USA Politics Thread - *No gun debate*

[billybob2002 0]

Quote[/b] ]If it was not a gov't directed, i.e. the Marines were there on their own time, then no one can stop them. but at this point you would have to recheck the writer and his mindset. how come he knows that the 3 marines were wounded in Iraq? by mentioning such info, he is trying to equate WOT with Iraq war. And is that a reasonable? not really. Iraq war started not because of 911. Yet the writer of the article wants to talk about 911 memorial, but had to shove in the Iraq veterans in it.

May she (   ) talked to those Marines and just use them has a introduction. Furthermore, alot of those Marines probably served in Iraq and just got back. She didn't shove them in your face but used them has saying that if they returned to the WTC site in 2010, they are not going to see a true memorial for 9/11 but something completely different. Again,

Quote[/b] ]The so-called lessons of September 11 should not be force-fed by ideologues hoping to use the memorial site as nothing more than a powerful visual aid to promote their agenda. Instead of exhibits and symposiums about Internationalism and Global Policy we should hear the story of the courageous young firefighter whose body, cut in half, was found with his legs entwined around the body of a woman. Recovery personnel concluded that because of their positions, the young firefighter was carrying her.

....

Quote[/b] ]I read alot more than you do if you beileve that Operation Iraqi Freedom was a victory in the WoT. Bin Laden never had an camps in Iraqi before we invaded but now they do thanks to Bush's greed.

You try to lower somebody by agreeing with speculation. (Wiggum, Akira, and etc. don't say jack shit)

[SFWanabe 0]

Well it wasnt to free the Iraqi people and Saddam never has been a real threat to the US,so whats left? Oil and lots of it.

[billybob2002 0]

Well it wasnt to free the Iraqi people and Saddam never has been a real threat to the US,so whats left? Oil and lots of it.

Again, that's speculation. (Wiggum, Akira, and etc. don't say jack shit)

[Colossus 2]

If this "war against terror" is going to go on, what will the next target be? If there is any..

Iraq = Oil?

Afghan = puppet campaign, the "hunt" for Bin Laden (nearly heard of him lately) and oil pipelines?

Who knows, but I dout it. I mean.. killing there own troops for oil?! Hardly reasonable.

[SFWanabe 0]

Well it wasnt to free the Iraqi people and Saddam never has been a real threat to the US,so whats left? Oil and lots of it.

Again, that's speculation. (Wiggum, Akira, and etc. don't say jack shit)

So is freeing the Iraqi people,captureing Saddam,searching for WMDs the only way to have it not be spectulation is for Bush to be direct about it. And why are you telling them not to say jack shit? Are you scared of a comeback?

[billybob2002 0]

Quote[/b] ]So is freeing the Iraqi people,captureing Saddam,searching for WMDs the only way to have it not be spectulation is for Bush to be direct about it. And why are you telling them not to say jack shit? Are you scared of a comeback?

Freeing the Iraqi people; capturing Saddam; and searching for WMDs (WMD is #1 reason) isn't speculation but fact on face value. All that Oil crap is just speculation using scraps of information. I'm not scared..

[Warin 0]

Quote[/b] ]So is freeing the Iraqi people,captureing Saddam,searching for WMDs the only way to have it not be spectulation is for Bush to be direct about it. And why are you telling them not to say jack shit? Are you scared of a comeback?

Freeing the Iraqi people; capturing Saddam; and searching for WMDs (WMD is #1 reason) isn't speculation but fact on face value. All that Oil crap is just speculation using scraps of information. I'm not scared..

The WMD that were not there? The WMD that the UN Inspectors couldnt find?

Dang... I take an 18 month break and come back to find that there are STILL people trying to hold on to the delusion that Iraq had WMD material and programs that justify the US invasion?

Mebbe I need to go away for another 18 months!

[billybob2002 0]

Quote[/b] ]The WMD that were not there? The WMD that the UN Inspectors couldnt find?

Dang... I take an 18 month break and come back to find that there are STILL people trying to hold on to the delusion that Iraq had WMD material and programs that justify the US invasion?

Mebbe I need to go away for another 18 months!

I guess you loss reading comphension during those 18 months... We were talking about the run up...

Quote[/b] ]searching for WMDs (WMD is #1 reason) isn't speculation but fact on face value.

Reason(s) for Iraq War (and wrong thread)

1. WMD!! (Fact on face value)

2. Oil!!! (speculation)

[Warin 0]

Quote[/b] ]The WMD that were not there? The WMD that the UN Inspectors couldnt find?

Dang... I take an 18 month break and come back to find that there are STILL people trying to hold on to the delusion that Iraq had WMD material and programs that justify the US invasion?

Mebbe I need to go away for another 18 months!

