Excuse me. 10 republicans and 4 democrats. Nice try.
Posted By: Is that what you mean by partisan? nm on 2008-10-10
In Reply to: Partisan-led inquiry.....no real big srprise there...sm - indy
nm
Complete Discussion Below:  marks the location of current message within thread
The messages you are viewing
are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select
the boards given in left menu
Other related messages found in our database
Democrats vs Republicans...
I agree that problems occur on both sides of the aisle...obviously. What I find troubling, and I am being serious here, is that Democrats seem much less likely to own up to it when they do something wrong, even when caught, and the entire party seems to rally around them and somehow want to twist the wrong into a right or rationalize the wrong (he only lied about sex for example. He committed felony perjury, doesn't matter what the lie was about. If it was no big deal, why didn't he just tell the truth? I guess that depends on what the meaning of truth is?). Republicans generally fall on the sword when caught. There just seems to be something skewed about the Democratic party as a whole and their vision of what is wrong or right and it seems to be directly correlated to whether one of their party is guilty or the other party is guilty. This is just an observation. I am not a registered Republican nor Democrat. I am conservative, I am registered Independent but vote for whoever most closely follows my belief system, though they as a rule don't do as they say...and I mean ALL politicians. I just keep hoping for an honest one. Bush did what he said he would do for a long time, but I see him waffling now, and I am not sure that is a good thing. As I look at the two major parties in this country, it just seems to me that on the Democratic side they are more likely to support each other and try to spin wrongdoing even when caught at it, rarely if ever admitting to wrongdoing. I do not see that so much on the Republican side. I suppose now I should go back to the conservative side and let the process continue. I thought the boards were about opinion and discussion and debate. How can you expect to change any minds if you only talk to the like-minded? Thanks for your time, Lurker. I do enjoy talking to you.
I see it with Democrats and Republicans. sm
Where are all the progressives and antiwar people?
Democrats vs Republicans
1. My research on the black liberation movement of which Obama's church is a part tells me all I need to know about whether or not I want to see him in office. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_liberation_theology
2. If McCain is elected I believe we will face a great depression which will make the depression of the 30s look like a Sunday School picnic. People already losing homes, jobs, exploding deficit (and the piper will be paid sooner or later), cost-of-living getting so people can hardly afford to live. McCain's judgement is questionable in his choice of a running mate. Totally reckless to name someone he has only met once but then there's oil in Alaska.
I will not support or vote for either of them as were doomed either way.
Democrats vs Republicans
Just dropped in to see if either the Dems or Pubs on this board have given an inch. They haven't. Boring and useless. I'm betting McCain will win so we'll never know about big, bad Obama for sure. I'll drop back in after a few years of McCain to see how well y'all like him then. Like about now I'm really wondering if John Kerry wouldn't have been an improvement over George Bush. I understand ole Georgie has an all time low approval rating. Must be a bunch of Republicans who aren't as pleased with him as they thought they would be.
foolish?? Maybe republicans, not democrats
Duh? Foolish? Told by a political friend he came upon failure=bush, check it out? Foolish? Well, heck, I would rather be **foolish** than murderous, lying, not trustworthy. Enough of politically correct. Do the republicans practice that? No. They are right now issuing talking points against Joe Wilson and thankfully the investigation is going on with a republican prosecutor who can see the forest for the trees. The republicans since Clinton was elected back in the 1990s have done nothing but attack any ideology but theirs. The democrats, on the other hand, have sat quietly by or, with Kerrys campaign, tried to take the high road until bushs election machine started attacking his patriotism and service to the country in Vietnam. Please, Im so sick to death of being told we should not attack..We are only defending ourselves, we are attacking **Back** at the republicans.
Republicans and Democrats worked together on
So why do you keep trying to demonize the Democrats. Both parties made compromises - I believe the Democrats initially wanted about $20 billion more for the program, but they negotiated with the Republicans to secure their votes.
