Originally Posted by MrJettastic86nz
jokes aside
you have no idea what he is going to do until he gets in power
jokes aside
you have no idea what he is going to do until he gets in power
2005 Ford F-150 FX4 Supercrew
What exactly is the down side to this?You should re-think your retorts a little better next time.
Let me show you why......
This sentence shows two things about you: 1. You're a tree hugging liberal, and 2. If you want to be taken seriously in any debate, you should use that tool called "spell check".The conservatives complain about how the IRS is a huge beauraucracy.
First of all, just WHERE do you suppose those good ole' "once-a-year" checks come from????? Let me give you a hint.......it's called a REFUND for a reason. Dur, durrrrr......Well the IRS sends checks once a year (and those stimulus packages every now and then). Imagine the further beauraucracy needed to send out checks once a month to all Americans below the poverty line as the proponents of the Fair Tax suggest.
Second, how many checks do you think that "Americans below poverty levels" get NOW????? You sir have no clue how things actually work. It sounds to me like you've been indoctrinated rather well into the Democratic way of life.
Again, you have no clue what you're talking about. Those "Conservatives" you incorrectly quote probably want people to stand on their own two feet rather than ask for hand-outs from good ole' Uncle Sam. Yet again, I fail to see the "down" side to this thought process.Also, I thought it was the goal of the conservatives to get poor people off of monthly government checks... now they want to put all poor people on them. What gives?
Why do you keep repeating the same old tired war cry of "poor people are going to suffer"? I'll tell you what......explain exactly HOW those "poor people" are going to suffer? I challenge YOU to come up with YOUR own thoughts on just HOW the Fair Tax is going to make people who PAY LITTLE TO NO TAXES NOW pay any more than they are already paying......which again is LITTLE TO NOTHING. Let's see how YOU answer that.
Before you spew out incorrect information again, educate yourself better about what you're trying to put down. You sound exactly like that Texas Senator that looked like a deer caught in headlights when he was asked to name ONE of Obama's accomplishments on National TV. I bet you've not even read the Fair Tax book, have you?
What exactly is the down side to this?
Let me show you why......
This sentence shows two things about you: 1. You're a tree hugging liberal, and 2. If you want to be taken seriously in any debate, you should use that tool called "spell check".
First of all, just WHERE do you suppose those good ole' "once-a-year" checks come from????? Let me give you a hint.......it's called a REFUND for a reason. Dur, durrrrr......
Second, how many checks do you think that "Americans below poverty levels" get NOW????? You sir have no clue how things actually work. It sounds to me like you've been indoctrinated rather well into the Democratic way of life.
Again, you have no clue what you're talking about. Those "Conservatives" you incorrectly quote probably want people to stand on their own two feet rather than ask for hand-outs from good ole' Uncle Sam. Yet again, I fail to see the "down" side to this thought process.
Why do you keep repeating the same old tired war cry of "poor people are going to suffer"? I'll tell you what......explain exactly HOW those "poor people" are going to suffer? I challenge YOU to come up with YOUR own thoughts on just HOW the Fair Tax is going to make people who PAY LITTLE TO NO TAXES NOW pay any more than they are already paying......which again is LITTLE TO NOTHING. Let's see how YOU answer that.
Before you spew out incorrect information again, educate yourself better about what you're trying to put down. You sound exactly like that Texas Senator that looked like a deer caught in headlights when he was asked to name ONE of Obama's accomplishments on National TV. I bet you've not even read the Fair Tax book, have you?
Jamie....... I heart you.
i could not have said it better, its hard to find conservative allies on this website, not to mention liberals are very prone to watching the news and instantly believing it.
2005 Ford F-150 FX4 Supercrew
This thread is a small example of how and why America is in such a state of separation....
And I'm also amazed by how some people, who deem themselves to be so supremely intelligent than others with their never ending condescending attitudes, can't express their views without insults.....
