting road side bombs? I believe it is because the Religion of Islam (in my opinion of course) is a religion of hatred to anyone who is not of that religion.

SuperBran

11-29-2007, 09:49 AM

lobbs

11-29-2007, 10:01 AM

things are going good. Soldiers are saying there making a diffrence and they are, and they want to stay, but i dont think there lives are worth helping that country.

SuperBran

11-29-2007, 10:43 AM

Soldiers are saying......they want to stay

i'm not so sure about that.

massillon catholic

11-29-2007, 12:51 PM

I believe it is because the Religion of Islam (in my opinion of course) is a religion of hatred to anyone who is not of that religion.

I'm going to name one of my action figures mohommed. I hope these jokers dont come after me like the poor British woman in Sudan.

dataintsmiff

11-29-2007, 01:01 PM

i'm not so sure about that.

You're not sure about that because you refuse to look at the truth and only want to hear what the slanted left media wants you to hear...its very easy to figure you out, you're liberal and you hate GW....get over it....he did what he did....I don't agree with everything he did but I stand behind him because he is the President of the greatest country on earth...The war is going great, we are rebuilding a culture's future there...that does not happen over night...and believe me when I tell you, the people trying to make it hard for our soldiers there aren't even Iraquis, they are from every other rogue terrorist nation that our boys are fighting...wake up...bring your head back down to earth...stop sniffing the glue and pay attention!:jestera: GOD BLESS THE USA AND ALL OF OUR TROOPS FIGHTING AROUND THE WORLD.....LETS ALL GET BEHIND THEM AND SUPPORT THEM..........

massillon catholic

11-29-2007, 01:04 PM

You're not sure about that because you refuse to look at the truth and only want to hear what the slanted left media wants you to hear...its very easy to figure you out, you're liberal and you hate GW....get over it....he did what he did....I don't agree with everything he did but I stand behind him because he is the President of the greatest country on earth...The war is going great, we are rebuilding a culture's future there...that does not happen over night...and believe me when I tell you, the people trying to make it hard for our soldiers there aren't even Iraquis, they are from every other rogue terrorist nation that our boys are fighting...wake up...bring your head back down to earth...stop sniffing the glue and pay attention!:jestera: GOD BLESS THE USA AND ALL OF OUR TROOPS FIGHTING AROUND THE WORLD.....LETS ALL GET BEHIND THEM AND SUPPORT THEM..........

I think its a shame that any politcial party would essentially root for defeat in a war for the sole purpose of political gain.

dataintsmiff

11-29-2007, 01:07 PM

things are going good there???? LOL. i'm not sure what fantasy world you live in if you actually believe that. the truth is that the country is incredibly unstable, cannot look after itself, and bush has absolutely no plan in place except "stay the course." please don't believe all the garbage.

and oh by the way, do you have ANY clue as to how terrorist cells work? they don't just hit you over and over again....they hit you then wait until they can catch you off guard again. that's what they HAVE to do. look how long it was since we had thelast major terrorist attack on our soil.

Yes I do, as I believe I stated before, I was in the Military and a part of the security force of this great nation, and continue to be a part of your security on a day to day basis.....you are living in a fantasy world if you keep watching CNN and believe all of those liberal jockeys....there is a reason you're not hearing about any deaths of US servicemen in Iraq, that's because there isn't any and when there isn't any, the left media don't want you to hear about that....because they can't bash GW.....wake up and smell the coffee....:doh: :doh:

dataintsmiff

11-29-2007, 01:08 PM

I think its a shame that any politcial party would essentially root for defeat in a war for the sole purpose of political gain.

My thoughts exactly....:rockon:

OTC TIGER

11-29-2007, 01:10 PM

[QUOTE=dataintsmiff;86723]You're not sure about that because you refuse to look at the truth and only want to hear what the slanted left media wants you to hear...QUOTE]

You forgot to mention Murtha, Harry Reid, Pelosi & Co. :puke:

massillon catholic

11-29-2007, 01:10 PM

Yes I do, as I believe I stated before, I was in the Military and a part of the security force of this great nation, and continue to be a part of your security on a day to day basis.....you are living in a fantasy world if you keep watching CNN and believe all of those liberal jockeys....there is a reason you're not hearing about any deaths of US servicemen in Iraq, that's because there isn't any and when there isn't any, the left media don't want you to hear about that....because they can't bash GW.....wake up and smell the coffee....:doh: :doh:

You might as well beat your head against the wall. These people just dont get it. Wait until the next attack in the US and then theyll come calling for help like they always do. The problem is the slick willy depleted the military so much when he was in office that it has stretched the forces thin.