You seem so worried about the cigarette tax not covering the program, and yet what we spend in Iraq in a day would cover the S-CHIP program for a year. The money is there, but people don't want to make it a priority.
Why is it so hard for you to believe that Democrats that voted yes on the bill (and don't forgot some Republicans did too) actually CARE ABOUT THE CHILDREN? Is it so hard to believe that they actually want to do something to help kids? I'm glad they are getting headlines, not because they are against Bush, because really - could public opinion get any worse for him? I am glad because this is an issue that needs TONS of attention drawn to it. I don't really care if more people dislike Bush over this issue. People who like him will continue to and people who don't will continue not to like him. I see bad headlines about him every week, but that is not my concern. My concern is affordable healthcare for all children, no matter how high or low their parents' income level is.
Yeah, Democrats and Republicans
.
The Democrats had enough votes to pass it without the Republicans...
but refuse to. Why don't THEY grow up and go ahead and pass it? Because they don't want to be the ones to vote it in if it tanks. I repeat...put up or shut up, democrats!
go democrats..go
Are they? Where I live I go house to house to get people to sign up as democrats and frankly many are signing on as democrats and I hear anger and distrust and concern about Bush and his policies..So, dont know where you are from but I see the actual opposite..I also see many minorities, Blacks and Latinos signing on to the democratic party. From your posts, IMHO you are a republican plant and so your posts mean nothing to me. You are either a couch political potato who never goes out there and works the grass roots or you are a republican trying to put seeds of discontent in the democratic party. Gotta tell ya, the democratic party is doing just fine and each time bush screws up, which has been many over the past five years, the democrats do even better..Yeehaww!!
Excuse me.....
How can it be easy enough to prove with ISP numbers if the ISP numbers are not available? Yes, I may be blowing this out of proportion but you seem to be contradicting yourself and your posts, as well as some others did raise the specter (sp?) of this being a nonsecure website.
I do know such outings' with a lot more info that just ISP numbers have occurred on other political forums, i.e., proteswarrior.com (although I am bracing myself right now for the retaliation this mention will bring from right-wingers).
Golly, I kind of feel like this forum is in the midst of being hijacked by the conservative in-your-face folks somewhat.
Excuse me, but I'm AO.
You are careless. Even a small brain like mine can see there are major differences in gt and ao's writing styles. Check it out. Besides, we don't even live in the same part of the country. I'm sure the administrator can verify that for you if it makes an important difference in your life.
Also, AO is not Another Observer, in case that was your next accusation. See, there's more than one of us out here.
Excuse me but it should have said *did not*
Geesh, I forgot that this forum doesn't like apostrophes. Do you ever make a mistake? I don't make fun of people's typos, but evidently because you can't stick to the subject or respond directly to my post without calling names it's just a rabbit trail to discredit me. You know, whatever, you've proven that you're not worth my time.
See ya...
Excuse me, but it's a law. sm
She was asked to comply by the police and she IGNORED THEM. She is not above the law. None of us are. Everyone should be concerned about this behavior. Bush had nothing to do with it! My gosh, the things you say.
Excuse me.
If you don't want my opinions then don't read them. It's that simple.
Sorry I dared to enter your high and mighty world. I'll leave you to your hate.
Excuse me, but yes you did. sm
I usually don't post here, but here is what you said below. You have posted on our board, so I am posting here. By the way, your temper tantrums and attacks are not doing anyone any favors. Not an attack but an observation. Here is what you said below.
*The neocons, of course, can't have this, so they send our threads to people like you to crash the liberal board, utilizing their very own name calling and intimidation tactics. They never gave a hoot about Israel in the past, but suddenly they see Israel as their new best friend. They're winking at God and saying, See? We're on Israel's side now and won't be one of the groups against Israel, so bring on the Rapture. We've secured our place with God. The Rapture Index has indicated it's fasten your seatbelt time and they can't wait.*
As far as for the rest of what you have said, most of us have always been on Israel's side. You are showing how really and truly uninformed you are by statements like this.
