Sports Central Message Boards

Sports Central Message Boards (https://www.sports-central.org/community/boards/index.php)
-   Politics & Religion (https://www.sports-central.org/community/boards/forumdisplay.php?f=31)
-   -   A Few Thoughts On... (https://www.sports-central.org/community/boards/showthread.php?t=16096)

Ellis 01-05-2007 05:24 AM

A Few Thoughts On...
 
... some current events. I don't think any of them deserve their own thread, so I will just touch on them and you can respond to any of the ones you feel like.

-Barack Obama
The Washington Post wrote an article about how he has been open about the fact that he used cocaine in his teens. One radio host... not to mention any names (Shawn Hannity)... was bashing on him for this because he would be the first President (if elected) to have admitted to using cocaine.

I don't see the problem with this. As Hanity even said himself, Obama said that he is open about his previous cocaine use because he wants to show people in those kind of situations that they can rise up. Seriously... who cares if he used drugs in his teens? Not sure what that has to do with him now.

Personally, I think he seems like a good guy. He can write a book, which is a good sign. (Can Bush even read a book :D) I think it would send a great message if we had a minority as president. Although I would rather see Powell (who will never run) be elected, Obama seems like he would be a good choice (so far.)

-Small government?
Republicans pride themselves in being for small government, but a recent poll found that more Americans think that the Democrats are the party that is for small government. I guess that the main thing Republicans have going for them is taxes and economic issues, but really when you just look at basic rights when it comes to small government, Democrats are the ones who side with small government. Wiretapping, the patriot act, even things the death penalty, I don't see how the republicans can be considered the small government people any more.

-Oprah
People blamed Oprah for starting a $40,000,000 school in Africa, when something like 30% of students will drop out of high school ever year in America. Oprah said though that kids can get an education in America if they want though.

First of all, how can you blame anyone for setting up a fourty million dollar school? Second of all, I think a nation in poverty could use a school like that a little more than America does.

IntheNet 01-05-2007 10:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ellis (Post 231824)
...
-Barack Obama
The Washington Post wrote an article about how he has been open about the fact that he used cocaine in his teens. One radio host... not to mention any names (Shawn Hannity)... was bashing on him for this because he would be the first President (if elected) to have admitted to using cocaine.

I don't specifically question Obama Osama's cocaine use; if he wishes to admit it that may be a feather in his cap with his constituents; does he likewise condemn it (drug abuse)... if not, I plan to condemn him!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ellis (Post 231824)
...
-Small government?
Republicans pride themselves in being for small government, but a recent poll found that more Americans think that the Democrats are the party that is for small government.

First thing Peloisi will do is raise taxes/recommend additional spending (although this will be modified due to 2008 election planning)... incoming Democrat VA governor (Kaine): first think he proposed was to raise taxes...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ellis (Post 231824)
... I guess that the main thing Republicans have going for them is taxes and economic issues, but really when you just look at basic rights when it comes to small government, Democrats are the ones who side with small government. Wiretapping, the patriot act, even things the death penalty, I don't see how the republicans can be considered the small government people any more.

Due to war, deficit grew during current administration, but size of government did not leap up as you suggest; in fact, consolidation of various home security agencies into Homeland Security Department may eventually reduce government due to reduction in redundancy... Rumsfeld's overhaul of DoD will accomplish the same thing through the Services... what Federal Department did Bush expand?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ellis (Post 231824)
...-Oprah
People blamed Oprah for starting a $40,000,000 school in Africa, when something like 30% of students will drop out of high school ever year in America. Oprah said though that kids can get an education in America if they want though.

First of all, how can you blame anyone for setting up a fourty million dollar school? Second of all, I think a nation in poverty could use a school like that a little more than America does.

I admire Mrs. Winfrey's benevolence in Africa, in likewise manner as I admire Bill Gate's benevolence and charity in Africa... question is, should we, as Americans, make sure our yard is cared for before we fix up other yards? Not everyone in America is living in mansion, goes to bed with something in their stomach, or has health care... in fact... Oprah's charity is a smack in the head to everyone in the Gulf Coast... you know how many schools were destroyed in Katrina?

tobynosker 01-05-2007 10:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by InTheNet
in fact, consolidation of various home security agencies into Homeland Security Department may eventually reduce government due to reduction in redundancy
But it hasn't yet, and now we have a new Cabinet department with 170,000 employees.

IntheNet 01-05-2007 10:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tobynosker (Post 231841)
But it hasn't yet, and now we have a new Cabinet department with 170,000 employees.

Examine which agencies consolidated under the Homeland Security Department... many had redundant and/or duplicative support staffs... it makes good sense to put them all together... in fact, this Department had strong bi-partisan support... perhaps because of war... in any event... perhaps cut to it can be made when War on Terror concludes...

tobynosker 01-05-2007 11:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by InTheNet
Examine which agencies consolidated under the Homeland Security Department... many had redundant and/or duplicative support staffs... it makes good sense to put them all together... in fact, this Department had strong bi-partisan support... perhaps because of war... in any event... perhaps cut to it can be made when War on Terror concludes...
I never said I wasn't in favor of the consolidation of agencies, nor the formation of the Department of Homeland Security.