SuperBran

11-29-2007, 01:14 PM

You're not sure about that because you refuse to look at the truth and only want to hear what the slanted left media wants you to hear...

you truly are the one that has no clue. denial ain't just a river in egypt.

so what information are you basing your "informed" view on? the president's words? LOL. keep in mind that this is the same guy who proclaimed "mission accomplished" right before our troops started sustaining casualties at higher rate then when were were at "war." good ol bush said things were going well then, but we all know that wasn't the case, was it now.

iraq is a mess, plain and simple. they cannot govern themselves at all. bush has absolutely no plan at this point except to sit and wait.

you HONESTLY think our troops want to be over there? LOL. i know MANY families in the area who have loved ones over there. believe me when i tell you that their loved ones would give anything to be back in the states.

The war is going great

more denial. since it's going so great, why not join up?

and believe me when I tell you, the people trying to make it hard for our soldiers there aren't even Iraquis, they are from every other rogue terrorist nation that our boys are fighting

LOL. this statement shows that you truly have no clue. if you honestly, truly think that no citizens of iraq are fighting our troops, then you might as well start believing in santa again.

...wake up...bring your head back down to earth...stop sniffing the glue and pay attention

hilarious coming from a guy who talks out of his rear on issues he knows nothing about.

keep living with your eyes closed.

SuperBran

11-29-2007, 01:17 PM

there is a reason you're not hearing about any deaths of US servicemen in Iraq, that's because there isn't any and when there isn't any, the left media don't want you to hear about that....because they can't bash GW.....wake up and smell the coffee....:doh: :doh:

no deaths??? please do your research next time. otherwise you look ridiculous.

http://icasualties.org/oif/

SuperBran

11-29-2007, 01:18 PM

The problem is the slick willy depleted the military so much when he was in office that it has stretched the forces thin.

sure.

massillon catholic

11-29-2007, 01:21 PM

sure.

If you dont believe this then you are out of touch. Although, I disagree with you often, I have thought of you as intelligent. Your post makes me question that intelligence.

SuperBran

11-29-2007, 01:23 PM

If you dont believe this then you are out of touch. Although, I disagree with you often, I have thought of you as intelligent. Your post makes me question that intelligence.

please. don't ever question my intelligence or else we'll bring yours into play.

my response is about as ridiculous as the one of yours i quoted.

massillon catholic

11-29-2007, 01:28 PM

or else we'll bring yours into play.
.

What do you mean "we'll" cant do it yourself?

SuperBran

11-29-2007, 01:30 PM

What do you mean "we'll" cant do it yourself?

uh, genius, i meant that you and i will then discuss your intelligence.

sorry i had to explain that to you.

SuperBran

11-29-2007, 01:32 PM

The problem is the slick willy depleted the military so much when he was in office that it has stretched the forces thin.

if you want a more appropriate response, I'll give you one.

it's not about our forces being stretched thin. it's about our president claiming that the mission was accomplished, sitting back and watching thousands of forces die, then decide to push a little harder.

it's about curious george staying content with no progress instead of taking the offensive.

it's about our "leader" having no clue what to do, but being too proud to pull out of that miserable country. instead he's okay with watching soldier after soldier die.

yep, it's all clinton's fault. please. in fact, if clinton wouldn't have depleted our military then i'm sure 911 would have never happened.............oh wait, it occurred b/c no one acted on our intelligence reports.

OTC TIGER

11-29-2007, 02:38 PM

[QUOTE=SuperBran;86743]

it's not about our forces being stretched thin. it's about our president claiming that the mission was accomplished, sitting back and watching thousands of forces die, then decide to push a little harder.

At the time the original mission was accomplished

it's about curious george staying content with no progress instead of taking the offensive.
O.K. General genius What kind of offensive should we have done...Bomb the hell out of the place and then listen to all whiners and cry babies moan about civilian casualties..
it's about our "leader" having no clue what to do, but being too proud to pull out of that miserable country. instead he's okay with watching soldier after soldier die.