Excuse me.....
the first settlers were not slave owners and came here for religious freedom. The founding fathers were deeply seated in Christianity. The country WAS founded on those principles. However, others came who did not ascribe to those principles, just as there are those who do not ascribe to those principles now. May I also remind you that slavery was introduced here by Dutch traders who bought slaves in Africa and brought them to America...much later. And who sold those slaves to Dutch traders? I believe it was other Africans, who enslaved and sold their own people. The original colonists at first got along with the Indians. It was much later, in the plains, where the near annihilation as you call it occurred. All during that time were present the Christian missionaries who tried to intervene, were often killed for it, by whites and Indians alike. I am Choctaw, I am descended from the indigenous peoples. Indians also killed and enslaved one another. It is not an *American* invention. And...who said I was painting anything as *rosy?* My point was, and still is, and is borne out daily, that the further you travel from Christian principles the more acceptable killing, slavery, and all other ill of the world becomes. Turning the blind eye so to speak. And it is generalizations like you state above, that the entire country is responsible for what a few did...it is that kind of mindset, like the other poster who thinks *Republicans* need to be destroyed. That kind of generalization is dangerous. Blaming an entire country, an entire group of people, for what a few do is not realistic. Not everyone in the country condoned everything. All through history you will see Christians spoke out against slavery, spoke out against what was happening with the Indians, spoke out against segregation, spoke out against abortion, and on and on and on. Perhap I should stop saying *this country* and say *the people in it.* *This country* was founded on Christian principles, and for a long time for the most part most of the people in it followed those principles. As time went on, fewer did. And somehow, the tide has completely turned and Christians are the enemy. But, I do stand corrected. America, the concept of America, has not chnaged. But the people in it most certainly have.
Excuse me again...
See my responses below.
You said: You need to read up on your history of this country.
I say: Right back at you. And you need to look deeply into books published 100 years ago as well as ones published in this century so you get the whole picture.
You said: Why does it matter what the origins of slavery were? The fact is, most of the founding fathers either owned slaves or families' had owned slaves. Washington owned hundreds of slaves, although he freed them as part of his will upon his death.
I say: I never said the founding fathers did not hold slaves. Re-read my post. I said that the original colonists did not hold slaves, and they did not. Jamestown was settled in 1607...slaves were introduced to this country around 1640, several years later. That is the truth and that is what I said. What matters about the origins of slavery is you want to condemn this country for holding slaves. I don't see you railing against Africa for starting the slave trade...if no slaves to sell, none would be bought. If you are going to rail against something, rail at the source. That is like blaming the school child for taking the drugs the dealer sold him.
You said: What do you mean, slavery came much later. Later than what?
I say: See my answer above.
You said: This country still condoned slavery for 100 years.
I say: Please do not say *this country condoned* because this country as a whole did NOT *condone.* Huge numbers of people did not own slaves. You know that. Only the more well to do folks could afford it. And through the years several thousand people did speak out about it and did what they could, and in case it escaped your attention, we finally fought a civil war in which one of the principles was to abolish slavery.
You sid:
As far as the founding fathers and our rights we protect here's some info:
It's important to differentiate the Constitution that the Founding Fathers cooked up from the Bill of Rights. Today when we think of the protections of the American system, we usually think of the shining example of ethics and goodness contained in the Bill of Rights. These are the first ten amendments to the Constitution. They are primarily the work of George Mason (1725-1792). He would have been a Founding Father because he was a delegate to the convention from Virginia, but he refused to sign the Constitution. He realized that it failed to protect individual liberties and failed to oppose slavery.
I say:
Excuse me, yet again, but isn't this the same George Mason who himself held slaves? Yes, he did. What he did was speak out about the slave trade, but he did not give up the slaves he already had. Don't know if he released them upon his death or not, like Washington did. He was holding slaves at the time he was criticizing the practice. Pardon me if I do not see that as the height of hypocrisy. And you are wrong,because the Constitution did not address slavery is NOT one of the reasons he did not sign it. You are correct that he did not sign it because he did not feel it addressed individual freedoms; but, in fact, he spoke OUT against including mention of slavery in the Constitution (probably because he owned slaves himself). Get your facts straight.