But, as of right now, a new Cabinet department (Cabinet being the key-word) under a Republican President with over 170,000 employees no longer affords the Republicans the opportunity to refer to themselves as the party of small-government (even if the creation of the department was supported by both Republicans and Democrats).

IntheNet 01-05-2007 11:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tobynosker (Post 231844)
But, as of right now, a new Cabinet department (Cabinet being the key-word) under a Republican President with over 170,000 employees no longer affords the Republicans the opportunity to refer to themselves as the party of small-government (even if the creation of the department was supported by both Republicans and Democrats).

I disagree... strongly... Bush has been unable to stick to purely Grand Old Party (GOP) Platform politics due to his engagement in war from the very first year of his administration... examine all Democrat and Republican presidents during wars; none fulfilled their domestic agendas and none applied specifically to their party's planks... the war takes center stage....

If 09/11/01 did not occur; Bush's pursuits would have been a totally different domestic agenda.... he may have axed the entire Social Sercurity federal apparatus and rebuilt it into a smaller, leaner, and more effective program and probably done the same at the IRS as he said in 1999... sadly the War on Terror meant a totally different focus...

The party of small government has always been the Republican party but that is dependant upon what is focus during administration... Reagan axed lots of stuff in government with Budget Director Stockman, but due to Cold War he actually had to increase the size of DoD... so his intent on reducing government, though achieved in some parts was offset in others...

Conversely, I have never heard of any Democrat, in either state or federal office, that cut anything... most if not all favor additional taxation and additional spending as a matter of rule despite what other focuses exist.

BigBuddhaPup 01-05-2007 02:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by IntheNet (Post 231845)
I disagree... strongly... Bush has been unable to stick to purely Grand Old Party (GOP) Platform politics due to his engagement in war from the very first year of his administration... examine all Democrat and Republican presidents during wars; none fulfilled their domestic agendas and none applied specifically to their party's planks... the war takes center stage....

If 09/11/01 did not occur; Bush's pursuits would have been a totally different domestic agenda.... he may have axed the entire Social Sercurity federal apparatus and rebuilt it into a smaller, leaner, and more effective program and probably done the same at the IRS as he said in 1999... sadly the War on Terror meant a totally different focus...

The party of small government has always been the Republican party but that is dependant upon what is focus during administration... Reagan axed lots of stuff in government with Budget Director Stockman, but due to Cold War he actually had to increase the size of DoD... so his intent on reducing government, though achieved in some parts was offset in others...

Conversely, I have never heard of any Democrat, in either state or federal office, that cut anything... most if not all favor additional taxation and additional spending as a matter of rule despite what other focuses exist.


Taxes and gov't rarely ever really get cut by republicans or democrats... the standard used to be that republicans would slow down growth on both front, and democrats would stick to status quo... that was the 70's politics...

In the 60's, JFK actually ran on a program of cutting taxes...republicans believed in the separation of church and state, republicans were actually libertarians back then...

The 80's brought Reaganomics, he spent us into record debt, while cutting social programs, and building up the military... what people don't seem to remember is that we were in a recession until 86... nvm... Reagan gets too much credit for military build destroying the Soviet Union... Oh well... GHW spent us into even higher debt because he didn't want to cut taxes, interest rates went up, recession came around, and GHW did raise taxes, and bye, bye, Georgie via bad fiscal policy...

In the 90's, Clinton shut down the gov't because a balanced budget was not passed... sounds pretty fiscally responsible...

Back to my point... the stereotypes just don't fit anymore... of course most of the time, they are at least a few decades off... Democrats platform is shrink the bureaucracy, and repeal tax cuts, do away with US Patriot Act and other presidental unconstitutional doings(very libertarian)... Republicans are the party in limbo at the moment, GW and his neo-con brethren have taken them so far away from their "supposed" values, they are still looking for themselves... I surmise there will be more and more distancing from the president by the Republican party in the coming days, especially next election... Flip flopping all the day long :lol: ....

BigBuddhaPup 01-05-2007 03:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ellis (Post 231824)
... some current events. I don't think any of them deserve their own thread, so I will just touch on them and you can respond to any of the ones you feel like.

-Barack Obama
The Washington Post wrote an article about how he has been open about the fact that he used cocaine in his teens. One radio host... not to mention any names (Shawn Hannity)... was bashing on him for this because he would be the first President (if elected) to have admitted to using cocaine.

I don't see the problem with this. As Hanity even said himself, Obama said that he is open about his previous cocaine use because he wants to show people in those kind of situations that they can rise up. Seriously... who cares if he used drugs in his teens? Not sure what that has to do with him now.