This thread is a small example of how and why America is in such a state of separation....
And I'm also amazed by how some people, who deem themselves to be so supremely intelligent than others with their never ending condescending attitudes, can't express their views without insults.....
the guy was asking for it, Jamie just emberassed him.
he was trying to throw facts at me that were false, so he got his own medicine back.
Liberals are the exact same, you can't blame one side.
Its party politics, its always going to have its dirty mud slinging... thats part of the package.
and yes i could not agree more, i feel huge seperation between the parties / classes / races etc. in recent times. I wouldn't be surprised if some kind of revolution happened in the next 50 years.
2005 Ford F-150 FX4 Supercrew
i agree with everything but that statement.... he didn't blame a side he blamed people in general
NO NWS
Having a constructive discussion and openly insulting someone and questioning their intellect are 2 distinctly different things......
I'm sorry but merely being a Republican does not, as GWB has proven time and time again, make one an omnipotent and or omniscient individual...
or JFK or Clinton... what are you getting at?
my point was that he was throwing stones so expect them back. ofcourse no one is perfect or omniscient, thats what i just said
Last edited by Lucky Dawg; 06-05-2008 at 12:23 AM.
2005 Ford F-150 FX4 Supercrew
it was towards jamie and me...
i mean i dont care, same point made either way.
it doesn't matter we just have to respect that we have different opinions and thats really the end of it until one of us points out the others flaws in 2012 when we have seen either candidates term lol
2005 Ford F-150 FX4 Supercrew
**** Politics! ! ! Little Caesar gonna build an army and take over the world.
ATL DA SQUAD MEMBER #27
haha wtf!?
i have no idea what you just said, but its late and it made me laugh, reps
2005 Ford F-150 FX4 Supercrew
So whats his real agenda? Enslave white people? Call up his boys in Al Qaeda and let them know its open season? Lets be realistic.. what exactly has Obama done or said that translates to Hitler?
Don't tip toe around it. If you have something to say to me, spit it out and don't choke on it.This thread is a small example of how and why America is in such a state of separation....
And I'm also amazed by how some people, who deem themselves to be so supremely intelligent than others with their never ending condescending attitudes, can't express their views without insults.....
I called a spade a spade. Sue me.
I started this thread to get all of those Obama supporters to explain to me some of the things that I'm seeing. If we got off on tangents, then it's just another day on IA. Nothing different than any other thread. When I watch people acting like Obama is the Messiah and CRY when he gets the nomination of the Democratic party.......I don't understand why, so I asked. I knew there were plenty of Obama supporters here that could shed some light on the question.
Ask Tony if I disrespected him. Ask him. Why didn't I? Because he came with information that he'd obviously researched and thought about on his own. I would not have said anything to the other guy had he not spouted out completely incorrect information. Don't like that? Then maybe he should've researched his rebuttal a little more before posting it. If he wants to prove me wrong, he can. I've been proven wrong before, right in front of everyone. My arms didn't fall off. I'm still breathing. It happens. I actually learned something new each and every time.
Now, how about YOU enlighten us about YOUR thoughts on WHY Obama is the best candidate to lead the World's Most Powerful Nation. If not him, who and why?
I never said it was free money, I just said that the IRS sends checks (meaning refund checks) out once a year. If what ever "Fair Tax" organization takes over sending out the "refund" checks to those below the poverty line once a month, that would create a larger bureaucracy than the IRS would it not? Big Brother micromanaging the finances of the poor.First of all, just WHERE do you suppose those good ole' "once-a-year" checks come from????? Let me give you a hint.......it's called a REFUND for a reason. Dur, durrrrr......
People on Welfare are getting state checks, and conservatives are all in a tizzy about that, for reasons you explain here:
So how can you have it both ways... monthly aid for the poor is bad on a state level and good on a federal level?
And the fair tax will hurt working class Americans who spend the majority of their income on goods and services. Not everyone is able to have savings and capital gains. When people are paying 30% more just to get by, those who invest and save the majority of their income will have a massive windfall.