I can find no mention at all of the founding fathers lobbying against the Bill of Rights. Please supply me with the historical references.
You said: Mr. Mason lobbied against adoption of the Constitution just as many of the Founding Fathers lobbied against the Bill of Rights. Most of the Founding Fathers disapproved of giving ordinary citizens such liberties as freedom of religion, freedom from unreasonable search and torture, the right of free speech and so forth. In fact, when John Adams (1735-1826) was president (1797-1801), he took away freedom of speech.
I say: Well, what John Adams did then is no different than what the Democrats are trying to do now in shutting down talk radio. Same song, second verse. Get after them with equal zeal, I challenge you.
You said:
The Bill of Rights is really the people's voice against the Founding Fathers; liberty against conformity.
I say:
You are very liberal with your interpretation.
_________
You said:
As far as the Native American disgrace/slaughter, all I can say is you have an interesting viewpoint that is not shared by many indigenous. Bhoo-zhoo.
I say:
It is shared by many more than you are aware. But remember my friend...we are still entitled to our opinion, whether or not it agrees with yours. Question for you: if you still hold such emnity today, hundreds of years later, what could be done about it? You cannot turn back time. Most tribes are doing very well, have their own lands, pay no federal taxes on those lands, and are among some of the more well-to-do among us. If the Nation does not share that wealth properly with the tribe, then the people should take it up with the Nation, which many of us are doing. Native Americans did not just suffer at the hands of white men. They have also suffered a great deal at the hands of their own, and that has nothing to do with this country and everything to do with human beings. There are the good and bad among us, always have been, always will be...in every culture, every population, until the end of time. And dwelling in the past does nothing to help. Learn from the past, yes; but do not dwell there.
And try to get your information from several sources. Study for yourself, research for yourself. I learned long ago that is necessary.
Democrats
...and I sure DO NOT appreciate union busters. This country has gone beyond "dog eat dog." Bush wanted to spend $$$$ for research on Mars?! I'm all for new discoveries and learning new things, but come on...let's do ALL that we can for the problems here on earth and her inhabitants first.
Excuse me....
Thou shalt not kill - there is a federal law against murder. Thou shalt not steal - there is a federal law against stealing...you will have to do better than separation of church and state. That being said, the words "separation of church and state" are not in the Constitution. It says that there shall be no state-sponsored religion. To my knowledge there is no religion called United States of America. Did that happen while I wasn't looking? Funny to me that the government can pull many laws right out of the Bible, but come to one that that doesn't suit the more liberal ones among us and they start yelling separation of church and state. Go figure.
That being said, most of the laws on the books today have "religious wacko" origins. This country was founded by "religious wackos," or was that missed in history class? Oh yes, I forgot...the more liberal among us stopped teaching that inconvenient truth. However, one can still do searches and read the original writings of the founding fathers...if one is really interested in the truth.
What would folks like in place of "religious wacko" laws? Just let everyone do whatever they want...kill you if you are annoying or a burden to them? Kill you if you are no longer wanted? Steal from you if you have something they want and can't afford to buy for themselves? America was basically a ""Christian theocracy in its infancy, meaning the basic laws all came straight from the Bible. It was also a democracy...the two are not mutually exclusive. And there it goes again, lumping Christians and any other religious group into one group of "religious wackos." Extremely divisive and unnecessary. And, it looks to me like it is not the "religious wackos" on this site who are going bananas when someone doesn't agree with them....
Excuse me?