Personally, I think he seems like a good guy. He can write a book, which is a good sign. (Can Bush even read a book :D) I think it would send a great message if we had a minority as president. Although I would rather see Powell (who will never run) be elected, Obama seems like he would be a good choice (so far.)

-Small government?
Republicans pride themselves in being for small government, but a recent poll found that more Americans think that the Democrats are the party that is for small government. I guess that the main thing Republicans have going for them is taxes and economic issues, but really when you just look at basic rights when it comes to small government, Democrats are the ones who side with small government. Wiretapping, the patriot act, even things the death penalty, I don't see how the republicans can be considered the small government people any more.

-Oprah
People blamed Oprah for starting a $40,000,000 school in Africa, when something like 30% of students will drop out of high school ever year in America. Oprah said though that kids can get an education in America if they want though.

First of all, how can you blame anyone for setting up a fourty million dollar school? Second of all, I think a nation in poverty could use a school like that a little more than America does.



Two presidents in a row using cocaine... my goodness...

It looks like tide has turned to the democrats being the small gov't, tax the wealthy, libertarian, do what you want with your body, party... funny how that happens with time...

I don't blame Oprah for helping anyone that is in need of help... I suppose we all are a bit nationalistic when it comes to help in our minds, help your own first mentality... but it is her money... I would like to see poverty in our own country addressed as well...

IntheNet 01-05-2007 03:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BigBuddhaPup (Post 231865)
...Republicans are the party in limbo at the moment, GW and his neo-con brethren have taken them so far away from their "supposed" values, they are still looking for themselves....

  • Passed Late-Term Abortion Bill (check)
  • Encouraged Small Business with several key incentive programs (check)
  • Appointed Two Conservative Judges To Supreme Court (check)
  • Implemented values instruction in schools/worked with Church groups (check)
  • Implemented "No Child Left Behind" Education Testing Program (check)
  • Cut Taxes Every Year of Administration (check)
  • Proposed Privitization Option for Social Security (check)
  • Curtailed programs which infringe on Second Amendment (check)

Personally... I can't think of a single conservative and/or Republican party plank that the current administration has not satisified in some way...

BigBuddhaPup 01-05-2007 08:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by IntheNet (Post 231868)
  • Passed Late-Term Abortion Bill (check)
  • Encouraged Small Business with several key incentive programs (check)
  • Appointed Two Conservative Judges To Supreme Court (check)
  • Implemented values instruction in schools/worked with Church groups (check)
  • Implemented "No Child Left Behind" Education Testing Program (check)
  • Cut Taxes Every Year of Administration (check)
  • Proposed Privitization Option for Social Security (check)
  • Curtailed programs which infringe on Second Amendment (check)

Personally... I can't think of a single conservative and/or Republican party plank that the current administration has not satisified in some way...

Late Term Abortion (with mother endangerment previso) was supported by both parties

Two conservative judges haven't done what was required of them - overturn Roe

Values instruction?

No Child Left Behind has been average at best, a big dollar waste at worst, Republicans are even slamming the program now...

Cut taxes... now that is seen for what it was... and fiscal conservatives are rumbling about the deficit...

Social Security initiative bombed...

What programs have been curtailed? Semi Automatic ban not enacted?

I can think of any true conservative that would be satisifed with this administration... this administration has messed with every facet of individual civil liberties, created huge bureaucracies, and huge deficits... there is nothing remotely republican about this administration...unless you consider him the new republican party, then I would suggest you change party...:D

IntheNet 01-05-2007 11:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BigBuddhaPup (Post 231920)
... this administration has messed with every facet of individual civil liberties...:D

I keep hearing this so let's demand evidence okay? BigBuddhaPup: Cite a single (one will do) civil liberty that BigBuddhaPup was denied; specifically, tell me how BigBuddhaPup was personally denied a civil right as a direct result of this administration...

If you can't then don't make the claim.

There is a war on; this administration must make unilateral action to prevent terrorists and terrorist cells that may in fact be domecile within the United States; that is why such things as the Patriot Act and other homeland defense measures exist: to prevent terrorism. But as far as denial of your civil rights: let's hear all that you personally were denied....be specific..

BigBuddhaPup 01-06-2007 09:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by IntheNet (Post 231945)
I keep hearing this so let's demand evidence okay? BigBuddhaPup: Cite a single (one will do) civil liberty that BigBuddhaPup was denied; specifically, tell me how BigBuddhaPup was personally denied a civil right as a direct result of this administration...

If you can't then don't make the claim.

There is a war on; this administration must make unilateral action to prevent terrorists and terrorist cells that may in fact be domecile within the United States; that is why such things as the Patriot Act and other homeland defense measures exist: to prevent terrorism. But as far as denial of your civil rights: let's hear all that you personally were denied....be specific..

Your parameters are not logical. While something might not occur to one individual(to my knowledge), doesn't mean it isn't occuring in our country, nor does it mean it is okay to do....