Businesses will not be taxed on their purchases, but they will have to pay taxes on the health insurance and other benefits for their employees. And since people will be disposed not to buy new goods to avoid the tax, sellers will probably have to produce at lower volumes, which will increase price.
So the "fair tax" will actually be regressive on income. And you may say that the fair tax will encourage the re-use and resale of used goods (which will not be taxed) but the inherent value of used goods includes the taxes charged upon their purchase. It seems to me like the fair tax would stimulate underground markets where people produce and sell on the sly to evade taxation.
And it is also said that the fair tax will effectively tax illegal immigrants. So now every illegal immigrant who goes into Quik Trip and buys a cup of coffee is an American taxpayer. Would it not be reasonable then, that they recieve the same services from the government as other taxpayers?
And requiring businesses to keep records of all transactions for 6 years, have a seller's certificate, etc etc.... what business has the space and time to bother with all that?
I don't see how the fair tax would be a positive change really, its still just the government taking our money.... I have not read the book, but I have read articles both for and against from a variety of sources.
Last edited by NawzDawg!!1!; 06-05-2008 at 07:56 AM.
See, you just don't get it. So you are basically saying that some entity would have to be formed to send out "checks" and that entity will be larger in size than the IRS, which BTW employs more than 100,000 people NOW? Is that what you're saying? Because if it is, you're obviously not taking into consideration that out of the 100K+ people employeed by the IRS NOW, only a small portion of those 100K+ are employed to "cut" checks NOW. So if say it takes 10,000 people to cut a bizillion checks each year, why couldn't we have the same amount of people cut a bizillion checks next year? Using your logic, we would need a million people to cut a million checks. Why would we?I never said it was free money, I just said that the IRS sends checks (meaning refund checks) out once a year. If what ever "Fair Tax" organization takes over sending out the "refund" checks to those below the poverty line once a month, that would create a larger bureaucracy than the IRS would it not? Big Brother micromanaging the finances of the poor.
Once again you're merely perpetuating the same old myth that welfare recipients are just poor old destitute ghetto dwellers. Do you realize just how much FRAUD and ABUSE is being sucked out of Social welfare programs each and every day? Some studies have placed FRAUD as high as 30% or more. Which means that one out of every 3 people getting some sort of "public assistance" are getting it fraudulently. Which then begs the question.....if they are getting it by committing fraud, just WHO is paying for those people that are getting those "benefits"? People who PAY TAXES is the WHO.People on Welfare are getting state checks, and conservatives are all in a tizzy about that, for reasons you explain here:
So how can you have it both ways... monthly aid for the poor is bad on a state level and good on a federal level?
In other words, you have people who are on public assistance for years....getting money, benefits, food stamps, healthcare, medicines, etc. at tax payers expense who do NOT PAY a dime INTO the system. How do I know they are NOT PAYING into the system? Because either A: the program they're getting benefits from doesn't pay IF they are gainfully employed, or B: They get MORE from those programs than if they did work, so they figure why bother, or C: They double dip and work for cash under the table. That's the reality of a large portion of our "welfare" system.
So all these same exact people that right NOW don't pay INTO the system, yet suck it dry......would then be paying atleast marginally into that same system due to the fact that people have to buy something sometime. When they do, they pay their share into the system. Same thing with illegal aliens, which BTW there is more than just Mexicans in that category. You no longer have to worry about paying people under the table. It becomes a moot point. Pay everyone what they've earned. You earn $100 for selling widgets, then you get the WHOLE $100 and then YOU decide how and when to spend it. Again, what is so wrong with that?
Again, you don't get it. Please go read the book and then opinionate about this.And the fair tax will hurt working class Americans who spend the majority of their income on goods and services. Not everyone is able to have savings and capital gains. When people are paying 30% more just to get by, those who invest and save the majority of their income will have a massive windfall.