I guess you loss reading comphension during those 18 months... We were talking about the run up...

Quote[/b] ]searching for WMDs (WMD is #1 reason) isn't speculation but fact on face value.

Reason(s) for Iraq War (and wrong thread)

1. WMD!! (Fact on face value)

2. Oil!!! (speculation)

nah, I just didnt want to sort through all the pages.

The point still stands:

The WMD excuse was weak before the war, and became laughable as time has passed.  There was no factual and substantitive evidence for the WMD claims Bushco made.

And to bring US politics into it for a minute:

The mid term elections next year will hand the GOP some stunning defeats.

[billybob2002 0]

Quote[/b] ]The mid term elections next year will hand the GOP some stunning defeats.

You wish.. However, I do think my governor (republican) might lose do to the fact my state is democratic. The Democrats are kicking themselves because Howard Dean has been an bust and Dean calling the GOP an white christian party is not going to help.

[Akira 0]

Dean hasn't been a bust, he just has too much balls for the Democratic Party to handle. He's said nothing different than what every normal Democrat is thinking...the ones that have to deal with politics and diplomacy are the only ones worried.

And the Republican party is basically a white christian party.

EDIT:

Oh and for clarification, the Iraq WMD bit was speculation as well. Speculation that was repeatedly proven wrong before the war launched, but which was ignored by the Administration hellbent on war.

The only absolute that is in Iraq is oil.

[billybob2002 0]

Quote[/b] ]And the Republican party is basically a white christian party.

And, what is the nation make-up basically..:/

Quote[/b] ]EDIT:

Oh and for clarification, the Iraq WMD bit was speculation as well. Speculation that was repeatedly proven wrong before the war launched, but which was ignored by the Administration hellbent on war.

The only absolute that is in Iraq is oil.

We are talking about go in to Iraq. The objective was to search and destory any WMD found and remove Saddam not oil!. That is fact..

Quote[/b] ]Dean hasn't been a bust, he just has too much balls for the Democratic Party to handle. He's said nothing different than what every normal Democrat is thinking...the ones that have to deal with politics and diplomacy are the only ones worried.

DNC thought that fundrising would increase and didn't. The DNC's only rised $20.9 million this year compared to RNC's  $44.7 million. He is an divisive loser with his comments. If the Democrats don't win back the WH in 2008,   to the democratic party .

[SFWanabe 0]

Billybob your wrong. GIVE IT UP!!!!

[billybob2002 0]

Quote[/b] ]Billybob your wrong. GIVE IT UP!!!!  

Did I said Iraq was about Oil...oops I'm sorry.

[Akira 0]

Quote[/b] ]And, what is the nation make-up basically..:/

And that very thought is why there are so very few Asian, Black, and Latino republicans.

Quote[/b] ]We are talking about go in to Iraq. The objective was to search and destory any WMD found and remove Saddam not oil!. That is fact..

No its not fact. It's what Bush & Co. told you, but not having been at any of the meetings, you can't for a fact say that was their reason for going in. Given the evidence that the reports were purposefully cooked, and known erroneous reports used, the evidence suggest the reason was more likely revenge, oil, greed, or any number of things other than WMD. WMD was the excuse used to scare the populous into line.

Quote[/b] ]DNC thought that fundrising would increase and didn't. The DNC's only rised $20.9 million this year compared to RNC's $44.7 million. He is an divisive loser with his comments. If the Democrats don't win back the WH in 2008, to the democratic party .

That is hardly Dean's fault. GOP fund raising has out paced Democratic fund raising ever since the 9.11-scare-tactics propoganda has been used (shortly after 9.11). You also forget the strong religious based fundraising that Bush and the GOP depend on (not to mention oil company contributions). Democrats are historically anti-big business, pro-worker....so who do you think the corporations are going to support? These two contributers are the life blood of the GOP as it has invented itself post-9.11.

And I find it humourous that you find Dean divisive but not Bush. I don't believe it is Dean who is excluding members of the citizenry rights based on religious idealogy...

[billybob2002 0]

Quote[/b] ]Democrats are historically anti-big business, pro-worker....so who do you think the corporations are going to support?   These two contributers are the life blood of the GOP as it has invented itself post-9.11.

Maybe..

http://www.thehill.com/thehill....rs.html

Quote[/b] ]

Fundraisers jilt Dean

By Alexander Bolton

Three top fundraisers at the Democratic National Committee have resigned at a time when its chairman, former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean, has come under fire from fellow Democrats for controversial comments and his Republican counterpart has raised more than twice as much money.

Democratic sources link the resignations to Dean’s decision to focus on raising money in small increments through the Internet, as he did during his 2004 presidential bid, and building up the party’s grassroots infrastructure while paying little attention to major Democratic donors.