I can make the claim, it is in the President signing statements, it is in the US Patriot Act...

It would say to you, you will never be pregnant, you can never talking about abortion... that is obviously illogical, just like your premise someone can't talk to something that might necessary affect them directly...

Here is what can happen to me, or you, or anyone else in America now... we can be picked up without Miranda right, no reason, no court involvement, we can be detained indefinitely without being charged, our phones can be tapped without any court oversight, our mail can be gone through now without any court oversight, our email, our internet, our credit cards.... I can't see for the life of me why this would not bother anyone... they are unconstitutional, they are fascist...

Cure 01-06-2007 10:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BigBuddhaPup (Post 231991)
Your parameters are not logical. While something might not occur to one individual(to my knowledge), doesn't mean it isn't occuring in our country, nor does it mean it is okay to do....

I can make the claim, it is in the President signing statements, it is in the US Patriot Act...

It would say to you, you will never be pregnant, you can never talking about abortion... that is obviously illogical, just like your premise someone can't talk to something that might necessary affect them directly...

Here is what can happen to me, or you, or anyone else in America now... we can be picked up without Miranda right, no reason, no court involvement, we can be detained indefinitely without being charged, our phones can be tapped without any court oversight, our mail can be gone through now without any court oversight, our email, our internet, our credit cards.... I can't see for the life of me why this would not bother anyone... they are unconstitutional, they are fascist...

But Buddha, we are in A WAR ON TERROR... we need to shut-up and let the government do it's job... plus, if you haven't done anything wrong you don't need to worry about it... you're either with us or you with them... and Bush didn't use coke, he had a "youthful indiscretion"...:bash:

BigBuddhaPup 01-06-2007 01:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cure (Post 231993)
But Buddha, we are in A WAR ON TERROR... we need to shut-up and let the government do it's job... plus, if you haven't done anything wrong you don't need to worry about it... you're either with us or you with them... and Bush didn't use coke, he had a "youthful indiscretion"...:bash:

They aren't doing their job properly... and being silent about it will not help anything... complacency isn't a "cure" for anything...

A WAR ON TERROR is an open ended idea with no purpose... it was a horrible term, and idea from the start... How about a definite course? For instance, battling Al Queda, getting the Taliban out of Afghanistan... War on "anything" never works... War on Drugs, War on Poverty, War on Terror... lets make some defineable goals instead of inane newsspeak...

Yep, those "youthful indiscretion(s)"...:thumbup:

Cure 01-06-2007 04:53 PM

Sarcasm Buddha....sarcasm. I'm with ya. :thumbup:

IntheNet 01-06-2007 08:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BigBuddhaPup (Post 232003)
A WAR ON TERROR is an open ended idea with no purpose...:

Perhaps it has something to do with 3K American civilians who perished on 09.11.01; I know that date is a no no with the liberal lefty set but they are worth remembering from time to time...

Montrovant 01-07-2007 12:43 AM

I don't want to speak for BBP, but I think the idea is that there is no clear definition of victory in the 'war on terror'. At what point is the war over? What must be accomplished for us to have won; for that matter, what would have to happen for us to have lost?

It's like having a war on crime. It's not really a war at all. You fight to prevent it from happening, you work to keep people from attempting it in the first place, but you certainly don't expect to somehow wipe it out entirely.

The war on terror is just a simple, catchy phrase the media and government officials like to toss around.

Ellis 01-07-2007 12:45 AM

Another thread has turned into a war on terror debate?

IntheNet 01-07-2007 08:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Montrovant (Post 232072)
... I think the idea is that there is no clear definition of victory in the 'war on terror'. At what point is the war over?

If you reduce the War on Terror to its CENTRAL PURPOSE; i.e., why we went to war immediately after 09/11/01, that CENTRAL PURPOSE is to prevent further acts of terrorism. Based on that CENTRAL PURPOSE, the War on Terror has been a tremendous success; this administration has successfully prevented further acts of terrorism in the homeland...

Liberal leftists cloud the reasons for the war and take exception to the Iraq theater of operations. But they have no reply to the CENTRAL PURPOSE; as that is where this WAR HAS BEEN A SUCCESS.

The war will not be over so much as we will one day feel a need to curtail our vigilance, but that may be a decade or two off...

BigBuddhaPup 01-07-2007 09:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cure (Post 232018)
Sarcasm Buddha....sarcasm. I'm with ya. :thumbup:


Sorry, Cure...my mind was in literal mode :D

BigBuddhaPup 01-07-2007 09:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by IntheNet (Post 232036)
Perhaps it has something to do with 3K American civilians who perished on 09.11.01; I know that date is a no no with the liberal lefty set but they are worth remembering from time to time...

Then it should be "War on Al Queda" ... lets fight the right war for the right reasons... take all of our valiant men and women out of Iraq, put them in Afghanistan where they belong...