That same "once a month" check you were arguing about earlier is designed to pay for basic necessities based on your family size for such essentials as FOOD. So you get to KEEP YOUR ENTIRE PAYCHECK, get another check once a month to subsidize your bare essentials which is what "welfare" was designed to do after all, and you only pay WHEN and IF you buy other goods and services which let's YOU determine just how much YOU save and how much YOU don't.
Also, people won't be paying "30% MORE" of anything. You need to read the book, seriously. Just how much MORE do we pay now in order for the manufacturer, distributor, and finally the merchant to cover their EMPLOYEE and PAYROLL costs? It's called an embedded tax. In other words, if as a company you no longer had to PAY for FICA, Unemployment, Payroll taxes, Payroll services, etc.....how much LESS could you then be able to sell your widget for????? A TON. People don't realize just how expensive having a legit Payroll for your company is. It inflates your overhead unbelievably.
Why not instead of clouding market competition with overhead costs we let merchants compete on a level playing field. With the Fair Tax in place, mom and pop shops could now compete with bigger conglomerates because they wouldn't have the employment taxes and burdens putting them out of the market anymore, which in turn means what it always means when you let free market determine the price of any good or service.......lower pricing. This is how "embedded taxes" work and manipulate what we pay for everything TODAY. So you won't be paying "30% MORE" for anything, you'll just be paying 30% period.
Look at it this way: Take out your last paystub from last year. Look at the TOTAL amount YOU paid for income taxes. Let's use a round number just for giggles of $10k. Would you be so upset if you GOT TO KEEP that $10k and instead of paying $3 for a gallon of milk, you now had to pay $3.50???? Let's see, you get $10K more for doing nothing different and since you'd get a subsidy check for that $3.50 jug of milk YOU wouldn't pay for that either. So it's a win-win situation in my book. Do you see it differently?
Which is different than what we have NOW how?????So the "fair tax" will actually be regressive on income. And you may say that the fair tax will encourage the re-use and resale of used goods (which will not be taxed) but the inherent value of used goods includes the taxes charged upon their purchase. It seems to me like the fair tax would stimulate underground markets where people produce and sell on the sly to evade taxation.
It is human nature to try and get something for nothing. That will never change.
No, because there is no tax code or law that forgives ILLEGAL activity. So if you're here ILLEGALLY, merely "paying" taxes doesn't change the legality of your being here.And it is also said that the fair tax will effectively tax illegal immigrants. So now every illegal immigrant who goes into Quik Trip and buys a cup of coffee is an American taxpayer. Would it not be reasonable then, that they recieve the same services from the government as other taxpayers?
BTW, if you think for a minute that illegals are NOT getting free goods and services NOW.......I got a bridge I want to sell you.
I'm required now to keep every single transaction I make for the last 5 yrs. It would only mean 1 more year to me. I'm sure I'm not in the minority in this. Many businesses, due to regulations, are required to keep extensive long term records. No biggie. Nature of the beast.And requiring businesses to keep records of all transactions for 6 years, have a seller's certificate, etc etc.... what business has the space and time to bother with all that?
Go read the whole book, seriously. Remember that some of the biggest proponents of the Fair Tax are the very people who's jobs would suddenly become expendable or no longer needed.I don't see how the fair tax would be a positive change really, its still just the government taking our money.... I have not read the book, but I have read articles both for and against from a variety of sources.
i hear this a lot, and i understand the general premise of the notion, but one thing still baffles me. Why is it that no one deems it possible to (and you put this quite well, Chase) speak with beautiful and inspiring rhetoric and introduce fresh ideas, while not simultaneously having some ominous agenda? I consider myself a somewhat eloquent, well-spoken individual, but I don't have some evil plan that utilizes that. I know thats a poor example, but I'm just saying... you can be a phenomenal speaker and an inspiration without simultaneously being the devil incarnate.
