I'm sorry, but come ON!

[Evan!]

I don't mean to start a political debate or anything, but this is just too damned much for me to swallow...

Rudy Giuliani said if a Democrat is elected president in 2008, America will be at risk for another terrorist attack on the scale of Sept. 11, 2001. But if a Republican is elected, he said, especially if it is him, terrorist attacks can be anticipated and stopped.

Let the fearmongering begin. I've got no love for democrats either, but this is just deplorable. I mean, I knew that idiot Rudy, who has milked 9/11 for nearly all it's worth, would eventually play the card, but...wow. To be so blatantly pandering and full of sh*t, right out of the gate? To use the corpses of the fallen to further your candidacy? What a scumbag.

There. Now I feel better. Like I said, I don't want to start a political debate, but I think we can all agree, this is deplorable.

 

[Brewing Clamper]

They're all a bunch of blood suckers. Not that I'm jaded or anything, but man I hate politicians. The thought that crosses my mind when I'm voting is usually "who will F@wk up our country less? Ok, that's who I'm voting for."

 

[Ryanh1801]

I truly believe if an democrats get elected **** is really going to hit the fan.

 

[Evan!]

I'd say the sh*t hit the fan a long time ago.

Oh, Ron Paul, if only people would listen...

 

[c.n.budz]

I truly believe if an democrats get elected **** is really going to hit the fan.

I'm going to apologize for this right now but, that is definitely a comment made out of ignorance by a 21yr old. Terrorists, bad guys, and everyone else that hates America are going to continue hating us and trying to kill us whether their is a democrat, republican, or ralph friggin' nader is in office.

So, again, sorry for getting a little nasty but comments and beliefs like that are what give credence to fearmongering politicians.

End rant, time for a beer with lunch

 

[Evan!]

I'm going to apologize for this right now but, that is definitely a comment made out of ignorance by a 21yr old. Terrorists, bad guys, and everyone else that hates America are going to continue hating us and trying to kill us whether their is a democrat, republican, or ralph friggin' nader is in office.

So, again, sorry for getting a little nasty but comments and beliefs like that are what give credence to fearmongering politicians.

End rant, time for a beer with lunch

Hear, Hear! The only reason third-party candidates have no chance (aside from the dems and reps writing the laws to ensure their own survival and to keep everyone else out) is because they have successfully convinced the american people that they are the only two options, and that anything else would result in complete chaos. It's a self-perpetuating cycle...and unfortunately, many people honestly believe that there's a huge difference between the two major parties. For all the democrats' whining about GWB's warmongering (and well they should), they seem to conveniently forget the 4 or 5 mini-wars that Clinton got us involved in.

 

[olllllo]

Right out of the GOP playbook.
Anyone remember the secret plan to end the war in Vietnam?

 

[Ryanh1801]

I'm going to apologize for this right now but, that is definitely a comment made out of ignorance by a 21yr old. Terrorists, bad guys, and everyone else that hates America are going to continue hating us and trying to kill us whether their is a democrat, republican, or ralph friggin' nader is in office.

So, again, sorry for getting a little nasty but comments and beliefs like that are what give credence to fearmongering politicians.

End rant, time for a beer with lunch

Ignorance? Sorry I think its scary to have a party in office that does not want to fund/help our troops in Iraq. I think its scary to elect someone into office that people in their party say we have already lost the war. Don't call someone ignorant that you do not know. Just because im 21 means nothing. I am more up to date on politics/ news than most. So please move on!!!!

 

[olllllo]

So please move on!!!!

As in moveon.org?

 

[Evan!]

Ryan, calm down big guy. Just let it go. We don't need to start a-fightin'.

 

[Ryanh1801]

As in moveon.org?

Hell no!!!!!

 

[Ryanh1801]

Ryan, calm down big guy. Just let it go. We don't need to start a-fightin'.

Im not going to, I hate talking politics any ways, your not going to change someones views. I got to go back to class anyways.

 

[user 574]

It's all political BS. 911 was being planned under Clinton's era. Cole attack and 1st WTC bombing under Clinton/dem presidency. 2nd attack under Bush/rep presidency. Those that want to cause harm don't give a sh!t who is in office.

 

[tron]

That article makes sense to me. I dont know how the dems will be able to prevent anything since puppies sunshine and rainbows wont stop a terrorist.

 

[the_bird]

Giuliani's comments had nothing to do with whether terrorists would attack us BECAUSE a Democrat was in office - he was arguing that Republicans would be more proactive and would continue to support/enforce controversial anti-terrorism measures like the USA Patriot Act, and that because of that, an attack would be less likely. Gotta read HIS quotes, not just the one-paragraph "summary."