BigBuddhaPup 01-07-2007 09:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by IntheNet (Post 232114)
If you reduce the War on Terror to its CENTRAL PURPOSE; i.e., why we went to war immediately after 09/11/01, that CENTRAL PURPOSE is to prevent further acts of terrorism. Based on that CENTRAL PURPOSE, the War on Terror has been a tremendous success; this administration has successfully prevented further acts of terrorism in the homeland...

Liberal leftists cloud the reasons for the war and take exception to the Iraq theater of operations. But they have no reply to the CENTRAL PURPOSE; as that is where this WAR HAS BEEN A SUCCESS.

The war will not be over so much as we will one day feel a need to curtail our vigilance, but that may be a decade or two off...

I have no issue combating terrorists... the issue is that Iraq has/had nothing to do with terrorism, or the attacks on our country...

The war has not been a success, we are losing in Iraq, we are losing in Afghanistan...

It is not the fight, it is the implementation of the fight, we are fighting the wrong people, for the wrong reasons... put our troops where they belong, Afghanistan, not in a secetarian war between Shia and Sunni...

Jaguar Rick 01-07-2007 06:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by IntheNet (Post 232114)
If you reduce the War on Terror to its CENTRAL PURPOSE; i.e., why we went to war immediately after 09/11/01, that CENTRAL PURPOSE is to prevent further acts of terrorism. Based on that CENTRAL PURPOSE, the War on Terror has been a tremendous success; this administration has successfully prevented further acts of terrorism in the homeland...

Liberal leftists cloud the reasons for the war and take exception to the Iraq theater of operations. But they have no reply to the CENTRAL PURPOSE; as that is where this WAR HAS BEEN A SUCCESS.

The war will not be over so much as we will one day feel a need to curtail our vigilance, but that may be a decade or two off...

IntheNet, Your posts are hillarious. You are big on the liberal leftist theme. If people with ideas other than shock and awe, or catch phrases like "War on Terror", don't eat from the same trough as you, I guess we are really out of it aren't we? Guess what? We are in the majority. You have the audacity to say others "cloud" the reasons for war. Sir, your ilk LIED about the reasons for war. Talking about clouding. NONE of the various reasons stated by the administration to start the Iraq war has been proven true. You continue to ignore this. When are you going to wake-up? What will it take for you admit you and this failed War is a folly? Are you going to hang-on until the end like the people in Jonestown, or in Nazi Germany? They were loyal to their leaders too. You and a couple of others on this board have to be the most gullible people I've read. The most hillarious part is your idea that because we invaded Iraq, we haven't had more attacks. I might agree with you if ANY of the attackers were from Iraq, and they were financed by Saddam. If we had attacked anyone other than the Al Quaeda in Afghanistan, it would have to be Saudi Arabia. I think most of the terrorists in the 9/11 attacks were from there. You need to think about your reasoning.

Richard the Lionheart 01-08-2007 01:59 AM

Good job to Oprah. Whenever someone criticizes a donation, I just have to laugh. If you think the Gulf is in a bad way, why don't you pull out YOUR checkbook?

On Iraq....:lol: ....I see we're back to our favorite discussion again. (We are all so varied in our interests--and we always have new insight...it's never the same argument over and over again! ;) Oh well...I still haven't given up hope on the Nazi thing though, Rick. I think you're counting your chickens before they hatch. We may yet win that after all. I think he's secretly still alive, and hiding out in a bunker in Iran with Jimi Hendrix and Bobby Fischer planning stuff out. Imagine Bobby Fischer planning a REAL war this time! With none other than "Blitzkrieg" Hitler, and the only man to improve upon a Dylan song (Hendrix-Watchtower) rocking out huge for their armies! Wow, I can't wait. The Jews must be stopped, I've always said. They are behind all the 9/11 conspiracies you boys masterfully dug up after all--thanks for opening my eyes to those, I was kind of tired of bah-ing all day with my fellow sheep. Anyway, I'm starting to think we should pull out of Iraq too guys. I'm convinced. I think we should just throw a huge party back home and live it up for the next thirty years until al Qaeda or the DOZENS OF OTHER TERRORIST GROUPS WHO ARE BENT ON OUR UTTER DESTRUCTION acquire a nuclear weapon, and the world ends. We need more orgies around here. We're gonna get blown the **** up anyway sooner or later, so why worry about it?

BigBuddhaPup 01-08-2007 09:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ricky the Kid (Post 232189)
Good job to Oprah. Whenever someone criticizes a donation, I just have to laugh. If you think the Gulf is in a bad way, why don't you pull out YOUR checkbook?