....

Quote[/b] ]And that very thought is why there are so very few Asian, Black, and Latino republicans.

No, you are misreading it, I'm saying that majority of the country is that demo. I'm not getting in why certain groups racial/ethnicity groups vote (ie. blacks).

Quote[/b] ]the evidence suggest the reason was more likely revenge, oil, greed, or any number of things other than WMD. WMD was the excuse used to scare the populous into line.

spec...

[SFWanabe 0]

Quote[/b] ]Billybob your wrong. GIVE IT UP!!!!

Did I said Iraq was about Oil...oops I'm sorry.

Well like I said Saddam was never a threat,it wasnt about WMDs,and Bin Laden never had any camps there before we attacked so what else could it be besides oil? Also if the US is in the business of freeing people why dont we invade half of Africa?

[Akira 0]

Quote[/b] ]No, you are misreading it, I'm saying that majority of the country is that demo. I'm not getting in why certain groups racial/ethnicity groups vote (ie. blacks).

Neither am I. I'm saying the GOP thinks the very same as what that sentence implies, that they only need to worry about their white constituents. The GOP has little history with minorities like the Democrats do, and that is the main reason. The GOP focuses on "minority" forgetting that over time, those very "minorities" will outnumber the "majority."

Quote[/b] ]Maybe..

I'll use your favorite word...

Speculation. "Sources link..." is hardly a definitve answer. In any case my point still stands. The GOP has out-fundraised the Dems for some time now, so it can hardly be blamed on Dean.

Quote[/b] ]spec...

Indeed. As is any reason brought forth, including WMD. We will probably never know for sure.

[General Barron 0]

Quote[/b] ]And the Republican party is basically a white christian party.

And what about the democrats? What are the majority of democratic leaders:

White christians!

What was your last presidential candidate? Your last 2? Your last 3? What is Howard Dean? What is the majority of the democratic power structure? White christians.

Quote[/b] ]And that very thought is why there are so very few Asian, Black, and Latino republicans.

Do you have any numbers to back that statement up? I'll agree that blacks are not at all diverse politically (hell, you get labeled "not black" if you aren't a liberal ). But from the numbers I saw in this last election, latinos voted about 40% republican, while asians were pretty much split 50/50 (and if the GOP is just the party for "the rich", then it would make sense that it would have a stranglehold on the Asian vote, since they are the wealthiest racial group in the US).

I don't buy this BS that the Dems are the "party for the minority".

[Sophion-Black 0]

Quote[/b] ]You really don't read much do you?

I read a(space)lot more than you do if you beileve that Operation Iraqi Freedom was a victory in the WoT. Bin Laden never had any camps in Iraqi before we invaded. Now they do because of Bush's greed.

Quote[/b] ]Don't call me kid

You are a kid,(space)because you're under 21 and beileve everything you hear.

In any of my posts did I say "The Iraqi campaign is a victory in the WoT," or "There is terror camps inside Iraq?"

Never did I say any of the above, and still you are blind to my posts:

Saudia Aribia has been funding terrorists since the First Gulf War, and obviously they haven't quit funding because some of them are still coming over to Iraq...

If you would think, then you would see that I called the Iraq campaign a loss in regard to stopping the Saudis.

Quote[/b] ]"   "

still looking for were I said there was terror camps inside Iraq

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]Don't call me kid

You are a kid, because you're under 21 and beileve everything you hear.

*sighs* physical age doesn't always reflect maturity. I take in both sides before I decide on which side I'm on. Also, if you read a lot, then why do you have so many spelling and grammar mistakes?

Quote[/b] ]Billybob your wrong. GIVE IT UP!!!!  

Did I said Iraq was about Oil...oops I'm sorry.

Well like I said Saddam was never a threat,it wasnt about WMDs,and Bin Laden never had any camps there before we attacked so what else could it be besides oil?

(Still waiting for you to read all of my post)

Quote[/b] ]Also if the US is in the business of freeing people why dont we invade half of Africa?

Why dont we just nuke North Korea and watch all the mines blow up in the DMZ?  

Quote[/b] ]And the Republican party is basically a white christian party.

And what about the democrats? What are the majority of democratic leaders:

White christians!

What was your last presidential candidate? Your last 2? Your last 3? What is Howard Dean? What is the majority of the democratic power structure? White christians.

Look!!! a reason why there's Jihad being waged against us!!!  

[Akira 0]

Who said they are a "party of the rich"? Who said the Dems were a "party of the minority."

Exactly which post were you reading? I stated that the "...GOP has little history with minorities like the Democrats do..." which is historically accurate.

Quote[/b] ]And what about the democrats? What are the majority of democratic leaders:

Were not talking about the "leaders," we're talking about the party as a whole, as in the registered layman.

