Hope, Change, BULL*&^%

[Area 51]

Originally Posted by XFBO

My position is that the democratic party has too many ideas for spending and not enough money to go around.

Funny thing, that sounds EXACTLY like the recent Republican reign. Checked the national debt lately, or Chinese debt ownership?

[dabyabby]

In this tough times can some of you put your bull crap aside and try and get the ship righted!!!! If we don't work together and fix the economy it does not matter what any of you think, unless you have body armor!

Quite your bitching from both sides and help your friggin neighbor, no matter where they came from, because last time I checked we were all humans!

If you don't like my comments, kiss it! if you let the immigrants all go into forclosure in your neighborhood it drives your home value down!

Stand up and BE AMERICANS!!! The best in the world for a reason, now show it!!!

[nycstripes]

Originally Posted by Area 51

You just shot down your own argument. 9/11 changed everything. Bush would have done pretty much the same thing Clinton did pre-9/11. Clinton would have done pretty much what Bush did post 9/11 (except for blow our wad in Iraq).

And lets not forget how Richard Clark tried and tried to get the Bush boys to take al Qaeda seriously - but they were focused on Saddam from day one. And lets not forget the NIE that Bush got saying "al Qaeda preparing to strike inside the United States". And let's not forget Condolezza Rice not doing her job, being Bush's Yes Mamm. Any time you compare Bush to Clinton, concerning al Qaeda, you loose.

A51,

As I recall, there are books about Clinton's failures to do anything about Bin Laden when he was in office. If I recall correctly, Clinton was in office before Bush.
So when should we expect your book making it all Bush's fault that Bin Laden is still around?
Washington Times - Bill Clinton's failure on terrorism

Clinton Let Bin Laden Slip Away and Metastasize

[XFBO]

Originally Posted by Area 51

You just shot down your own argument. 9/11 changed everything. Bush would have done pretty much the same thing Clinton did pre-9/11. Clinton would have done pretty much what Bush did post 9/11 (except for blow our wad in Iraq).
Uh no, we'll always strongly disagree here. A republican CIC wouldnt have stood for the WTC bombing, embassy attacks nor the warship attack all by the same organization (AQ). No fvcking way. Ive been saying it for 8 yrs, 9/11 happened cuz our government did nothing in the 3-4 prior attacks.


And lets not forget how Richard Clark tried and tried to get the Bush boys to take al Qaeda seriously
Yea just as serious as Clinton took him apparently.


- but they were focused on Saddam from day one.
Yea.

And lets not forget the NIE that Bush got saying "al Qaeda preparing to strike inside the United States". And let's not forget Condolezza Rice not doing her job, being Bush's Yes Mamm. Any time you compare Bush to Clinton, concerning al Qaeda, you loose.

Only in your mind, Clinton royally ****ed up, get over it already. There wasnt a Clinton cabinet member who didnt say Saddam would strike at the first given chance BEFORE Bush ever got in the WH......facts hurt eh?

[XFBO]

Originally Posted by Area 51

Funny thing, that sounds EXACTLY like the recent Republican reign. Checked the national debt lately, or Chinese debt ownership?

LOL......I guess tonight was a vaporizing night for you.

I have yet to see someone show me a blossoming economy during war time. On the contrary, our economy hung on rather well considering we were attacked and in war almost the entire time.

Let's ignore all the failures that were set in place by your boy Clinton tho, shall we? Freddy Mac or Fannie Mae anyone? Democratically supported unions draining our country's industries? Yea let's blame all the problems on Bush.....LOL!

[Area 51]

I'm not ignoring Clinton's failures. I'm just pointing out that no President would have invaded Afghanistan pre-9/11.

You guys just love to repeat the same old BS about "Clinton did nothing". I already told you how many cruise missiles we put into the training camp - I guess you conveniently forgot. Richard Clark was all over OBL like a fly on shit - the opportunities are dreams. And the accusations in the articles linked above have been repudiated over and over. In exchange for OBL we would have to drop our criticism of genocide in Sudan. But even then, does anyone think they would actually hand over OBL? The man is a walking hero to every damn Islamist in those countries. An Islamic President is going to arrest an Islamist holy warrior and then give him (indirectly) to a Christian country that has a long history of meddling over there? Oh, please. I suppose you think you can negotiate with the Taliban too.

All this OBL talk makes me wonder... Does anyone actually think the elimination of OBL would have changed anything? Al Qaeda is an organization that numbers in the thousands. There must be whole line of people waiting to give orders, many of them are probably more capable than the tall one. Getting OBL is good for revenge and would be a setback for AQ but I doubt it would change much in the long run. AQ is a symptom of a society, and that society sees us as the bad guys. It's a stew that's been brewing for a long time and changing one little ingredient doesn't keep it from boiling over, IMO.

[Area 51]

Originally Posted by XFBO

LOL......I guess tonight was a vaporizing night for you.
Grow up.