That's actually a good point. Props.i hear this a lot, and i understand the general premise of the notion, but one thing still baffles me. Why is it that no one deems it possible to (and you put this quite well, Chase) speak with beautiful and inspiring rhetoric and introduce fresh ideas, while not simultaneously having some ominous agenda? I consider myself a somewhat eloquent, well-spoken individual, but I don't have some evil plan that utilizes that. I know thats a poor example, but I'm just saying... you can be a phenomenal speaker and an inspiration without simultaneously being the devil incarnate.
I think the parallel is being made sometimes because those guys (the truly evil ones) sold the masses a bill of goods that only served a hidden agenda. They were able to do so partly BECAUSE they were so eloquent and charismatic. Sort of like a good salesman will sell ice to an Eskimo.
I still think you have a good point though.
i hear this a lot, and i understand the general premise of the notion, but one thing still baffles me. Why is it that no one deems it possible to (and you put this quite well, Chase) speak with beautiful and inspiring rhetoric and introduce fresh ideas, while not simultaneously having some ominous agenda? I consider myself a somewhat eloquent, well-spoken individual, but I don't have some evil plan that utilizes that. I know thats a poor example, but I'm just saying... you can be a phenomenal speaker and an inspiration without simultaneously being the devil incarnate.
thats the thing though, they win over the hearts of millions with all the fireworks of a great speech and memorable one liners that speak about glorious change. Which like you said can be a good thing within the hands of a truely good leader, JFK had good speeches and so did Reagan and i liked both those men's terms (for the most part).
but its just the fact with his church, his book, not wearing the flag, wanting to meet with terrorist leaders, his wife being so unpatriotic.... i'm not suggesting that will happen, but it looks so ominous with all of the signs pointing in that direction. You know what i'm saying?
All i'm saying is i think people need to learn more about Obama and what he has done, he has come out of the woodworks... passed on most votes in the Senate like Edwards pointed out and speaks little of policy.
I just hope America makes an informed decision on this one and learns from the past... i certainly don't think so, but by all means he could be the best President ever, i just have a bad feeling is my point and i think people should be aware of the possibilities
2005 Ford F-150 FX4 Supercrew
Jaime: yeah I totally understand where the parallels come from and I think they certainly aren't completely without merit. I think we're pretty much on the same page here for both sides of this particular factor.
Chase: I see where you're coming from. I disagree with certain parts, but hey thats what makes people different. Haha. I'll just point out how my opinion differs, but I'm not saying that I'm right and you're wrong or anything.
His church I can understand being threatening, so i get that. The rest though, I'm gonna disagree with. His book touches on a lot of racial issues and whatnot, sure, but that was his experience growing up. Thats his story, and he has every right to tell it. Sure he gets angry in parts, but frankly probably rightfully so imo. i just think its a non-issue. As for not wearing a lapel pin, do we REALLY think thats an issue? It's a pin. Seriously. Wanting to meet with terrorist leaders? Damn right. That doesn't mean concede to them or sit down and have tea and a lovely chat, but pretending like they don't exist is not going to solve problems. He's said he doesn't plan to meet with Hamas, which was most peoples' biggest gripe. I think its progressive. As for his wife being unpatriotic, I suppose you're referring to that ONE quote that was taken WAY out of context and distorted. It was a poor choice of words, but it was blown waaaay out of proportion.
Regardless, that last statement you made is way respectable. Guess we'll just have to wait and see what happens.
An empty suit huh?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/0..._n_105407.html
Lets see the Republican Party vow not to take donations from lobbyists. After 2 days of our nominee we get this, THAT is leadership people, something McCain has not shown since becoming the Presumptive Nominee.
I know you remember......."NO....New.....TAXES!!!!....." Right?
This is where experience would help him. Without much of a track record, people remember, "NO NEW TAXES...." and they take it with a grain of salt.
Not from lobbyists...
But certainly from the people that represent those interests.
