#397322 - 10/07/0409:55 PM
Re: Political Discussion: One Thread Only!
Anonymous
Unregistered
Quote:
Originally posted by John from Madison CT:
Quote:
[QUOTE] I cannot afford to give money to the poor because even making just shy of six figures my wife and I have all we can do just to keep our own boat floating. I don't have 3 or 4 or 5 extravagent, expensive homes, 6 cars, take several expensive vacations each year, own all kinds of luxury items, pay people to clean my home and cook for me, send my kids to expensive private schools, (my daughters are both paying for their own college educations, I help out with books, living expenses etc) and on and on ; we may not be struggling pay check to pay check, but we are definitely living month to month, and are extended just about to the limit of our incomes. And like I said, I aint livin' large, just comfortably. And that speaks volumes about how difficult it must be to make it on half or a fourth of what we make, and that, or less, is what the vast majority of our peers make. Again, 70% of the folks around me aren't doing as well as I am.
Boo-Hoo.....I'm crying for you. Please tell me what country of the world offers more opportunity than the U.S.?????
Could you TRY to stay on topic and not go off on tangents? You suggested that I give more of my money to the poor and leave the rest of you alone. This was merely my explanation as to why I could not do so. I was not complaining, nor looking for sympathy. I was not saying boo hoo for me, I was saying that I feel for the other 70% of the country that has less than me, and why can't the top 5 or 10%, who have more than everyone else, do with less luxuries, to give them more necessities.
I find it ironic again, that while you say boo hoo when I explain the limits of my financial situation, if anyone dares suggest raising taxes on the wealthy, you immediately race to their defense. Why don't you say boo hoo to them when they cry about paying more taxes? They already have more than they could ever need or want, and more than everyone else in the country! Why don't you say boo hoo to them when they complain about how much they pay in taxes? Very inconsistent!
I never said that any other country offered equal or greater opportunity, what does that have to do with anything?
Quote:
Originally posted by John from Madison CT: [QUOTE]
99% of the world would love to live as do our so-called "poor" people in America. Shall I tell you how many people have color TV's? 2nd cars?
Again, irrelevant. I'm saying that we are the richest nation in the world and can do better for our poor, and your response is, they could be alot worse off! BRILLIANT!!
Quote:
Originally posted by John from Madison CT: [QUOTE] Do you know that the Bush administration has created more Home ownership than EVER before in history.
That may be true, but the Bush administration still has the worst job record in history and ran through a projected surplus to put us into deficit spending. And before you go giving all the credit for that home ownership to Mr. Bush, how about considering the hard work and sacrifice of the American workers who bought those homes? Bush didn't GIVE us our homes!
By the way, I am one of those people who bought their first homes during the Bush presidency, I fail to see what he did for me that made that possible. I worked overtime, which he wants to help employers take away, and saved and sacrificed to buy my home, Bush and the government had very little or nothing to do with me being able to buy my house.
There was nothing new available in the way of loans or programs that weren't in place when Mr. Clinton was president, or that would not have been in place if Mr. Gore had been rightfully inaugurated in 2001.
#397324 - 10/07/0410:10 PM
Re: Political Discussion: One Thread Only!
Anonymous
Unregistered
And I'm not applauding that you finished. I think if I got started you and I could tie this thing up for at least two hours.
So many opportunities to improve. All this in just four short years. And if we allow Bush to get back in just wait till you see the blatant barage of paybacks to BIG money corporate America who is by no coincidence primarily Republican...
I'm on the side of Joe American who works to pay his/her bills. No one else!
Face it, if we can't have good paying jobs and afford to pay our bills then all else simply doesn't matter does it. We've all been spolied to forget the basic needs of a human being; food, shelter and acceptance. Without them we are a third world country.
#397325 - 10/07/0410:12 PM
Re: Political Discussion: One Thread Only!
arlow
masshole
Registered: 08/17/04
Posts: 3243
Loc: Wilbraham Ma
Quote:
Originally posted by nu2salt:
Quote:
Originally posted by arlow: The PC mentality is ruining this country! There was a day when you could speak your mind and tell the truth without worrying about some poor liberals feelings!
