Printable View
you gotta go further back then Clinton this **** started back in 70s when were we supplying terrorist w/ weapons then turning our backs on them at the same time. we have played both sides to this situation that is why we are now in the ****. we should keep our nose out of regions issues unless it will directly affect us. mexico thats a good place for us to start focusing borders anyone? and of course now bush has got us in tizzy w/ russia - cold war anyone?Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. KiDD
I disageeQuote:
Originally Posted by admin
As far as going after OBL (Bin Laden) yeah, that was and still is necessary. But I think a full scale invasion might have been more than was necessary. Kinda like going deer hunting with a tank batallion. Had we taken a more discreet course and sent some Special Forces in and not let him know we were coming... :crazy:Quote:
Originally Posted by EJ25RUN
A lot of people are under the misconception that Western style democracy is what the Middle East needs. But theres no cultural or historical basis for it in a lot of those countries. If/when we come in and force it on them it could (and probably will) spell disaster unless they are ready/willing to adopt it. The insurgents are not necessarily fighting because they "hate America" or because they "support terrorism," I am sure a lot of them are fighting against what they believe to be Western imperialism. Much of it also comes from the general lawlessness of the post-Saddam/Baath power vacuum. You have a weak local government and local warlords who have risen to power after the occupation now fighting to hold/increase their power.
The people who are "outspoken about our destruction" don't represent the majority of the citizenry over there. They are just the loudmouths that manage to get all the attention. If you got all your information about America from Pat Robertson and Jerry Fallwell (RIP) you'd probably think it was a F'ed up place.
We should have sent afghanistan this:
and if they didn't get the point, this:Quote:
What the world needs now is love, sweet love
It's the only thing that there's just too little of
What the world needs now is love, sweet love,
No not just for some but for everyone.
http://philip9876.files.wordpress.co...-explosion.jpg
:cheers: dayum straight - kinda hard to fight a war w/ a country if there isn't anyone to fight it. if we did that it would send a nice message DON'T F*CK W/ UNCLE SAMQuote:
Originally Posted by AirMax95
http://bztv.typepad.com/newsviews/im...sam_flexes.gif
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. KiDD
Not trying to turn this into an arguement (which most discussions about politics turn into) but you say we will have a similar 4 years if Mccain was president. What has been so good and impressive that most people could say they wouldn't mind enduring another 4 years of?
excellent post - hopefully you'll get a good answer that has nothing to do w/ obama. :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by EG6
Thank you lord I'm so glad someone finally see's what I have been talking about all along. :goodjob: Reps to you my good sir.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. KiDD
You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Mr. KiDD again.
Thats women though... as we all know. Confusing babble about nothing but double-negatives.Quote:
Originally Posted by EJ25RUN
Quote:
Originally Posted by admin
because they are ready for a woman to be president.......but not a black man :lmfao:
Really when you get down to it 9/11 was our own fault and if you want to pin it down to one guy that man is Jimmy Carter. I wrote a paper for one of my English classes last year.Quote:
Originally Posted by admin
http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/BRZ110A.htmlQuote:
On July 3rd, 1979 President Carter signed an order to secretly aid the Afghanistan Rebel’s to push out the Russian’s(Intervention). In an interview ten years ago the then head of the CIA was asked if he regretted supporting Islamic Radicalists to which he responded “What is most important to the history of the world? The Taliban or the collapse of the Soviet empire? Some stirred-up Moslems or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the cold war?” (Intervention).
no i agree that's why i said the date range anyone who is a bush supporter try's to play it off as Clintons problemQuote:
Originally Posted by redGT
Quote:
Originally Posted by redGT
Did you read your very own post? You say Jimmy Carter is to blame for a CIA operation, if that is the case we can directly blame George Bush for the false intelligence gathered by the CIA in the case of Iraq.
Furthermore the Taliban didn't officially form until the early 90's, Carter's presidency ended in 81.
No arguement here, i welcome anyone that wants to participate in a discussion.Quote:
Originally Posted by EG6
Its politics, no one is right and no one is wrong. Its nice just having a good civil debate for once :)
IMO, whats been so wrong with the last 4 years has been what i posted before.
People complain that the economy and job market sucks, the dollar is weaker etc. IMO it has nothing to do with Bush and everything to do with the Housing market, Corporations pushing jobs overseas, illegal immigration, etc.
But then paul made a good point about how we spend billions a month in Iraq. Which you cannot ignore, it is a big piece of pie.