EDIT: I'm also NOT in the mood to deal with personal attacks today, so let's just say that my trigger finger is a little itchy... we can talk politics, but if this doesn't stay clean, it's closed.

 

[Brewing Clamper]

Good thing this thread isn't going to turn political, eh?

 

[Cheesefood]

What blatant generalizing. "All Democrats are pacifists." and "All Republicans are bullies."

Whomever we elect will make it a point to ensure that we have the protection we need. No one person is "Terrorist Repellant". Now, the world may like some of our choices more than others and may choose to ease up on us if one wins over the other, but that's purely based on the way that person chooses to lead.

Republicans believe in a strong millitary. That scares some other governments who then feel that they need to bulk up also. If a leader chooses to relax the armed forces, other countries may relax theirs as well.

 

[Evan!]

Giuliani's comments had nothing to do with whether terrorists would attack us BECAUSE a Democrat was in office - he was arguing that Republicans would be more proactive and would continue to support/enforce controversial anti-terrorism measures like the USA Patriot Act, and that because of that, an attack would be less likely. Gotta read HIS quotes, not just the one-paragraph "summary."

Oh, dude, I read his quotes alright. Dems are going to "wave a white flag on Iraq". Dems are going to "go back to defense" (presumably, he means that they'd be less likely to wage war on "terrorists" like we're doing in Iraq, but that makes no sense). Refusing to wage war on every country that looks at us funny isn't going to make terrorist attacks any more likely. One could easily argue the opposite. He wants to talk about Iraq and terrorist attacks in the same breath, in the same context, but that's crap. We didn't invade Iraq in response to a terrorist attack, and we're no safer from terrorism now that our money and our armed forces are spread even thinner.

And I have yet to hear any prominent democrats propose that we pull out of Afghanistan. Now, I'm not defending democrats, because I hold them in about the same regard as republicans, but if feeling safer from terrorist attacks means that Big Brother watches my every move and can circumvent our court system because they think I'm an enemy combatant, then, well, I'd say the terrorists have already won. Really. Terrorism is about terrorizing people---and if we're so terrorized that we're willing to gut the constitution to feel safe, then, hey, guess what, said terrorism has done its job.

EDIT: I'm also NOT in the mood to deal with personal attacks today, so let's just say that my trigger finger is a little itchy... we can talk politics, but if this doesn't stay clean, it's closed.

Well, I hope it can stay civil, Bird. I really do. But I won't be upset if you close it. I know how fast a simple post can spiral out of control.

 

[Klainmeister]

I was under the impression that good and well articulated foreign policy and less involvement in other peoples affairs would stop terrorist....it's not like they haven't been around since...ummm before Vietnam.

Why would a dem not positively change the muddle of our foreign policy? I am beginning to wary on we will blow you to hell until you like our policy, and frankly it cost too much, 1% of the cost of this war could have paid for all of the students in the US to go to college and also free health care for everyone. 1%. Where are our priorities?

 

[Pumbaa]

Oh, Ron Paul, if only people would listen...

A-f*cking-men
http://ontheissues.org/TX/Ron_Paul.htm

BTW No matter who is in office terrorism will be an issue until we kill off everyone who decides to attack us. It's that simple.
Fighting terrorism isnt about diplomacy.
Fighting terrorism isnt about dependence on oil.
Fighting terrorism isnt about the poverty and social injustice.
Fighting Terrorism is purely about extermination of those who want to exterminate us.
Muslims who do not stand up and fight against terrorism are worthless filth IMHO just as any Christen who doesn't stand up to people like the Phelps

Iraq IS NOT about terrorism. It's about finishing what we started back when I was over there in 1991. Saddam was a leader who needed to be removed just as Hitler, Stalin, and Idi Amin, and Pol Pot. IMHO it's something we should have done (while I was there) then and even if we did we would still be there (look at the 40+ year occupation of Germany). Iraq has been an issue comming since the fall of the Ottoman Empire and the power vaccum it created. You have a relatively small area with a relatively large amount ethnic groups combined with no one currently being able to lead them as a whole single nation. It is a direct result of the nation building post WWI.

 

[levandr]

Ignorance? Sorry I think its scary to have a party in office that does not want to fund/help our troops in Iraq. I think its scary to elect someone into office that people in their party say we have already lost the war.

It's comments like this that are most frightening and very short sighted. The fact that you believe this is true is scary.