Well, that really depends on what you consider "speak(ing) your mind and tell(ing) the truth". Maybe you'd like to go back to the good old days when African Americans drank from seperate fountains, rode on the back of the bus, and went to seperate schools? Many people thought that was the "truth", and felt they should be allowed to "speak their minds" , even if that meant burning churches and kidnapping, beating, and hanging their fellow citizens. Racism is not truth, just ignorance. Of course you are always allowed to "speak your mind" but you do so at your own peril. And we tend to get along alot better when we are civil and respectful to each other, don't you agree?
Quote:
Originally posted by arlow:
As for Racial Profiling, while it may not be ideal it sure would be a whole lot more effective!!! Take all the illegals and throw them out first! Close the borders and then scrutinize those we have the most reason to fear.
Racial profiling is certainly not ideal, nor is it usually effective. As for deporting illegals, and as I said above, even those on visas and such, I have to reluctantly agree. As I said, our safety and security is more important than extending this privilege to the citizens of countries known to be hostile towards us. Those who would suffer for this have no one to blame but the extremists and criminal from their own lands.
The rest of your post, while it may be accurate, is irrelevant, because one could compile a similar list of specific events that would result in the answer being any racial or ethnic group that one chose to denounce as criminals and terrorists. Nice try, non starter!
As for equating reverting to slavery to not being afraid to tell things like they are I think you are stepping a bit far. That is certainly not what I meant and is an extreme jump at best. What I know is that is didn't use to be a problem to be forthright and truthfull and people were not so sheltered in days gone by. Now everyone is worried about offending others even when they are completely correct in what they are saying and I feel that is wrong. Civility and respect are garnered on those who value those traits and not wasted on those who don't IMHO. Speaking of that I owe you an apology if I offended you earlier with commenting about treason. I was a little fired up and I overstepped my own boundries. As for Racial Profiling do your believe that if the police pulled over the same amount of Puerto Rican 4 cylinder hot rods they would get the same amount of drug busts as moms in minivans?
One reason I posted that list is because of the track record of non action we have had with these terrorists. There was no recourse so they continued to act against us with no fear. I think the facts are relevant to the war at hand. I personally think we should exterminate all these radical Mullahs unfortunately it is a long and difficult task. The basis of their religion is to kill all non believers and we can never have peace in this world as long as these beliefs exist. Russia is in the game now big time and they are not going to pander to the UN. Yes some of the countries are POed at us but wait untill they are in the crosshairs. They will change their minds quick. Hopefully they dont give in and run with their tails tucked like Spain did.
You have said some things I agree with lately and some thing I don't. Bush sure isn't the ideal president but Kerry isn't even close. I cannot stand the two timing, doublefaced, lying POS. He claims to be what he is not just to try to get votes. He is no friend to the sportsmen! He does not hunt unless there is a convenient photo op. For example here is a direct quote about Deer hunting.
John Kerry on Deer Hunting:
"I go out with my trusty 12-gauge double-barrel, crawl around on my stomach. I track and move and decoy and play games and try to outsmart them. You know, you kind of play the wind. That's hunting!"
#397327 - 10/07/0410:24 PM
Re: Political Discussion: One Thread Only!
Anonymous
Unregistered
Jim,
I'm more confident than ever!
Have no fear, there are many more of us than there are of them. It's just most us are unwilling or afraid to say it and all of them are more than willing to say it. Just look at the huge number of newly registered voters who are registered as democrats who also by the way out number new republicans 3 to 1.
#397328 - 10/07/0410:36 PM
Re: Political Discussion: One Thread Only!
Anonymous
Unregistered
I've been thinking this for quite some time and now I have to say it.
I hope no one is taking this so serious as to destroy a relationship!
I for one, despite being VERY emotionally attached to the outcome of this election will not, I repeat will not hold anything said in this thread against any member regardless of the outcome.