Although im not one for social programs (within reason) i think we should be focusing on helping small business grow and alternative fuels.
Its pretty commonplace that the Democrats are all for helping the helpless, and the Republicans are for helping small and big business.
Democrats are more socialist IMO and that doesnt sit right with me.
I think the next 4 years will be fine as long as:
1) THe housing crisis ends (which Bush took steps to do so)
2) We get SERIOUS about alternative fuels and drilling
3) The war in Iraq closes in the next 2 years
4) Something is done about illegal immigration
5) Tax cuts to the middle class are fine, but i think the "rich" are fine the way they are now.
Quote:
Originally Posted by redGT
If the economy can't run without the rich but the rich get wealthy on the back of Joe Schmoe who really has control?
Trust me.. nobody gets wealthy on their own in this country. Please don't act like the wealthy are the lifeline to the economy because this nation would surely survive with a strong middle class.. it cannot thrive on a few rich people.
Correct.Quote:
Originally Posted by tony
I mean we have a history of helping people that end up being our enemies.
Iran-Contra
Afghanistan
Iraq
Theres tons others. IIRC WE SUPPLIED weapons to Iraq to keep Iran from taking them over. Lotta good that did us LOL
I do agree with the "lets take care of ourselves" attitude because i think too often we get involved with stuff we shouldnt be involved with.
Clinton had us all over the globe doing peacekeeping missions our military was never designed for. Kosovo, Somalia, etc
**** this im running for president
You just made an EXCELLENT point without knowing it.Quote:
Originally Posted by tony
So if the "now rich" made it on their own, did well for themselves, built a business etc, now you think we should tax the **** out of them and give it back to Joe Schmoe?
Im sorry i totally disagree with that. Im all for tax cuts to true middle class families WITHIN REASON that are trying to put food on the table etc. But the Dems approach of just gutting the wealthy is LUDICROUS.
They SPEND THE MOST MONEY, THEY SHOULD GET TO KEEP THE MOST. Its a really simple concept.
What you aare describing is a communist society where everyone is middle class.
Look how great that worked out ;)
He's to blame because he signed off on it.Quote:
Originally Posted by tony
And a half assed job of it at thatQuote:
Originally Posted by Mr. KiDD
A strong middle class is not Communism, a strong middle class does not eliminate private property. Trickle down Economics is nothing more than a theory that puts our country in in debt to countries that are based on Communist theories.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. KiDD
This country and even the rich would benefit greatly from a larger middle class.
Nobody get's wealthy on their own? Ok My dad's parents didn't have the kind of money it took to send him to a good school so he busted ass got into west point served 10 years acitive duty, 5 years reserve, Got out went to Georgia Tech, Worked his way up the corporate ladder than got everything pulled out from underneath him at once. He lost his job shortly after 9/11 and was going through a divorce with my mom. So what did he do? Started his own company and now makes a **** ton of money every year.Quote:
Originally Posted by tony
If an extremist faction of Georgia broke off and attacked the U.S you realize this situation would be no different right?Quote:
Originally Posted by redGT
Afghanistan was an ally fighting a known enemy of the U.S, Carter would have been heavily criticized for not authorizing it.
Who spent their money with your dad? Or did he print his own money? He has employees right? Customers.. again, NOBODY gets wealthy on their own, especially without joe schmoe Your dad is no exception, sorry to disappoint you.Quote:
Originally Posted by redGT
Did you bother to read the full story?Quote:
Originally Posted by tony
Quote:
Question: The former director of the CIA, Robert Gates, stated in his memoirs ["From the Shadows"], that American intelligence services began to aid the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan 6 months before the Soviet intervention. In this period you were the national security adviser to President Carter. You therefore played a role in this affair. Is that correct?
Brzezinski: Yes. According to the official version of history, CIA aid to the Mujahadeen began during 1980, that is to say, after the Soviet army invaded Afghanistan, 24 Dec 1979. But the reality, secretly guarded until now, is completely otherwise Indeed, it was July 3, 1979 that President Carter signed the first directive for secret aid to the opponents of the pro-Soviet regime in Kabul. And that very day, I wrote a note to the president in which I explained to him that in my opinion this aid was going to induce a Soviet military intervention.
The man instigated it.