"State lobbyists and non-wage-earning spouses of lobbyists and lobbying firm employees have contributed $115,163 to Obama's campaign through March 20, according to the center.
People in the oil and gas industries have given $222,309 to Obama. He received $528,765 from the pharmaceutical and health industry, making him the largest recipient of the sector's largesse."
Source
Oops.
Whoever the next president is needs to settle our debt with China, I think we all can agree on that lol.
Hmm.. I work for AT&T and have donated to the Obama Campaign, going by the formula used in your source "People in the Telecom Industry have contributed to Obama's campaign." See how easy that is? By no means is Obama perfect but at least applaud the man for the effort and the leadership.. something McCain cannot do.Not from lobbyists...
But certainly from the people that represent those interests.
"State lobbyists and non-wage-earning spouses of lobbyists and lobbying firm employees have contributed $115,163 to Obama's campaign through March 20, according to the center.
People in the oil and gas industries have given $222,309 to Obama. He received $528,765 from the pharmaceutical and health industry, making him the largest recipient of the sector's largesse."
Source
Oops.
Furthermore from the start of his campaign Obama has raised well over $250 Million, adding up what you have quoted here even if that was the case his special interest donations add up to .3% of his campaign. My figures simply HAVE to be wrong because Barack only claims not to take money from Federal Lobbyists and PAC's..
I'm SOOOOO glad you bring that up because I was pondering something Mike posted yesterday.I know you remember......."NO....New.....TAXES!!!!....." Right?
This is where experience would help him. Without much of a track record, people remember, "NO NEW TAXES...." and they take it with a grain of salt.
Why did the Clinton Era prosper due to Bush Sr.? Because he RAISED TAXES. So I see people sit here and complain because Obama plans to raise taxes but its the same damn people that want to stay in Iraq. How the hell do you think you pay for a war? With hopes and dreams? The policy of borrowing from China to fund a war in Iraq is far outdated but if you want to stay there expect to open up your pockets.
I'm not saying that his campaign was soley funded by special interest, only that his stance against special interest is at best misguided and at worst a downright lie. Furthermore, his promise to not take money from oil companies is little more than a campaign for the "stupid vote" as that practice is illegal anyways. So yes, its true, but its true for every other political incumbent as well.
i hear this a lot, and i understand the general premise of the notion, but one thing still baffles me. Why is it that no one deems it possible to (and you put this quite well, Chase) speak with beautiful and inspiring rhetoric and introduce fresh ideas, while not simultaneously having some ominous agenda? I consider myself a somewhat eloquent, well-spoken individual, but I don't have some evil plan that utilizes that. I know thats a poor example, but I'm just saying... you can be a phenomenal speaker and an inspiration without simultaneously being the devil incarnate.
I think you have missed the point.
Noone is saying he must have some ominous agenda because he speaks so well. It is his background and the people he has associated with (for many years until just recently distancing himself from them to further his campaign), that are cause for concern.
i agree with everything you said except the bolded.
Sure the president has every right to do what he wants, but when he is the leader of the world's strongest nation... he is to be scrutinized to the most when trying to see who we will elect, when his personal views threaten my world i live in then its my problem. Something that is a deep rooted problem in his past that has obviously affected the way he has grown up is bound to show through in his decision making, as will McCain's years as a POW will most likely affect military decisions, the history of the candidate is important.
You may try to forget your childhood, but it doesn't leave you, its who you are.
Also i have a HUGE problem with him not wearing an american flag. I personally think it stands for a lot more then just being simply a pin, a picture, or a piece of fabric on a pole.
Symbols mean a lot to me, and i hope it does to most others in this country whos way of life is protected by those who seek to destroy it
2005 Ford F-150 FX4 Supercrew
symbols mean alot to you huh? and it should mean alot to me?? well it really doesn't bother me. you call wearing an american pin a symbol?? A symbol of what? patriotism? A symbol of patriotism is doing what you feel is necessary to lead your county, city, state, and/or country in a better direction, not by wearing some pin that anybody can wear with a simple push and plug.