I do respect everyone's opinion just as I hope they respect mine.
I've seen many posts sent in bold letters and CAPS. Voice your opinions, be emotional, be very emotional but when it's over shake hands and resume all of the relationships as they were prior to the campaign.
I say this thinking of the upcoming winter banquet. Many of you will be attending and I hope you will all act like the sportsmmen and sportswomen that I know and love. And I hope that none of you feel like you could not attend because of arguments in this thread. If that were to happen I would be very dsiappointed, if that matters to anyone
I just had a weird ph call from a nephew with the Marines in Hawaii, They are comming home for 2 weeks on the 14th, then they leave for Afgan for 7 months and from there they go to Iraq. the weird thing was he wanted me to look up clips for the M-16, if they want extra clips they have to buy them.I have a few places to buy them for 35. each--new, I keep hearing the troops aren't getting the things they need, but thought it was political BS. now i've changed my mind I suggested that he take the clips off dead bodies, if no dead bodies, make a few. He replied, what do i do when my one clip is empty, call time out until i reload..LOL
Spin and Nu2salt: The information I posted before about WMDs and the Iran-Iraq war comes directly from a GOVERNMENT issued information book for my Israeli-Palestinian Conflict class. I can footnote the info if you wish (the book is from 2000 when Clinton was in office).
Spin: You are right about the attack on the Kurds in 1988, that is what I was refering to in the Anfal campaign...same thing. What I was quoting was the fact that even the US was not happy that Iraq used chemicals in its war with Iran. I was a bit perplexed by that myself considering the timing of the attack. So I read more on the subject and here's what I found:
March 26, 1984: US begins relations with Iraq (broken since 1967), as a way to counter Iran (which was recieving aid from USSR).
1986: Iraq severs ties with US due to Iran-Contra deal.
1987: USS Stark accidentally bombed by Iraqi jets, again relations suffer.
1988: US denounces attacks in Kurdish region.
***Keep in mind that Israeli jets bombed the Iraqi nuclear reactor of Osirak in 1981. The reactor was built with French aid. If Iraqis could develop nuclear weapons with French help, how hard could it be to develop bio/chemical weapons on their own or via another European power? Osirak
Nu2Salt: You said before that we were attcked by bin Laden and we struck at Iraq.
I seem to remember exactly 3 years ago on this VERY day when we began bombing Afghanistan. We need to think of Iraq as a second front from which we can put pressure on the real powerhouse in terms of terrorism: Iran. A 2 front war on Iran could cut our casualties by as much as 50%, should we ever need to wage war with them. This is the country you liberals are most worried about (as am I) so you'll support a 2-front war with them I am sure :rolleyes: .
In World War II, we invaded Italy before Germany because it is was the weakest of our enemies. I know Italy declared war on us in 1941 but I think Saddam's actions are tantamount to a declaration of war: -17 resoltutions violated or failed -firing daily on allied aircraft in no-fly zones -planning the assasination of one our Presidents -expulsion of UN inspectors more than once -funding of Hamas terrorists -links to al-Qaeda (abu Musab al-Zarqawi) -links to international terror (abu Nidal, abu Abbas) -one of the most brutal dictatorship ever
Finally, in reference to what Val stated earlier about his family coming from the USSR. You and your family endured the bloodiest dictatoship on earth, and God is definitely watching over you if your family was able to escape.
My mother left Fidel Castro's bloody dictatorship in 1961, as he began to convert Cuba into a communist nation. My grandmother (who is 81) hasn't seen her sisters in 43 years, my grandfather the same.
My father's family was in Chile during the overthrow of the Allende government in 1973 (my father was living in Spain at the time) and although Pinochet was bloody, they prefered his rule over the communists.
And finally (I feel like Nu2Salt :p ) my grandparents family (all from Spain) fought against the communists during the Spanish Civil War between 1936 and 1939.
I might not have personally experienced a communist dictatorship, but have heard enough to know about their brutality.