On Iraq....:lol: ....I see we're back to our favorite discussion again. (We are all so varied in our interests--and we always have new insight...it's never the same argument over and over again! ;) Oh well...I still haven't given up hope on the Nazi thing though, Rick. I think you're counting your chickens before they hatch. We may yet win that after all. I think he's secretly still alive, and hiding out in a bunker in Iran with Jimi Hendrix and Bobby Fischer planning stuff out. Imagine Bobby Fischer planning a REAL war this time! With none other than "Blitzkrieg" Hitler, and the only man to improve upon a Dylan song (Hendrix-Watchtower) rocking out huge for their armies! Wow, I can't wait. The Jews must be stopped, I've always said. They are behind all the 9/11 conspiracies you boys masterfully dug up after all--thanks for opening my eyes to those, I was kind of tired of bah-ing all day with my fellow sheep. Anyway, I'm starting to think we should pull out of Iraq too guys. I'm convinced. I think we should just throw a huge party back home and live it up for the next thirty years until al Qaeda or the DOZENS OF OTHER TERRORIST GROUPS WHO ARE BENT ON OUR UTTER DESTRUCTION acquire a nuclear weapon, and the world ends. We need more orgies around here. We're gonna get blown the **** up anyway sooner or later, so why worry about it?


They aren't in Iraq...they are in Afghanistan... if you want to fight them over there, and not over here, lets start fighting them all ready and stop messing around with a sectarian(civil)war in Iraq... Let go get some terrorists:thumbup:

IntheNet 01-08-2007 10:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ricky the Kid (Post 232189)
Good job to Oprah. Whenever someone criticizes a donation, I just have to laugh.

Can I fund a White Only school in Germany and receive your like kudos?

Quote:

Originally Posted by BigBuddhaPup
The war has not been a success

Have there been further terror attacks domestically?

Richard the Lionheart 01-08-2007 10:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by IntheNet (Post 232223)
Can I fund a White Only school in Germany and receive your like kudos?

You could fund a school in Germany, and certainly get my kudos. As far as I know, Oprah did not fund a "black only" school. It was just a school. If it happens that only black kids attend the school, that is because of obvious circumstances outside of any mandate she made. If you funded a school in Germany that only white kids happened to attend, I certainly wouldn't have a problem with it--as long as you didn't request that it be white only. I think that would be morally repugnant. When I said it's silly to criticize a donation, I obviously meant a donation that was aimed at bettering humanity--which a mandated white only school will obviously not do. That's why I wouldn't support a donation to Hezbollah or ESPN :D .

And anyway, BBP, you and I can disagree on the subject of terrorists in Iraq. I'm not going into this debate again as I've always said, but I think its pretty obvious al Qaeda and others saw an opportunity in the fall of Saddam--like we did--and moved in pretty presently. If we win in Iraq, that is a defeat for international terrorism, IMO, and of course the opposite is true as well. Of course I also agree with you, we need to win the fight in Afghanistan as well. But that's all I'm gonna say on this subject.

BigBuddhaPup 01-08-2007 01:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by IntheNet (Post 232223)
Can I fund a White Only school in Germany and receive your like kudos?



Have there been further terror attacks domestically?


If a school for whites was needed in Germany, then you should get kudos... obviously it isn't...but a school was needed for unpriviledged African girls in South Africa...


You think attacking Iraq has anything whatsoever to do with us being or not being attacked domestically? None of the 9/11, early World Trade Center, or even international attacks for that matter, had absolutely nothing to do with Iraq...nothing, nada, zip, zero... to equate the Iraq War with terrorism is wrong... We can do it better, and do it right, get out of Iraq, let them fight each other, not us, and re-deploy where it is needed, and that is Afghanistan... wanna fight against Al Queda and terrorism, then lets fight them and stop pretending Iraq has anything to do with that fight, it is a blatant lie, period...

IntheNet 01-08-2007 01:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BigBuddhaPup (Post 232237)
...but a school was needed for unpriviledged African girls in South Africa...

How about a school specific to underpriviledged white males in Memphis?

Quote:

Originally Posted by BigBuddhaPup (Post 232237)
You think attacking Iraq has anything whatsoever to do with us being or not being attacked domestically?

Yes I do, and it does, and I have said so often.

BigBuddhaPup 01-08-2007 05:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by IntheNet (Post 232240)
How about a school specific to underpriviledged white males in Memphis?



Yes I do, and it does, and I have said so often.


If a specific school needs to be set up for underpriviledged causasian males in Memphis, then fine... something tells me that it would better for all underpriviledged person in Memphis, because poverty doesn't know race or gender as much as it does in South Africa... but if you have 40 million, go for it...

Well, just because you say so, that is proof enough:lol: ... how about some logic/rationale behind "you say so"... Al Queda, the organization who planned the attack on America has no Iraqi ties... Bin Laden and Saddam were not collaborators... none of the hijackers were Iraqi... terrorist organizations didn't exist in Iraq, Saddam didn't allow any other organizations besides his Ba'athist party, he was a one man show... wanna go and get Al Queda? Try Afghanistan first... then Pakistan... then Saudi Arabia... then Sudan... then work with the rest of the world in policing for cells...

Iraq had nothing to do the attack... Iraq had nothing to do with the "War on Terror"...