STUPID COMMENT

yep, it's all clinton's fault. please. in fact, if clinton wouldn't have depleted our military then i'm sure 911 would have never happened.............QUOTE]

Your damn right it's Clinton's fault...If he would have JUST USED the Military
we could have a lot less trouble..Bill had Bin Laden in his sights and let the SOB off the hook.

massillon catholic

11-29-2007, 03:04 PM

[QUOTE]

Bill had Bin Laden in his sights and let the SOB off the hook.

He doesn't want to talk about that one.:wall:

SuperBran

11-29-2007, 03:04 PM

[QUOTE]

At the time the original mission was accomplished

uh, don't you think that declaring an end to major military combat operations was a little premature and foolish? look how many lives were lost after bush pulled back. what did he accomplish exactly?

[QUOTE]O.K. General genius What kind of offensive should we have done...Bomb the hell out of the place and then listen to all whiners and cry babies moan about civilian casualties..

well lieutenant einstein, he should have kept on the offensive. instead he pulled back and watched as our deathtolls increased at a horrible rate. it wasn't until recently that curious george decided "hey, maybe i should send more troops and step this thing up a notch...perhaps that will help us accomplish my goals."

[QUOTE] STUPID COMMENT

really? bush's only plan is "stay the course." great plan there. while he twiddles his thumbs our soldiers continue to die.

[QUOTE]Bill had Bin Laden in his sights and let the SOB off the hook.

LOL. kinda like how bush let bin laden off the hook? in fact, during a news conference at the white house on March 13, 2002, bush said "i truly am not that concerned about him." how about when bush told fred barnes that capturing bin laden is ‘not a top priority use of american resources’

how about when there were reports of bin laden fighting in tora bora, but there was a failure to commit ground forces to hunt him...which led to his escape.

but let's blame it all on clinton.

thanks for trying.

massillon catholic

11-29-2007, 03:06 PM

[QUOTE=OTC TIGER;86751]

uh, don't you think that declaring an end to major military combat operations was a little premature and foolish? look how many lives were lost after bush pulled back. what did he accomplish exactly?

[QUOTE=OTC TIGER;86751]

well lieutenant einstein, he should have kept on the offensive. instead he pulled back and watched as our deathtolls increased at a horrible rate. it wasn't until recently that curious george decided "hey, maybe i should send more troops and step this thing up a notch...perhaps that will help us accomplish my goals."

[QUOTE=OTC TIGER;86751]

really? bush's only plan is "stay the course." great plan there. while he twiddles his thumbs our soldiers continue to die.

[QUOTE=OTC TIGER;86751]

LOL. kinda like how bush let bin laden off the hook? in fact, during a news conference at the white house on March 13, 2002, bush said "i truly am not that concerned about him." how about when bush told fred barnes that capturing bin laden is ‘not a top priority use of american resources’

but let's blame it all on clinton.

I cant wait for the civil war in this country so we can rid oursleves of these far left loons and start over.

SuperBran

11-29-2007, 03:09 PM

I cant wait for the civil war in this country so we can rid oursleves of these far left loons and start over.

no it will be the far right fools who lose b/c they have their heads too far up their rears to actually know what's going on. you know, the guys who support a president who has strong ties to saudi arabia...........yep, bush has only the interests of america on his mind.

hey, since you seem to think that the war is pretty swell, why don't you enlist?

WheatCity

11-29-2007, 03:14 PM

I meen, he will bring them home. He's for the troops, he'd just rather have them protecting OUR country. The troops have done everything they could for that country and if they arnt grateful for every second were over there well then F**K Them. Now i know alot of them like us over there (so i herd), so then why are they not taking control of there neighbors and stopping them from planting road side bombs? I believe it is because the Religion of Islam (in my opinion of course) is a religion of hatred to anyone who is not of that religion.