But before you spout off, maybe you should compare the DNC leaders to the GOP leaders.

Notice a bit of a difference?

[billybob2002 0]

Quote[/b] ]Speculation. "Sources link..." is hardly a definitve answer. In any case my point still stands. The GOP has out-fundraised the Dems for some time now, so it can hardly be blamed on Dean.

Three top fundraisers at the Democratic National Committee have resigned.

Quote[/b] ]Democratic fundraisers say that there is growing concern over what they call Dean’s lack of attention to major donors and that donors are much less likely to give money if they don’t have sufficient opportunity to meet with the party’s leadership.

Quote[/b] ]Indeed. As is any reason brought forth, including WMD. We will probably never know for sure.

I said it's fact on face value.

Quote[/b] ]

Neither am I. I'm saying the GOP thinks the very same as what that sentence implies, that they only need to worry about their white constituents. The GOP has little history with minorities like the Democrats do, and that is the main reason. The GOP focuses on "minority" forgetting that over time, those very "minorities" will outnumber the "majority."

You know blacks were majority Republican for a long time until FDR social programs came in and this turned it around slowly. Also, look up Everett Dirksen and the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The Democrats are taking the minority vote for granted and people are slowly noticing it.

Quote[/b] ]Notice a bit of a difference?

You notice how many are vice chair and minority...

That is diversity through bs.

[Akira 0]

Quote[/b] ]I said it's fact on face value.

Face value does not make it a fact. If you mean it is a fact that Bush gave WMD as a reason then yes, but you cannot demonstratablly say that WMD was the reason for the Iraq War.

Quote[/b] ]You know blacks were majority Republican for a long time until FDR social programs came in and this turned it around slowly

Indeed thanks to Lincoln. Course I think the fact the GOP never followed up on promises to freed slaves had a lot to do with it as well.

Quote[/b] ]The Democrats are taking the minority vote for granted and people are slowly noticing it.

Possibly. But that wasn't the point of the discussion unless you want to switch over to suggested political strategy for the two parties.

Quote[/b] ]What party selected the first black sect. of state...

Yes. And what party dumped him faster than you can say "whoop!" when he came out against the administations policies?

I might add it was also a rather brilliant move on the GOP to have a black male and a black female as part of their cabinet. Perhaps they learned something from the Dems when they had the first female Defense.

Quote[/b] ]You notice how many are vice chair and minority...

That is diversity through bs.

Yes putting minorities in seats of power is bs. Then why bring up the first sec. of state? I guess that is BS too?

The GOP leadership is completely white and thats not bs? Biased much? But the GOP isn't a "white christian party" right?

[billybob2002 0]

Quote[/b] ]Indeed thanks to Lincoln. Course I think the fact the GOP never followed up on promises to freed slaves had a lot to do with it as well.

Maybe to appease the Democrats.

Quote[/b] ]

Possibly. But that wasn't the point of the discussion unless you want to switch over to suggested political strategy for the two parties.

Just saying Democrats are losing focus too.

Quote[/b] ]

Yes. And what party dumped him faster than you can say "whoop!" when he came out against the administations policies?

They didn't dump him but he wanted to.

Quote[/b] ]I might add it was also a rather brilliant move on the GOP to have a black male and a black female as part of their cabinet. Perhaps they learned something from the Dems when they had the first female Defense.

Perhaps the Dems. learned from Reps. when Powell was the first minority Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

Quote[/b] ]Yes putting minorities in seats of power is bs. Then why bring up the first sec. of state? I guess that is BS too?

The GOP leadership is completely white and thats not bs? Biased much? But the GOP isn't a "white christian party" right?

The Republicans have one co-chair person and is a woman compared to five "vice" chairs. Also, two of those DNC vice chairs must be given to a female.

[Akira 0]

Quote[/b] ]Maybe to appease the Democrats.

Yes. Clearly you are correct. The GOP reneged on slave promises to make the Democrats feel better...

Now you are just typing with absolutely no thought behind it.

Quote[/b] ]They didn't dump him but he wanted to.

Right. He "wanted to" after it became clear he would not be back for the next administration. Why? Because he went on record for a book and other sources disagreeing with the way the administation was heading.

Quote[/b] ]Perhaps the Dems. learned from Reps. when Powell was the first minority Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

Perhaps that was made possible by the signing of the Civil Rights Act by Johnson?

We could go all day on this one.

But perhaps you can explain why it is BS for the DNC to have minority leadership, while its ok for the GOP to be all white? Try to do it without political rhetoric.

Quote[/b] ]The Republicans have one co-chair person and is a woman compared to five "vice" chairs. Also, two of those DNC vice chairs must be given to a female.

And that is so evil because why exactly?