#397331 - 10/07/0411:39 PM
Re: Political Discussion: One Thread Only!
arlow
masshole
Registered: 08/17/04
Posts: 3243
Loc: Wilbraham Ma
Quote:
Originally posted by Henry L.: I seem to remember exactly 3 years ago on this VERY day when we began bombing Afghanistan. We need to think of Iraq as a second front from which we can put pressure on the real powerhouse in terms of terrorism: Iran. A 2 front war on Iran could cut our casualties by as much as 50%, should we ever need to wage war with them. This is the country you liberals are most worried about (as am I) so you'll support a 2-front war with them I am sure :rolleyes: .
This is similar to somthing I read about a month ago. It is an interesting read and concept although I don't know how credible it is. I believe it is an individual soldiers assesment or speculation on possible additional motives of the war.
-------------------------------------------------
The true impact of Iraq appears in this assessment by an air commando vet:
It reflects what many of my colleagues are saying...the job is not finished, but we are winning at every encounter with the bad guys...however, casualties can’t be the measure of our success...after all, one of my planning buddies pointed out, the UN said there would be 500,000 casualties in the first three days of fighting...we aren’t even close to that on either side...from the US planning perspective, 14,000 was the estimated number of casualties...if Bush thought that was an acceptable trade to take down the threat of Saddam, then he certainly isn’t going to flinch at the daily deaths reported so widely by the national news sources, especially when he is getting objective reports that detail how well things are really going on the ground.
I still haven’t seen anyone connect the dots yet about isolating Iran using Iraq and Afghanistan as a US controlled buffers that restrict overland traveling and out of Iran. The Iranian trained terrorists now find it much more difficult to travel to the Syrian/Lebanon staging ground for Hamas and the rest of the Muslim murderers who plot the destruction of Israel from that safe haven. The strategy from day one after September 11 was to isolate Iran and its hate-mongering Mullahs despite the suspicion of the Saudi’s and their complicit funding of terrorism through Islamic charities. On the East, Afghanistan and Pakistan form a boundary that requires deception, planning, and more difficult travel routes in order to infiltrate those countries. The presence of US technology overhead is a constant threat to the terrorists and their safe passage into target populations of their destination. The same is true on the West...Iraq is now dominated by a US presence that make a traverse of the northern route to Syria impossible without deception and better planning on the part of the Iranian terrorist groups. This strategy is showing some results in the Syrian-Jordan area as intercepts of terrorist convoys disguised as regular commercial truck traffic has been greatly increased. The best example of that is the Syrian border conflict a few weeks back where the Syrian border guards tried to assist the smugglers in running the border and paid the price for their belief that we would let these guys roll into safe haven without a fight.
Our strategy of isolating Iran will never be acknowledged by DoD, but I’m sure you recognize your favorite SECDEF, our man Rummy, as a critical thinker in the evolution of this policy of isolating our enemies...can you spell containment?...same strategy, just a different application for a different enemy.
Another reason for the removal of Saddam was the need for a staging ground for US forces outside of Saudi Arabia. PSAB (Prince Sultan Air Base) is now a ghost town compared to what it was five months ago. The US presence in Saudi has been reduced considerably because our forces are now using airfields in the western deserts of Iraq. This has not been lost on Syria or Iran. We can strike Syria with enough airpower to render their entire military capability useless in less than 15 minutes. In the case of Iran, we have three directions from which we can assault their airspace. They only have enough airpower to oppose one assault corridor...and most of that is focused on the southern route since that has been the traditional assumption of entry from Qatar and Bahrain. The east and west routes are lightly defended relative to the south...and from the north, it is an open door to Tehran if we chose to stage out of one of the ‘Stans where we now have a formidable logistics presence.
In any analysis of this strategic plan of isolating Iran, one must conclude that it is remarkable in its flexibility and brilliant in its simplicity. Best of all, it is based on solid military science and tactical considerations that require political patience, military discipline, and the determined focus of strong leadership on winning the war by eliminating the bad guys and governments that support them.
Previous Topic
Index