There is a principle called "the collective action problem." This posits that in the absence of a hegemonic power (that is a sole-superpower for any Perry grads on this site - joke,) states cannot get anything done. Take for instance the desire for clean air. Let's assume that there are 200 countries and the cost of making sure that everyone has clean air is 200 million dollars. If every state contributed its share of 1 million, we would have clean air. It is safe to assume that at least one or more countries would not pay because they don't feel that air quality is an issue or it does not affect them. What happens is that NO country pays for fear of paying into a fund that will yield no results or worse, paying more than their share. In a hegemonic system, the sole superpower pays the entire cost and everyone else free rides, but we all have clean air.
Iraq is parallel to this. There is the good reason we are there (democracy) and the real reason (making sure that there is a stable presence in the middle east to avoid any possible disruption in oil.) Oil provides the same rationale as clean air. With out cheap, uninterrupted oil from the MiddleEast, the world economy can collapse. This is bad for everyone. The US, acting as the hegemon, takes on the cost of maintaining the availablilty of oil, not only because it is better for everyone else, but because we have the most to loose.
So, if we leave, if we become isolationist, who makes sure that oil flows freely? Germany? France? Japan? UK? IRAN???? We can't afford to leave because it would cause a much larger, global problem. Oil is a good reason to fight. It keeps people from freezing to death. It keeps the MidEast somewhat predictable and controllable. The lack of it would cause world wide economic depression. The last depression led to a bloodbath.
No one wants soldiers to die, but we must understand the impications and responsibilities of being the richest, most powerful nation. If we don't want to be, someone else will.

An indictment of the Koran is an indictment of the Old Testament. The Islamic caliphate seldom forced conversion and dictated that other "people of the book" (Christians and Jews) be treated with respect. Every religion has nuts. Extremism is a function of circumstance (see the Dark Ages.)

SuperBran

11-29-2007, 03:25 PM

There is a principle called "the collective action problem." This posits that in the absence of a hegemonic power (that is a sole-superpower for any Perry grads on this site - joke,) states cannot get anything done. Take for instance the desire for clean air. Let's assume that there are 200 countries and the cost of making sure that everyone has clean air is 200 million dollars. If every state contributed its share of 1 million, we would have clean air. It is safe to assume that at least one or more countries would not pay because they don't feel that air quality is an issue or it does not affect them. What happens is that NO country pays for fear of paying into a fund that will yield no results or worse, paying more than their share. In a hegemonic system, the sole superpower pays the entire cost and everyone else free rides, but we all have clean air.
Iraq is parallel to this. There is the good reason we are there (democracy) and the real reason (making sure that there is a stable presence in the middle east to avoid any possible disruption in oil.) Oil provides the same rationale as clean air. With out cheap, uninterrupted oil from the MiddleEast, the world economy can collapse. This is bad for everyone. The US, acting as the hegemon, takes on the cost of maintaining the availablilty of oil, not only because it is better for everyone else, but because we have the most to loose.
So, if we leave, if we become isolationist, who makes sure that oil flows freely? Germany? France? Japan? UK? IRAN???? We can't afford to leave because it would cause a much larger, global problem. Oil is a good reason to fight. It keeps people from freezing to death. It keeps the MidEast somewhat predictable and controllable. The lack of it would cause world wide economic depression. The last depression led to a bloodbath.
No one wants soldiers to die, but we must understand the impications and responsibilities of being the richest, most powerful nation. If we don't want to be, someone else will.

An indictment of the Koran is an indictment of the Old Testament. The Islamic caliphate seldom forced conversion and dictated that other "people of the book" (Christians and Jews) be treated with respect. Every religion has nuts. Extremism is a function of circumstance (see the Dark Ages.)

very good post.

except for the perry reference. j/k. LOL.

welcome to the site as well.

WheatCity

11-29-2007, 03:32 PM

The execution of the nation-building process was uneducated at best. The removal of all Baath party members was a poor decision. To be able to get ahead in Saddam's Iraq, you had to be a member of the Baath Party. Administrators, bureaucrats, policemen, officers in the military, even teachers had to be Baathist. Also, the Baath party, obviously, is predominately Sunni.

So we go in and remove Saddam and since majority rules, we reach out to the majority Shi'ite population. Their 1st task, done with our blessing, is all out de-Baathification. There reasons were good - they had been oppressed under Baath leadership for the better part of a century.

The problem is that the Baathists were the only ones with any experience in state craft! The told former soldiers to take their guns and go home, with no paycheck. Broke+desperate+angry+disenfrachised+soldier=milit ia.

This is why there is a big push for the Maliki government to reconcile with former Baathists. They are the experienced, talented, and educated portion of the populace. Another key point, I can't recall who made it, is that all the George Washingtons, Thomas Jeffersons, all the James Madisons were a threat to Saddam and they were, umm........dealt with.

Before the war, mixed areas of Sunni and Shi'ite in Baghdad were thriving. Intermarriage was common.