Excuse me but I do not believe
I bashed SAHMs. I think it should be a personal decision and one should not be looked down upon if they choose to work or choose to stay home. You have no right to bash her any more than she has right to bash you for staying home. I work out of my home because my husband and I need this extra income I bring in. My sister-in-law stays home with her kids and my brother works his @ss off trying to support them and he hardly ever gets to see his kids because he is supporting his family. He wants to spend more time with them but he cannot. So why is it fair for him to never see his kids to support his family working 2 jobs? My mom stayed at home and I hardly ever saw my dad because he was working to support us. Don't you think that sucked with me never seeing my dad or was that okay because my mom was there. If my sister-in-law would get a job, my brother wouldn't have to work 2 jobs and he could see his kids more. If my mom would have worked, my dad wouldn't have had to work that OT and I would have seen him more.
It is great that you can stay at home if that is what you choose to do, but don't bash others for their choice. It isn't like SP is up and walking out of the door to never see her kids again and they do have Todd Palin, their dad, to be with them.
Excuse me, but I think that
"Divine and perfect order" originates in God and only God.
Excuse you. lol. nm
nm
The democrats did not cause
this mess. And it was not caused by the people who were extended credit. Here is part of what caused it:
Banks issued subprime mortgages to people at a rate they could initially afford but which would increase to an inflated rate after a period of time. Those banks then immediately sold those mortgages at the inflated rates to other banks. These adjustable rate loans were misrepresented to a lot of homebuyers, especially first-time homebuyers. A lot of them didn’t realize, for example, they could not refinance for a period of time without huge penalties. Then the market started to decline and many of those homeowners found themselves upside down on their loans and could not refinance. Their interest rates had ballooned to rates they could no longer afford. The banks who were sold the loans at inflated prices could not afford to lower the rates for the homebuyers because they had bought the loans based on the inflated interest rates and would lose money if they did. People lost their homes and the banks lost the amount of the loans they had bought. But the banks (and the CEOs) that initiated those loans walked away with a great deal of money.
It was because of greed. And the deregulation that the republicans have passed over the years allowed it to happen.
Here are some other facts:
Since 1960 the nation's deficit has risen during every republican administration and dropped during every democratic administration.
The standard of living and income has improved for everyone in the country during every democratic administration since 1960, EVEN for the top 1% of the country. It has gotten worse for everyone in the country during every republican administration EXCEPT the top 1%.
Please tell me how you think the democrats...sm
contributed to the economy diving in the last 2 years. Specifics please. The economy takes way longer than that to do anything. No economic bills have been passed. The last 8 years of the Bush presidency has put us into the tank. Stop parroting the party line. Lets be honest here. John McCain offers nothing better.
Yes, well, those would be democrats as well
--
Any excuse at all
Black Republican Activist Bob Parks predicts riots will ensue if Obama wins or loses the election.
Parks, a syndicated writer, talk show host, and Republican activist, lists his reasons in the video, Obama’s America: Win or Lose, as to why he believes an Obama loss would mean “things could get ugly on a grand scale” or that an Obama win would give ‘”punks” the “greatest of reasons” to take to the streets:
“Now what occasionally happens when a city’s team wins a championship? We have riots! There’s looting, hooliganism, vandalism, drunk and disorderliness, assaults, and sometimes injury or death, and this wouldn’t be about one single city. Can you imagine the potential for nationwide rioting by punks, looking an excuse and now having the greatest of reasons to do so?”
Excuse me? I was not the one
who posted that other post about being jealous. So please do not attack me when you don't know what I have or have not posted.
Well, excuse me! I am too new to this
board to be familiar with all the vernacular. I was just responding to a remark made by a poster earlier who spewed out a hateful personal attack on another poster, and someone asked the Moderator to ban that person from the board!
Excuse me....put yourself out there??
Because you ask a simple question that merits a background check and having your life made public? He is not RUNNING for ANYthing!! Do you hear yourself? The more posts I see like this the more I understand the way most socialist countries end up going....freaking amazing.
Excuse you, but...
he has already said that yes, he does fall into the over 250,000 bracket, and while noone likes to pay taxes, he would be paying taxes imposed on that bracket.
Excuse me?