CKFresh 01-08-2007 06:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by IntheNet (Post 232240)
How about a school specific to underpriviledged white males in Memphis?



Yes I do, and it does, and I have said so often.

If you think that the fact that we haven't been attack by the terrorists is a sign of us winning the war, you are sadly mistaken. When was the last terrorist attack on the US before 9/11? YEARS earlier. The terrorists operate on a different time table. If they have one big attack every generation, they are satified. Why can't you see that? Are you really that blind.

As far as the war in Iraq being a success, I'd say "uhhhhh.... are you kidding?"

We don't control most of the major cities, more and more Americans are dying each day, our military leaders are beginning to jump ship, even most republicans think the war was a bad idea, and Iraqi public opinion of the US has deteriorated.

So explain, what has been "successful" about Iraq? And don't site the fact that we haven't been attack since 9/11, because I have debunked that theory by PROVING that they don't attack us that often.

Sure we took out Saddam, but at what cost? Americans are dying by the thousands, Iraqis by the hundreds of thousands, and the region is becoming more and more hostile. Iraq is now the NUMBER ONE terrorist haven when it used to be much lower.

What would it take for you to admit failure?

BigBuddhaPup 01-08-2007 07:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ricky the Kid (Post 232225)
You could fund a school in Germany, and certainly get my kudos. As far as I know, Oprah did not fund a "black only" school. It was just a school. If it happens that only black kids attend the school, that is because of obvious circumstances outside of any mandate she made. If you funded a school in Germany that only white kids happened to attend, I certainly wouldn't have a problem with it--as long as you didn't request that it be white only. I think that would be morally repugnant. When I said it's silly to criticize a donation, I obviously meant a donation that was aimed at bettering humanity--which a mandated white only school will obviously not do. That's why I wouldn't support a donation to Hezbollah or ESPN :D .

And anyway, BBP, you and I can disagree on the subject of terrorists in Iraq. I'm not going into this debate again as I've always said, but I think its pretty obvious al Qaeda and others saw an opportunity in the fall of Saddam--like we did--and moved in pretty presently. If we win in Iraq, that is a defeat for international terrorism, IMO, and of course the opposite is true as well. Of course I also agree with you, we need to win the fight in Afghanistan as well. But that's all I'm gonna say on this subject.


It was the Shia and Sunni that went for the power grab... not Al Queda...

Richard the Lionheart 01-08-2007 07:18 PM

Of course...generally. But others moved in as well. Why wouldn't they? Terrorists have a lot to gain by the United States failing in Iraq. It will drastically reduce our presense and influence in the region. Everyone knows this.

BigBuddhaPup 01-08-2007 07:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CKFresh (Post 232288)
If you think that the fact that we haven't been attack by the terrorists is a sign of us winning the war, you are sadly mistaken. When was the last terrorist attack on the US before 9/11? YEARS earlier. The terrorists operate on a different time table. If they have one big attack every generation, they are satified. Why can't you see that? Are you really that blind.

As far as the war in Iraq being a success, I'd say "uhhhhh.... are you kidding?"

We don't control most of the major cities, more and more Americans are dying each day, our military leaders are beginning to jump ship, even most republicans think the war was a bad idea, and Iraqi public opinion of the US has deteriorated.

So explain, what has been "successful" about Iraq? And don't site the fact that we haven't been attack since 9/11, because I have debunked that theory by PROVING that they don't attack us that often.

Sure we took out Saddam, but at what cost? Americans are dying by the thousands, Iraqis by the hundreds of thousands, and the region is becoming more and more hostile. Iraq is now the NUMBER ONE terrorist haven when it used to be much lower.

What would it take for you to admit failure?


When will some admit failure? When they can blame it on the democrats...:D

BigBuddhaPup 01-08-2007 07:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ricky the Kid (Post 232293)
Of course...generally. But others moved in as well. Why wouldn't they? Terrorists have a lot to gain by the United States failing in Iraq. It will drastically reduce our presense and influence in the region. Everyone knows this.

Face it, we don't have any presence in Iraq, and Iran... this idiotic war has made things much worse... I would like to think 'everyone know this', unfortunately they don't...:thumbdown: Terrorist have nothing to gain from us leaving Iraq... the Shia have plenty to gain, the Sunni will be hopelessly outnumbered... which side do you want to take (Sunni/Shia)?... It isn't a war against terrorism, it is war to gain control over a vital resource... land

IntheNet 01-08-2007 08:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CKFresh (Post 232288)
If you think that the fact that we haven't been attack by the terrorists is a sign of us winning the war, you are sadly mistaken. When was the last terrorist attack on the US before 9/11? YEARS earlier.

First World Trade Center Attack: February 26, 1983
U.S. African Embassy Bombing Attack: August 8, 1998
U.S.S. Cole Attack: October 12, 2000

A clear series of Al Qaeda attacks on United States property and possessions through Clinton's Administration THAT HE DID NOTHING ABOUT....