Tiger54

11-29-2007, 03:42 PM

Yes I do, as I believe I stated before, I was in the Military and a part of the security force of this great nation, and continue to be a part of your security on a day to day basis.....you are living in a fantasy world if you keep watching CNN and believe all of those liberal jockeys....there is a reason you're not hearing about any deaths of US servicemen in Iraq, that's because there isn't any and when there isn't any, the left media don't want you to hear about that....because they can't bash GW.....wake up and smell the coffee....:doh: :doh:
Then, you're telling us that these funerals around the country have live bodies in those caskets? If there aren't any deaths over there, for some strange reason there are many families who are losing loved ones. What planet are you on?

Tiger54

11-29-2007, 03:43 PM

You might as well beat your head against the wall. These people just dont get it. Wait until the next attack in the US and then theyll come calling for help like they always do. The problem is the slick willy depleted the military so much when he was in office that it has stretched the forces thin.
And these thousands of deaths are NOT depleting our military? Duh. . . .

WheatCity

11-29-2007, 03:45 PM

very good post.

except for the perry reference. j/k. LOL.

welcome to the site as well.

Thank you. I just don't think people realize that it is not as simple as bringing everyone home. I think it is simplistic to make this a black and white issue,with one side accusing the other of being war mongers and the other side being pansies.

My opinion is rather unpopular. If the ultimate objective is to make sure that oil flows freely, then leave Saddam in power. Why? We had him surrounded, we controlled his borders, he would never arm terrorists (because they would use the weapons on him,) and he kept Iran in check.

WheatCity

11-29-2007, 03:52 PM

And these thousands of deaths are NOT depleting our military? Duh. . . .

At what number of deaths should we leave? I think that the number of deaths we have had, however unfortunate, is a paltry sum when compared with the untold body bags that the collapse of stability in the MiddleEast would bring. Not to mention the cost of pulling out and then having to redeploy in a matter of 1 - 2 years.

massillon catholic

11-29-2007, 04:47 PM

And these thousands of deaths are NOT depleting our military? Duh. . . .

I may be wrong, but I believe there were more people killed in the WTC attacks than soldiers have died in Iraq. Im sure you will correct me if I am wrong.

WheatCity

11-29-2007, 04:50 PM

I think we have lost more in Iraq now. Not to diminish the WTC, PA, and Pentagon tragedies.

Let us remember that it is not just our soldiers dying. There are far more Iraqi citizens dead and wounded.

dataintsmiff

11-29-2007, 04:51 PM

um, here's a good tip. actually read, COMPREHEND, and then answer.

did i say that iraq was stable under hussein? absolutely not. i said that it was more stable then it is now. right now it's pure chaos. you talk about the thousands that were slaughtered and tortured. how about the thousands of troops that have died fighting this meaningless "war." bush stormed in with the justification that hussein had WMD. that turned out to be wrong and now he's failing to restore order in the country.........while we sit back and watch young soldiers died each week. my god, they can't even elect officials w/o having them assassinated. if you actually think that the country is more stable right now then you've got your head in a hold.

Whatever you said, again, it makes no sense, something that you are most probably used to though...you did say that Iraq was more stable than when we as a military got there, which Einstein, means that Saddam was in power then, so one could only presume that you meant it was more stable with him in power...by the way, I already served, why don't you go enlist and do us all a favor and stop with your left wing rhetoric....I'm about to puke listening to you...I wonder how your significant other, if there is one, even gets a word in edge wise...Have a nice day and God Bless GW, Our Troops, and the USA!!!

dataintsmiff

11-29-2007, 04:52 PM

WheatCity

11-29-2007, 04:55 PM

Whatever you said, again, it makes no sense, something that you are most probably used to though...you did say that Iraq was more stable than when we as a military got there, which Einstein, means that Saddam was in power then, so one could only presume that you meant it was more stable with him in power...by the way, I already served, why don't you go enlist and do us all a favor and stop with your left wing rhetoric....I'm about to puke listening to you...I wonder how your significant other, if there is one, even gets a word in edge wise...Have a nice day and God Bless GW, Our Troops, and the USA!!!

Iraq was more stable when Saddam was in power. He was ruthless. We are not.
Like I mentioned above - we should have left him in power. It would have been cheaper to keep him in the fishbowl that we trapped him in.