And before you argue, remember that it was Bush who sent them there in the first place unprepared, underfunded, and without a plan whatsoever.

Can you even imagine what those billions and billions of dollars could have been used for? Instead, we have a war without an ending that is costing billions and billions of dollars.

 

[DeathBrewer]

coming from a place running rampant with hardcore christian conservatives and living now in a very, very liberal area, i can tell you that the overall view of the "other side" is usually very biased, mis-guided, and incorrect. This is aside from their views on politics.

Most liberals i know are not bleeding heart, vegan ******* and most conservatives i know are not war-mongering, red-neck ********. i find, in fact, that most democrats are pissed off at their own party for two much talk and no action and most republicans are becoming weary of war and continuous bull**** coming out of both parties.

the two-party system sucks and the fact that most of politicians time is spent finding out "who is to blame" or "how do i get elected" instead of figuring out "how do we fix this problem" is beyond me. I know alot of businesses that ran that same way, and it just doesn't work.

 

[Reverend JC]

What ever happens in Iraq the fact remains that place is still and always has been Fuc&ed up. As far as being in trouble if the democrates get into power, I may tend to agree but it has nothing to do with the war, it has to do with taxes and how they penalize people make something for themselves financially and enable loser turds to continue to be on welfare well after the time has come and gone when they actually needed the help to get out of whatever situation got them into welfare in the first place.

Flame on Enablers!

Edit: the loser turds mentioned above are the people abusing the situation and staying on welfare not the people that actually need help.

 

[Brewing Clamper]

Kill me now!

 

[olllllo]

Of course you mean corporate welfare and not the non-oil related small businesses that need help.

 

[Evan!]

What ever happens in Iraq the fact remains that place is still and always has been Fuc&ed up. As far as being in trouble if the democrates get into power, I may tend to agree but it has nothing to do with the war, it has to do with taxes and how they penalize people make something for themselves financially and enable loser turds to continue to be on welfare well after the time has come and gone when they actually needed the help to get out of whatever situation got them into welfare in the first place.

I agree, JC, but for one point: GWB and the new breed of 'publicans are no better. You do realize that, during his tenure, Bush has spent more discretionary non-military funding than any president since LBJ, right? Him, along with his GOP congress, blew Clinton and Carter out of the water, and that's not counting the money spent on the war and the military-industrial-welfare complex. Bush has vetoed exactly one bill: the Stem Cell funding bill. Other than that, his office has just been rubber-stamping the GOP congress' spending bills.

I'm sure you probably know which program has the biggest WELFARE payout in the history of the US, right? If not, I'll tell you: The Medicare Prescription Drug welfare system. Do you remember who it was that passed the prescription drug bill under the cover of night and amidst shady threats of firing against an employee who dared to speak out, and amidst lies about the actual cost of the program? None other than GWB and his GOP congress.

Look, I'm 100% with you that our government is out of control and steals from people just to give money to other people. But blaming that on the democrats, when the republicans (past the days of Goldwater) have proven themselves to be just as bad or worse, is wrong.

Edit: the loser turds mentioned above are the people abusing the situation and staying on welfare not the people that actually need help.

And who determines who "actually need it" and who is "abusing the system"? Once the government starts giving out handouts, it's a slippery slope. And stealing from people, whether it's to give money to people who need it or it's to give money to people who don't, isn't right. If you stole my car because you really needed a ride, would that make it any less criminal?

 

[todd_k]

ibtl...........

 

[user 574]

My political affiliation is not of this earth (ibtl2)

 

[Ó Flannagáin]

What ever happens in Iraq the fact remains that place is still and always has been Fuc&ed up. As far as being in trouble if the democrates get into power, I may tend to agree but it has nothing to do with the war, it has to do with taxes and how they penalize people make something for themselves financially and enable loser turds to continue to be on welfare well after the time has come and gone when they actually needed the help to get out of whatever situation got them into welfare in the first place.

Flame on Enablers!

Edit: the loser turds mentioned above are the people abusing the situation and staying on welfare not the people that actually need help.

I have to say, that's pretty much my view on things right now. Being self-employed I pay about 33% of all of my income to taxes. PURE BULL****. If that goes up because of a "democrat" president, well, I might just have to call myself a conservative. Consider myself a moderate as of this day.

 

[DeathBrewer]

It's amazing how our government doesn't seem to think that rehabilitation is important. our jails make people into worse criminals, our welfare system doesn't help get people back on our feet, and our mentally handicapped are forced into the street instead of getting the treatment they need. ahh, america.