Who gives a rip about medical records. I want proof this guy was born in the USA. I want proof before he can be elected president. Who cares about Palin's health. McCain may have skin cancer, but it is not as bad as lung cancer. Did you know Obama smokes? Shoot he could pass away from lung cancer before McCain's skin cancer. Honestly, cannot compare medical records to birth certificate.
Democrats
 Obama, if elected the next President of the US, will change how other peoples look at the Americans: He will restore respect and admiration for the American people that was lost during these last 8 years. And the world will see that the American people do not discriminate (at least not the Democrats).
Can't think of anything that would help democrats more
Skip the landslide. It would be an avalanche.
That's the best excuse you have for the
nm
Please excuse me....(sm)
I saw scripture quoted and many references to God on here, so I assumed this must be the faith board. Funny how you didn't have a problem with that.
Excuse me?
Of course, we have the enigma of being home to some of the biggest crooks in the world (Bush, Cheney, Delay, Perry, etc.) but this is a beautiful state. Do not associate this beautiful state with the ugly criminals.
Obviously so do Democrats. nm
*
Like the democrats
don't do the same thing. When are people going to realize that both parties are just as crooked as the other here? When the dems had control of congress during Bush's presidency, did the dems do anything positive for our economy then. Of course they didn't.....why.....because they would hate to do something good during Bush's presidency because he might get credit for it. This goes both ways and your post is very one sided. We all need to wake up and realize that the only people we can trust is ourselves and stop putting so much faith in either party. Government as a whole has screwed us over and I am sick and tired of putting all the blame on one party. They all had their greedy little hands in the cookie jar and that is the reason we are in the mess we are in.
Excuse me, but I think YOU are the one with the
Whenver someone posts something you don't agree with you are quick to jump on and insult them. You have a very nasty attitude and if you don't believe me, go down the board and read some of YOUR comments. You are the one who invites attacks by your nasty attitude and name calling.
Talk about the pot calling the kettle black...
Excuse me.
Most of us have 401Ks and are anything but "gleeful" that 50% of the value has been wiped out. Pointing out that Obama and his Treasury chief had a significant role in the enormous drop in the market since inauguration day has nothing to do with "glee". It's just simple fact.
And even the Dems wondered when Geithner was going to get off his bony a$$ and show us the "boy wonder" that he was said to be - and isn't. Meanwhile, the markets continued to tumble. There's no disputing any of this.
And the markets have a very, VERY long way to go before any of us get back what we've lost, so I would kindly suggest that you save any and ALL market-related comments for that moment. You should know, thought, that it might be a very long time coming.
It took decades for the market to recover what it lost in the Depression. Meanwhile, of course, there were "up days" and "down days" and "up months" and "down months"...and if you had been living then, it would have been extremely foolish for you to make anything at all out of the little rallies that occurred. Don't make the same mistake here or you'll only make yourself look foolish.
Excuse me again. A little boy wants a
boyfriend and that makes him gay? Little boys have need of friends, maybe not so much as little girls, but they do have need of male friends. Where was the little boy's father at that age?
democrats and
Pace your rage. It has only been 100 days.
excuse me but....
This midwesterner wants to know, did you just lump people who do vote Republican and those who read the Bible with people who are illiterate, who do not get past 6th grade and do marry at age 16???
They had been looking for an excuse....(sm)
to do that anyway....and this would have been it.
excuse me?
What do you mean get back to draft registration? Draft registration is still enforced..... illegally I might add. In this state,whenever a male registers for a drivers license, unknowing to him, he is automatically registered into the draft.....ILLEGAL! ILLEGAL!
That is called forced servitude. Have you forgotten Vietnam? All that forced servitude didn't do a d@mn thing but cause the slaughter of tens of thousands of innocent BOYS!
No, your military will not be good! You want people sent to war that do NOT want to be there and do NOT believe in whatever war our government has gotten us into this time? Pleeeze! Where do you come up with all this crap! I would much rather have individuals that have signed into the military of their own free will...which is exactly how legally it is supposed to be. Forced servitude is illegal and I certainly don't want someone out there that doesn't want to be!!