The University of Florida Gators 2008 Football National CHOMPions.
I agree 100% with this. The lapel pin is a non-issue to me.
On your other statements though. You have to look at where he came from and see the anger from his book. Then look at the people he has surrounded himself with for the last 20+ years. Wright, Ayers, Farakhan, and how many others that we dont know of yet, or were not as vocal and nationally known? You have to look at the whole picture of him and not just his public appearance. Every politician has a squeeky clean public face.
x2 Dubya and Cheney both wear the pin and they have F***ed America up big time. Patriotism is not about what you wear its about what you do.
Subscribing --- just lurking for now, but don't make me shut this 1 down. *smiling*
"I'm not a gynecologist... but I'll take a look."
exactly, and the flag represents that.
so why can't he put it on???
does he get a bad rash or something when he wears it?
i mean if you can give me one legit reason then i'll agree
2005 Ford F-150 FX4 Supercrew
You hit it on the head, its the rash thing. Cmon dude, cut him some slack - that sh!t is both itchy AND embarrassing.
On the Lapel Pin Obama said:
“Somebody noticed I wasn’t wearing a flag lapel pin and I told folks, well you know what? I haven’t probably worn that pin in a very long time. I wore it right after 9/11. But after a while, you start noticing people wearing a lapel pin, but not acting very patriotic. Not voting to provide veterans with resources that they need. Not voting to make sure that disability payments were coming out on time."
“My attitude is that I’m less concerned about what you’re wearing on your lapel than what’s in your heart. And you show your patriotism by how you treat your fellow Americans, especially those who served. You show your patriotism by being true to our values and our ideals and that’s what we have to lead with is our values and our ideals.”
Of all the people you mentioned that Obama has supposedly associated with, NOT ONE is of any notable importance because of legality issues.....
How many of our presidents and candidates running for president have been linked to criminals...?
Guiliani definitely was.....
Clinton was....
Reagan was....with terrorists who are either now on our radar or we've already gotten rid of...
Bush the 1st was as well......
So, it's more of a concern for some of you that he's had dealings with religious and political leaders rather than terrorists, arms sellers, drug runners, and dictators...?
Also while the issue at hand is about who interacts with whom...wouldn't it be safe to say that if the U.S hadn't had a hand in back door dealings that perhaps we would not have such a piss poor image with a lot of the world today...? Wouldn't it stand to reason that if we hadn't trained people and then flipped the script and yanked the chain on one time under the table "allies" that perhaps events like 9/11 wouldn't have happened?
People keep pointing out that Obama is a risk because he wants to sit down and open dialogue with terrorist leaders but isn't that better than getting in bed with them? Isn't wanting to be proactive as opposed to reactive an admirable quality?
Last edited by StuntallDay; 06-06-2008 at 07:23 AM.
Absolutely NOT.
That is like saying that a Parent would be better served to give in when their child throws a tantrum. That is what "sitting down with terrorists" amounts to.....giving in to THEIR tantrums. All that shows is that if you want the U.S. to sit down with you and chit chat over crumpets then all you have to do is bomb a few trains and fly a few airplanes killing thousands of INNOCENT citizens.
This is one of his "strategies" that is as short sighted as blinders.
Absolutely NOT.
That is like saying that a Parent would be better served to give in when their child throws a tantrum. That is what "sitting down with terrorists" amounts to.....giving in to THEIR tantrums. All that shows is that if you want the U.S. to sit down with you and chit chat over crumpets then all you have to do is bomb a few trains and fly a few airplanes killing thousands of INNOCENT citizens.
This is one of his "strategies" that is as short sighted as blinders.
Keeping in mind that past presidents more or less trained, armed, and had an influence in some of our present enemies coming into power, I don't think that speaking diplomatically can be any worse of an approach......
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