Quote:

Originally Posted by CKFresh (Post 232288)
As far as the war in Iraq being a success, I'd say "uhhhhh.... are you kidding?"

I am pleased with how the current administration is fighting this war; low casualties in comparison to other similar regional wars and a 100% success rate against further attacks of domestic terrorism. Bravo!

Quote:

Originally Posted by CKFresh (Post 232288)
So explain, what has been "successful" about Iraq? And don't site the fact that we haven't been attack since 9/11, because I have debunked that theory by PROVING that they don't attack us that often.

You involved in Al Qaeda? You familiar with their terror plans? Since 09/11/01 they have hit England, Spain, Malaysia, France, and a number of other nations, with the exception of the United States

Quote:

Originally Posted by CKFresh (Post 232288)
Sure we took out Saddam, but at what cost? Americans are dying by the thousands, Iraqis by the hundreds of thousands, and the region is becoming more and more hostile. Iraq is now the NUMBER ONE terrorist haven when it used to be much lower.

650,000 fatalties during Civil War and Lincoln got a Monument on Mall; so far we have prosecuted this war very judiciously and with 100% success on the home front in deterrence of terrorism... I'm impressed.

Quote:

Originally Posted by CKFresh (Post 232288)
What would it take for you to admit failure?

More than you've posted to be sure...

Richard the Lionheart 01-08-2007 08:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BigBuddhaPup (Post 232296)
Face it, we don't have any presence in Iraq, and Iran... this idiotic war has made things much worse... I would like to think 'everyone know this', unfortunately they don't...:thumbdown: Terrorist have nothing to gain from us leaving Iraq... the Shia have plenty to gain, the Sunni will be hopelessly outnumbered... which side do you want to take (Sunni/Shia)?... It isn't a war against terrorism, it is war to gain control over a vital resource... land

If moderately free governments can be established in Iraq and Afghanistan, this will put immense pressure on the Iranian regime, and over time will probably lead to a positive transformation of the broader region as a whole. Failure in Iraq will show that our country is soft, and our military incapable of supporting free elements in these countries, and their ruthless, despotic leaders who support terrorist groups and are for the most part terrorists themselves against their own people, will stay comfortably in power with little to no chance of being overthrown.

It isn't easy, it isn't pretty, and it's definitly not fun. But there is no alternative to what is going on now. You can't leave an entire region well enough alone when its people are brutalized by poverty, oppression, crime, and religious fanaticism...especially in the nuclear age. It is a deadly combination, and if we fail, one day we will pay the greatest possible price for it.

BigBuddhaPup 01-08-2007 08:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by IntheNet (Post 232312)
First World Trade Center Attack: February 26, 1983
U.S. African Embassy Bombing Attack: August 8, 1998
U.S.S. Cole Attack: October 12, 2000

A clear series of Al Qaeda attacks on United States property and possessions through Clinton's Administration THAT HE DID NOTHING ABOUT....



I am pleased with how the current administration is fighting this war; low casualties in comparison to other similar regional wars and a 100% success rate against further attacks of domestic terrorism. Bravo!



You involved in Al Qaeda? You familiar with their terror plans? Since 09/11/01 they have hit England, Spain, Malaysia, France, and a number of other nations, with the exception of the United States



650,000 fatalties during Civil War and Lincoln got a Monument on Mall; so far we have prosecuted this war very judiciously and with 100% success on the home front in deterrence of terrorism... I'm impressed.

More than you've posted to be sure...

Clinton launched missile at Al Queda camp in Afghanistan, missed Bin Laden by a few hours... at the time Clinton was criticized for supposedly diverting from Monica Lewinsky affair...

BigBuddhaPup 01-08-2007 09:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ricky the Kid (Post 232320)
If moderately free governments can be established in Iraq and Afghanistan, this will put immense pressure on the Iranian regime, and over time will probably lead to a positive transformation of the broader region as a whole. Failure in Iraq will show that our country is soft, and our military incapable of supporting free elements in these countries, and their ruthless, despotic leaders who support terrorist groups and are for the most part terrorists themselves against their own people, will stay comfortably in power with little to no chance of being overthrown.

It isn't easy, it isn't pretty, and it's definitly not fun. But there is no alternative to what is going on now. You can't leave an entire region well enough alone when its people are brutalized by poverty, oppression, crime, and religious fanaticism...especially in the nuclear age. It is a deadly combination, and if we fail, one day we will pay the greatest possible price for it.

It isn't going to put any added pressure on Iran... if anything our presence there is making Iran more powerful in the region... Shia are getting more a foothold....

It isn't smart, it isn't intelligent, it isn't fun, it is idiotic...:redhot:

Richard the Lionheart 01-08-2007 09:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BigBuddhaPup (Post 232331)
It isn't smart, it isn't intelligent, it isn't fun, it is idiotic...:redhot:

Ooookay. :lol:


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:03 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions Inc.