Bill Swerski Posted January 9, 2008 Share Posted January 9, 2008 (edited) "I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority." - G.W. Bush, 3/13/02 "I am truly not that concerned about him." - G.W. Bush, repsonding to a question about bin Laden's whereabouts, 3/13/02 (The New American, 4/8/02) That's nice, but killing Bin Laden isn't going to stop Al Qaeda. He doesn't control or fund all of the splinter organizations now that he's in hiding. He had much more control and influence over the organization when he operated openly in Afghanistan in the '90s. Edited January 9, 2008 by Bill Swerski Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Czarina Posted January 9, 2008 Share Posted January 9, 2008 From Drudge: QUOTE Secretary of State is making runs to Seacoast – Hampton, Portsmouth – and Southern Hillsborough – Pelham, Nashua – to bring extra democratic ballots. Many towns are reporting shortages... Developing... Whoops. When the towns put in for how many ballots they need, it's hard to take into account crossover ballots from independents and also first time voters. NH allows same day registration. There's been a lot of that 'round these parts today. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
evil_gop_liars Posted January 9, 2008 Share Posted January 9, 2008 That's nice, but killing Bin Laden isn't going to stop Al Qaeda. He doesn't control or fund all of the splinter organizations now that he's in hiding. He had much more control and influence over the organization when he operated openly in Afghanistan in the '90s. So your saying if the Clinton administration would of pulled the trigger and shot Bin laden we would have no more terrorism? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Swerski Posted January 9, 2008 Share Posted January 9, 2008 So your saying if the Clinton administration would of pulled the trigger and shot Bin laden we would have no more terrorism? Yes, that's EXACTLY what I'm saying. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clubfoothead Posted January 9, 2008 Share Posted January 9, 2008 I'm pretty undecided at this point. To the extent that I will not vote before I vote for a Republican for a national office. I don't see Hillary getting my vote. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Randall Posted January 9, 2008 Share Posted January 9, 2008 Yes, that's EXACTLY what I'm saying. They were ready to but didn't want to take out innocents. The right wing kept saying he was wagging the dog whenever he did anything on terrorism. Until 911 there wasn't support for this. Why did Reagan and Bush think arming and sending muslim extremists to Afghanistan and leaving them there after the Russians left a good idea? This goes back to 1980. Who came up with that brainstorm? What are we doing today that's going to bite us in 10 years? Why did Bush ignore terrorism before 911? Just before the attack Missile Defense was his priority. There's a lot of blame to go around here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moneymakers Posted January 9, 2008 Share Posted January 9, 2008 They were ready to but didn't want to take out innocents. The right wing kept saying he was wagging the dog whenever he did anything on terrorism. Until 911 there wasn't support for this. Why did Reagan and Bush think arming and sending muslim extremists to Afghanistan and leaving them there after the Russians left a good idea? This goes back to 1980. Who came up with that brainstorm? What are we doing today that's going to bite us in 10 years? Why did Bush ignore terrorism before 911? Just before the attack Missile Defense was his priority. There's a lot of blame to go around here. Blaa Bllaa Blaa LULU give it a rest. This is a new election Bush is not running. check the title of the thread. your stick is old. We need a change That change is LULU to quite blaming everything that happens in this world on Rove and Bush. You lost the election -get over it.- The goal was to Protect American soli. The goal was to control the Middle east. Mission accomplished The middle east may not be stable but we own it. Now back to the election Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AtomicCEO Posted January 9, 2008 Share Posted January 9, 2008 Blaa Bllaa Blaa LULUgive it a rest. This is a new election Bush is not running. check the title of the thread. your stick is old. We need a change That change is LULU to quite blaming everything that happens in this world on Rove and Bush. You lost the election -get over it.- The goal was to Protect American soli. The goal was to control the Middle east. Mission accomplished The middle east may not be stable but we own it. Now back to the election This is one of the funniest things I've read in a while. From the lack of spelling ability to the "we own the middle east". Classic. Everyone, please remember that when you vote republican, you vote like moneymakers! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chiefjay Posted January 9, 2008 Share Posted January 9, 2008 Since I can't vote for Bush this year I am leaning toward Romney but need to do a little more research this week before the primary next week. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kid Cid Posted January 9, 2008 Share Posted January 9, 2008 Blaa Bllaa Blaa LULUgive it a rest. This is a new election Bush is not running. check the title of the thread. your stick is old. We need a change That change is LULU to quite blaming everything that happens in this world on Rove and Bush. You lost the election -get over it.- The goal was to Protect American soli. The goal was to control the Middle east. Mission accomplished The middle east may not be stable but we own it. Now back to the election Dude, if you go outside when it's raining and look up, I'm afraid you'll drown. Are you even living in the same world as the rest of us? There are 1.3 billion Muslims in this world that would disagree with that statement you just made. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted January 9, 2008 Share Posted January 9, 2008 Blaa Bllaa Blaa LULUgive it a rest. This is a new election Bush is not running. check the title of the thread. your stick is old. We need a change That change is LULU to quite blaming everything that happens in this world on Rove and Bush. You lost the election -get over it.- The goal was to Protect American soli. The goal was to control the Middle east. Mission accomplished The middle east may not be stable but we own it. Now back to the election This is artistic genius. Sheer brilliance. I stand in awe. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Swerski Posted January 9, 2008 Share Posted January 9, 2008 (edited) They were ready to but didn't want to take out innocents. The "innocents" who were hanging out at Bin Laden's terrorist training camps? Why did Bush ignore terrorism before 911? You mean in that one year he was in office, as opposed to Clinton ignoring terrorism for two full terms? What did Clinton do about Al Qaeda after they tried to blow up the WTC in 1993? What did he do about terrorism after the U.S.S. Cole and Khobar towers bombings? My point isn't that the Bush administration did a super-duper job prior to 9/11, but that your boy Clinton didn't do anything more. Why did Reagan and Bush think arming and sending muslim extremists to Afghanistan and leaving them there after the Russians left a good idea? This goes back to 1980. Who came up with that brainstorm? The Carter administration were the ones who began funding and arming the Afghans. So, no, it goes back before 1980, but you wouldn't know that because you're more concerned with spewing obnoxious partisan rhetoric than reality. Edited January 9, 2008 by Bill Swerski Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Randall Posted January 9, 2008 Share Posted January 9, 2008 The Carter administration were the ones who began funding and arming the Afghans. So, no, it goes back before 1980, but you wouldn't know that because you're more concerned with spewing obnoxious partisan rhetoric than reality. Nice way to dead end a discussion. While Carter started the funding he wasn't the one bringing radical muslims from around the world or leaving them behind after the Russians left. They should have been de briefed and returned to their home countries. Like I said there was a lot of blame to go around, but you blame only Clinton. I have no more desire to come in here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexgaddis Posted January 9, 2008 Share Posted January 9, 2008 Blaa Bllaa Blaa LULUgive it a rest. This is a new election Bush is not running. check the title of the thread. your stick is old. We need a change That change is LULU to quite blaming everything that happens in this world on Rove and Bush. You lost the election -get over it.- The goal was to Protect American soli. The goal was to control the Middle east. Mission accomplished The middle east may not be stable but we own it. Now back to the election Yeah Randall, get a new stick... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted January 9, 2008 Share Posted January 9, 2008 They should have been de briefed and returned to their home countries. I have a nagging feeling there might have been a teensy problem with that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaP'N GRuNGe Posted January 9, 2008 Share Posted January 9, 2008 The "innocents" who were hanging out at Bin Laden's terrorist training camps? You mean in that one year he was in office, as opposed to Clinton ignoring terrorism for two full terms? What did Clinton do about Al Qaeda after they tried to blow up the WTC in 1993? What did he do about terrorism after the U.S.S. Cole and Khobar towers bombings? My point isn't that the Bush administration did a super-duper job prior to 9/11, but that your boy Clinton didn't do anything more. The Carter administration were the ones who began funding and arming the Afghans. So, no, it goes back before 1980, but you wouldn't know that because you're more concerned with spewing obnoxious partisan rhetoric than reality. Gee, I don't know. Maybe capture those responsible within a year IIRC? Where's that Osama Bin Forgotten guy nowadays anyways? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coffeeman Posted January 9, 2008 Share Posted January 9, 2008 First of all, I'll just say we should probably have a separate board entitled 'Politics Tailgate'. Second, I said McCain since he is 1) a moderate Rep and 2) I worry about the increased taxes and spending that a Dem would likely implement right when the economy is heading into the tank. BTW, what have Obama, Clinton (or anyone else) proposed as the solution to our economic sitch? Forget all this Iraq crap for awhile and concentrate on the economy. What kind of 'change switch' can they flip quickly that pulls us out of this? If they think increasing taxes on the rich is the big brilliant idea, they've got another think coming. (No, I'm not rich.) If I hear good ideas there, I could literally switch parties and vote for a Dem - not kidding. But I haven't yet heard anything really solid, and of course it needs to be from a front runner - Huckabee, Ron Paul & Guliani are fast becoming irrelevant, so good ideas from them unfortunately don't count for much at this point. Even Edwards is in trouble, unless Dems decide that an Obama/Clinton ticket is too risky, and throw him in as VP for a little safety net. But to me that would be chicknsh*t, and I hope they go with the 2 big ones. I predict some combo of McCain/Romney on the other side. Should be fun... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yukon Cornelius Posted January 9, 2008 Share Posted January 9, 2008 BTW, what have Obama, Clinton (or anyone else) proposed as the solution to our economic sitch? Forget all this Iraq crap for awhile and concentrate on the economy. What kind of 'change switch' can they flip quickly that pulls us out of this? If they think increasing taxes on the rich is the big brilliant idea, they've got another think coming. (No, I'm not rich.) so the republican strategy of lowering taxes and spending more is not working?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coffeeman Posted January 9, 2008 Share Posted January 9, 2008 so the republican strategy of lowering taxes and spending more is not working?? Guess not YC - but I'm being nonpartisan on this. So what's your solution? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DemonKnight Posted January 9, 2008 Share Posted January 9, 2008 Guess not YC - but I'm being nonpartisan on this. So what's your solution? I think not spending trillions in Iraq would be a nice start to improving our national economy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coffeeman Posted January 9, 2008 Share Posted January 9, 2008 (edited) I think not spending trillions in Iraq would be a nice start to improving our national economy. I'm sorry, but this is still missing the point. Let's assume a Dem is elected and the pullout beings immediately - does that one step really fix the whole economy? If not, what is the 2nd best step? Edit to add: To go with your military spending thread a little longer, does 100% of that Iraq $ go right back into the economy here, or does some similar level of military spending still need to happen, just away from Iraq? Personally, I worry about reducing our troops presence around the world, when the terrorists are gaining recruits globally. I'm not being an a-hole here - what do you think, would 50% of the Iraq $ coming back home fix our economy, or what % makes sense? I haven't done the math myself yet, but I think 100% is wrong, and it won't be enough anyway.... Edited January 9, 2008 by Coffeeman Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yukon Cornelius Posted January 9, 2008 Share Posted January 9, 2008 Guess not YC - but I'm being nonpartisan on this. So what's your solution? im not a economics or spelling guru but i know that spending more than you have is a bad idea... im willing to pay taxes , because its the only way things will get dun, i just don't want it to go for a bridge in Alaska that goes nowhere . how about spending what we have on something good like o say infrastructure, schools, job training, heath care for kids, cable for everyone, better radio etc.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yukon Cornelius Posted January 9, 2008 Share Posted January 9, 2008 I'm sorry, but this is still missing the point. Let's assume a Dem is elected and the pullout beings immediately - does that one step really fix the whole economy? If not, what is the 2nd best step? not sure but when those that have mortgaged themselves to the hilt find they can no longer pay who is going to make money and who is going to pay... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted January 9, 2008 Share Posted January 9, 2008 I'm sorry, but this is still missing the point. Let's assume a Dem is elected and the pullout beings immediately - does that one step really fix the whole economy? If not, what is the 2nd best step? A snippet from the Obama web site: Obama will cut income taxes by $1,000 for working families to offset the payroll tax they pay. * Provide a Tax Cut for Working Families: Obama will restore fairness to the tax code and provide 150 million workers the tax relief they need. Obama will create a new "Making Work Pay" tax credit of up to $500 per person, or $1,000 per working family. The "Making Work Pay" tax credit will completely eliminate income taxes for 10 million Americans. * Simplify Tax Filings for Middle Class Americans: Obama will dramatically simplify tax filings so that millions of Americans will be able to do their taxes in less than five minutes. Obama will ensure that the IRS uses the information it already gets from banks and employers to give taxpayers the option of pre-filled tax forms to verify, sign and return. Experts estimate that the Obama proposal will save Americans up to 200 million total hours of work and aggravation and up to $2 billion in tax preparer fees. That's just the tax piece, there's a ton more on the economy on the same page. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted January 9, 2008 Share Posted January 9, 2008 Edit to add: To go with your military spending thread a little longer, does 100% of that Iraq $ go right back into the economy here, or does some similar level of military spending still need to happen, just away from Iraq? Personally, I worry about reducing our troops presence around the world, when the terrorists are gaining recruits globally. I'm not being an a-hole here - what do you think, would 50% of the Iraq $ coming back home fix our economy, or what % makes sense? I haven't done the math myself yet, but I think 100% is wrong, and it won't be enough anyway.... To address this, do we really need to spend more on defense than the entire rest of the world combined? Because that's what we do. As far as addressing terrorists, that's best done by a combination of excellent intelligence and surgical military strikes, asking permission of no-one and destroying just the terrorists. Tank divisions and battleships are crappy against terrorists. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.