Heheh!! I use that excuse
all the time...cream filled doughnut why not, going to die soon anyway...dentist? Heck no - don't need these teeth much longer...term life insurance? Load up on that boys, we aren't going to make it to 70 anyway!
Heh, I can laugh but it's really kind of pathetic. I had a sister die at 52 of breast cancer nobody knew she had (walking, talking, eating, working right up to 3 days before she died!)- no health insurance of course, couldn't afford the COBRA when she left her spiffy management job of 30 years. That's life in the only industrialized nation in the world not to offer universal health care to its citizens. In other words, don't be stupid or irresponsible enough to get sick at the wrong time!
Otherwise live well and enjoy yourself while you can - I certainly do:)
Excuse me, but he did meet with her
I mean, if she's hated him for so long like she now claims then why didn't she tell that to his face the first time. Oh, the first time she was singing his praises. That's just blatantly odd. Most of us never get one appointment with the Pres., but this chick thinks she deserves a second one just because she's changed her wishy-washy mind because her son died in the military service he SIGNED UP FOR!! As John Stossel says, "give me a break!"
LOL, who lies, not democrats
That is what dems say? LOL. I ask you to check out one of the top posts, i.e., Rush and Olbermann..Reality check starts attacking the poster, Olbermann, MSNBC, saying they lie, even though the transcript is on the web, also printed in his article, and on video..yet they are lying right?? and its the dems that always scream that people are lying, right? I thought up a new name for neocons after reading about that Xtian..NOT..Robertson stating Chavez should be eliminated. Neocons are the American Taliban. You are just as bad. If everyone does not think, act, believe, live like you, then they are wrong and lying..You guys are ridiculous..
Democrats/Liberals
Amen,sm! I noticed that you used one word in one of your responses that is the tell-tale sign distingishing conservatives from liberals, that word being logic. Liberals have no logic and cannot reason, else why would they support Bill Clinton going to war in Bosnia/Yugoslavia when no attack at all had been made on our country and deploy our troops all over the world for no good reason, then pounce on President Bush who is only engaging us in this war on terror to protect all of us here at home, as well as those of our loved ones who have to travel the world over for companies they work for or those who serve our government in various capacities all over the world? Prior to 911, we had been attacked 19 times by terrorists over a period of 20 years or so and not one single president but Ronald Reagan and finally George W. Bush had the gumption to be a real leader and respond, with very noticeable results I might add. Does anyone remember Moamar Kadafi and how his terrorism stopped after President Reagan took care of him?? Bin Ladin and his terrorist organization had attacked us so many times without any response that he called the United States a paper tiger, believing his dreams of total destruction of our country were an inevitable event. I suppose the liberals prefer having our schools, supermarkets, shopping malls, sports arenas, etc., etc., be the targets for terrorists rather than following the advice of every top military general I can think of (save Wesley Clark who obviously has political ambitions)and fight the terrorists where they are amassed rather than fighting them here. To say that Saddam Hussein had no connection to terrorist organizations is nonsense. He hated us with the same vitreolic hatred Bin Ladin had for us and would have loved nothing better than to see us go down. In addition, he was paying a $25,000 reward for each Israeli killed in a terrorist attack. He was a WMD himself, just as Adolph Hitler was. You don't have to possess WMDs to be a WMD; the result is the same. Immediately after the 9-11 attack, 27 Al Qaeda terrorists were rounded up in the very small community in which I live (makes one wonder how many were in the larger cities and communities), and believe me, I feel a lot better knowing that they, along with their terrorist network, have been put out of commission under President Bush's leadership. As of today, our military has brilliantly performed the task of reducing the entire terorrist organization to about 17,000 in number. Quite a feat!! God bless them all!! I recently heard that a letter from a top terrorist leader was intercepted and stated, We are losing the war. I have much more I could say, but I'll save it for another time as it is getting late.
Excuse me, starcat said it
x
|