I have yet to see someone show me a blossoming economy during war time. On the contrary, our economy hung on rather well considering we were attacked and in war almost the entire time.

These wars have been a hardship for the families involved and for their employers but really, your talking about a very limited segment of society. Plus, just think about all the added spending on weapons, supplies, contractors, etc. Those are economic stimulators. In the short term, there is no good reason to expect the economy to tank under those circumstances, quite the opposite. Long term is different because they funded it all with borrowing. That will come back to bite us.

[XFBO]

Originally Posted by Area 51

I'm not ignoring Clinton's failures. I'm just pointing out that no President would have invaded Afghanistan pre-9/11.
And Im just pointing out that I believe you're wrong.


You guys just love to repeat the same old BS about "Clinton did nothing". I already told you how many cruise missiles we put into the training camp - I guess you conveniently forgot.
LOL. What did those cruise missles accomplish?


Richard Clark was all over OBL like a fly on shit - the opportunities are dreams. And the accusations in the articles linked above have been repudiated over and over.
Dude are you serious? Are you saying that video's of OBL walking around the AQ training camp is fake, made up???


In exchange for OBL we would have to drop our criticism of genocide in Sudan. But even then, does anyone think they would actually hand over OBL? The man is a walking hero to every damn Islamist in those countries. An Islamic President is going to arrest an Islamist holy warrior and then give him (indirectly) to a Christian country that has a long history of meddling over there? Oh, please. I suppose you think you can negotiate with the Taliban too.

All this OBL talk makes me wonder... Does anyone actually think the elimination of OBL would have changed anything?
Not entirely, but yes I think if OBL was killed in the fall of 2000, when our CIA and military spotted him then 9/11 might not have happened when it did. Maybe later on but then again it might of given our ppl more time to catch it.


Al Qaeda is an organization that numbers in the thousands. There must be whole line of people waiting to give orders, many of them are probably more capable than the tall one. Getting OBL is good for revenge and would be a setback for AQ but I doubt it would change much in the long run. AQ is a symptom of a society, and that society sees us as the bad guys. It's a stew that's been brewing for a long time and changing one little ingredient doesn't keep it from boiling over, IMO.

I agree with your final paragraph completely except for the revenge part.....where I come from it's called being brought to justice. And the more reason why I think GWB's idea of bringing democracy over to that region isnt a bad idea. Outline an alternative plan, ignore them?

[XFBO]

Originally Posted by Area 51

These wars have been a hardship for the families involved and for their employers but really, your talking about a very limited segment of society. Plus, just think about all the added spending on weapons, supplies, contractors, etc. Those are economic stimulators. In the short term, there is no good reason to expect the economy to tank under those circumstances, quite the opposite. Long term is different because they funded it all with borrowing. That will come back to bite us.

Listen pal, , that's the government for you, do you really think either party will stop borrowing/spending?

THe difference between you and I tho.....Id rather it be spent on defense than in social programs that doesnt really pull anyone out of the gutter, just a lil enough for them to keep their hand out.

[nycstripes]

Originally Posted by Area 51

I'm not ignoring Clinton's failures. I'm just pointing out that no President would have invaded Afghanistan pre-9/11.

You guys just love to repeat the same old BS about "Clinton did nothing". I already told you how many cruise missiles we put into the training camp - I guess you conveniently forgot. Richard Clark was all over OBL like a fly on shit - the opportunities are dreams. And the accusations in the articles linked above have been repudiated over and over. In exchange for OBL we would have to drop our criticism of genocide in Sudan. But even then, does anyone think they would actually hand over OBL? The man is a walking hero to every damn Islamist in those countries. An Islamic President is going to arrest an Islamist holy warrior and then give him (indirectly) to a Christian country that has a long history of meddling over there? Oh, please. I suppose you think you can negotiate with the Taliban too.

All this OBL talk makes me wonder... Does anyone actually think the elimination of OBL would have changed anything? Al Qaeda is an organization that numbers in the thousands. There must be whole line of people waiting to give orders, many of them are probably more capable than the tall one. Getting OBL is good for revenge and would be a setback for AQ but I doubt it would change much in the long run. AQ is a symptom of a society, and that society sees us as the bad guys. It's a stew that's been brewing for a long time and changing one little ingredient doesn't keep it from boiling over, IMO.

Clinton's cruise missle campaign was a fraud, albeit an expensive one that accomplished absolutely nothing but to convince wimpy liberals that Clinton could take the fight back to the Islamic extremists responsible for attacking us all over the world. It was a sham and an embarassment.
His blowing up numerous outhouses and flocks of goats with multimillion dollar cruise missles was the sad part. He should have just done nothing like always and saved the missles for something more important.
Shit, empty pharmaceutical plants, empty training camps...those are not decisive military actions and they accomplished...zip. We'll maybe we came off more incompetent to the world afterwards since nobody important was ever directly targeted or killed by all of this pageantry by the Clinton White House. He was a zero as a military leader and balked at real opportunities to do real damage to the enemy.