You're right. I guess I didn't quite understand what you meant fully. One of the main reasons I want to go work for him at this point is he allows his employees to keep a big chunk of what they bring in. Having worked a lot of crappy job to me that sounds pretty good.Quote:
Originally Posted by tony
Everyone makes good points in this thread, however alot of us differ on policy.
Sounds to me your blaming capitalism without calling it that.Quote:
Originally Posted by tony
I just saw an interesting story on China working in the Sudan(i think it was the Sudan) - they gave the Sudan like 8 billion dollars for construction to help build their infrastructure: schools, roads, hospitals, etc. under the terms that any contractor they have do the work must be a Chinese company. many Chinese are there working as well as providing jobs, economic growth to the Sudan people. This is what is wrong with the US. We would of just given them 8 billion in aid that wouldn't of accomplished anything.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_public_debt
^ here is some good reading if anyone would like to see how well we are doing
Quote:
Originally Posted by redGT
Dont get me wrong, I love the entrepreneurial spirit.. that to me is the backbone of this country. Its just that I think the importance of the average joe, the teacher.. the firefighter, people like that often get overlooked.
To have a higher class and lower class.. the haves and the have nots is certainly not the way you want us to be.
Capitalism isn't so great to me like it once was. At some point I believe profits are put over the good of the people, and I'm not talking about entrepreneurs like RedGT's father.. I'm talking about companies like Shell Oil, AT&T, huge corporations with lobbyists to affect Washington's agenda. When phone companies can retain immunity for illegal wire taps, releasing your personal information to the government without your consent, yes, capitalism has failed us.
I actually wasn't against this.Quote:
Originally Posted by tony
In the spring of '09 it is predicted that the US National Debt clock in Times Square will be obsolete. The reason? Not enough digits.
Why and I have to ask what do you think of the 4th amendment?Quote:
Originally Posted by redGT
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. KiDD
I don't think my question was answered in it's entirety; I could have been unclear when I was writing (this is the internet).
You told me what was wrong with the past few years Bush was in office; I was asking what was so great about the years. How did the economy improve, peoples living habits and lifestyles.
Think about 8 years ago, I wasn't that old but I can almost certianly say that people weren't selling life and limb to put food on the table. They had a special on CNN a few weeks ago saying how Ebay, Craigslist and all these other "flea market" websites have had double the traffic and double the sales they've had in the past few years. With alot of people selling family heirlooms that have been in their family for generations. Times are hard and I don't think there's any doubt about that.
Thats a damn shame...Quote:
Originally Posted by Total_Blender
No it hasn't. Capitalism is a system to make money and is true free enterprise. It has nothing to do with people that didn't make as much as the next guy.Quote:
Originally Posted by tony
This why taxing oil companies and giving the money back to us is such a terrible idea.
How? The ethics behind taxing a single type of business for being profitable.
Tony, your pretty good on your posts but i have learned in my years that capitalism and ethics don't always mix.
Put yourself in a position of an oil executive. Your rivals are making ridiculous money and the people above you demand to see similar profits. In this capitalism system you make it happen or your out of a job.
You do realize that helping the man at the bottom just cause we are supposed to is something communism teaches. And i would know, i was born into it.
FYI my mother is a teacher, she works 60 hours a week and makes 1/8th what my father makes.
So i know how it is on both sides.
Im all for the Teacher, Firefighter, POlice making more money, but not at the expense of the Rich being taxed to hell and back.
Whats the incentive to make money if you know once you cross that $100,000 barrier it really doesnt matter because all your money goes back to uncle sam?
To me safety comes first. I think that the common misconception with what they are doing is that there is a guy in a room listening to all the phone calls in the country and that is simply not the case. If you have seen the beginning of the bourne ultimatum it's really something more along those lines.Quote:
Originally Posted by tony
As far as the fourth amendmant goes........
If you really get down and scrutinize the 4th amendment and you really want to get technical the way I interprit it is in relation to physical possessions. Just because you place a phone call doesn't mean that you physically own it that it's yours. And so long as there aren't guys interjecting themselves into the conversations you would really never know. And if you aren't doing anything wrong there is no reason to feel insecure.Quote:
Originally Posted by Constitution
Same reason i at 20 got to the point where i didn't want to go into a higher tax bracket.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. KiDD
Out of school with no dependents....that adds up great for me. :rolleyes:
X2Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. KiDD
See bolded, safety is all well and good when it is LEGAL. Sorry, don't care to be wiretapped in the name of safety. What other rights are you willing to give up in the name of safety?Quote:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.