I actually don't think killing OBL would do anything but make us feel a little better that the murdering bastard is dead. He's been allowed to run long enough that his absence will mean next to nothing in the grander scheme of things. I am sure some idiot here will be making and selling OBL t-shirts and teaching of his greater goodness like Che Guevara in the nation's schools.

What makes you think that I would be in favor of negotiating with the Taliban?

[RockyMt]

The only negotiations we should consider with the taliban is wether to use pork tipped bulletts or just rip their limbs off slowly..............

-Rocky-

[Area 51]

Originally Posted by XFBO

Listen pal, , that's the government for you, do you really think either party will stop borrowing/spending?

THe difference between you and I tho.....Id rather it be spent on defense than in social programs that doesnt really pull anyone out of the gutter, just a lil enough for them to keep their hand out.

Of course not. It's like people who are attracted to public office have a genetic proclivity to spend beyone their means. 95% of them are spendaholics, especially since they see is as taking from the other states to support their own. Which begs the question, is it the politicians or the system that is screwy? Probably both.

Defense systems have to be the biggest loser money pit in the world. The bang for the buck is miniscule...until you need it. But then, we wouldn't need it if we weren't orchestrateing coups and coercing governments to do our bidding. Our national defense is actually an offense for big business, and occasionally a morally justifiable defense.

My other replies will have to wait. It's 5:30 (17:30 for the brainwashed ), I'm sick of work, and the Volcano awaits. Maybe I'll be back later when I have a heat on.

[XFBO]

I dont know how any country can be a strong one without being properly equipped for defense, Id like to hear your version of an example who is.

[nycstripes]

France!

[i_broke_down]

Originally Posted by XFBO

I dont know how any country can be a strong one without being properly equipped for defense, Id like to hear your version of an example who is.

I agree completely that we need a properly equipped defense, however a large portion of the money we spend on defense isn't making us one bit safer. I'd like to see a new government office or senate committee or something designed to eliminate all of the wasteful spending in defense, and I would love to see McCain heading that up.

[nycstripes]

Originally Posted by i_broke_down

I agree completely that we need a properly equipped defense, however a large portion of the money we spend on defense isn't making us one bit safer. I'd like to see a new government office or senate committee or something designed to eliminate all of the wasteful spending in defense, and I would love to see McCain heading that up.

America had its chance to give McCain the job and passed on that, Obama will definitely eliminate military spending on his own, may not be what America needs exactly, but I am sure he'll do it anyway ala the Clinton version.

[Gog]

Originally Posted by XFBO

I dont know how any country can be a strong one without being properly equipped for defense.

I agree. The other edge, of this double edged sword, is the disaster that follows the misuse of the powers, earmarked for defense and the secret, special interest agendas that lead to the need of more, and more, 'defense'!

[XFBO]

Originally Posted by Gog

I agree. The other edge, of this double edged sword, is the disaster that follows the misuse of the powers, earmarked for defense and the secret, special interest agendas that lead to the need of more, and more, 'defense'!

That will ALWAYS be a problem with government whether it's for defense or for healthcare......government breeds misuse and abuse of tax payers money. PERIOD!

That is why conservatives, generally, all agree with the smallest possible government, NOT bigger government or giving them more responsibilities in our lives..

[Gog]

Originally Posted by XFBO

That is why conservatives, generally, all agree with the smallest possible government, NOT bigger government or giving them more responsibilities in our lives..

I sincerely wish for a balanced, intelligent, older fashioned conservative party to heal up, rethink and balance America in the long term. Going from one liberal extreme to one conservative extreme is bad for business, costs mega dollars, wastes precious resources and time.
Your is a nation of laws that require lawyers which, require courts which, require roads, which requires cars which, requires infrastructure let alone all must eat and move about.... alright, "Q government... and ACTION"!

If you can still make money, you can afford to reduce government's role in your life..hopefully. If you dont have money, you should not die of starvation or untreated illness after living a short, rotten life. Once your country reaches the disparity of a minority, filthy rich elite and a majority of starving, unhealthy masses, well, you can read about what has happened to other civilizations, nations and cultures and make reasonable, logical conclusions from that.
Logic...Something that seems to be missing from good, old fashioned, honest conservatism in America, the beautiful.

[Justin]

Originally Posted by dabyabby

In this tough times can some of you put your bull crap aside and try and get the ship righted!!!! If we don't work together and fix the economy it does not matter what any of you think, unless you have body armor!

Quite your bitching from both sides and help your friggin neighbor, no matter where they came from, because last time I checked we were all humans!

If you don't like my comments, kiss it! if you let the immigrants all go into forclosure in your neighborhood it drives your home value down!

Stand up and BE AMERICANS!!! The best in the world for a reason, now show it!!!

+1 !!! I honestly don't know if I stand on your side in re to political views or not, but that right there sums it all up!! One of the few things that makes us different than all other species, we have the ability to knowingly help one another...now lets try to focus on the reality of things and stop looking for excuses NOT to!