Her true reason is to attack.

• Divided and Conquered - sirpercy
  • Yes, but to many Cons, Bush can do no wrong. - If he ordered them to jump - sm
    • For someone who "laments" civil debate - sirpercy
      • I personally don't hate Republicans. - PK
        • Pure hysteria, much of what you say. - Nina
          • The flames have begun. They were started by you. - PK
            • Libs cons. It's just an abbreviation. sm - Democrat
              • Sure it is...that's why she says CON not cons and it's all in caps. sm - sm
              • Her true reason is to attack. - PK
                • No, my real reason was to point out your duplicity. Which I did. - Nina
        • Typos and mistakes - sorry - PK
      • It was not meant as an attack, I - was merely trying to point out - sm
        • Words can come off sounding like an attack, because these messages lack..sm - Democrat
          • I feel the very same way about Hillary. - PK
          • Yes, I agree with you, Democrat, on all you said. - nm
          • Oh, I see now that was to Sir Percy. sm - Democrat
  • I agree with you Sir Percy. sm - Democrat

The messages you are viewing are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select the boards given in left menu

The more McCain/Palin's ratings are going up, the more the democrats are panicking, and the attacks about Palin are becoming more vicious - AND nobody is posting anything positive about Obama, like "I'm really excited about his health care plan or his energy plan or his housing fix plan or 100 other reasons we should be voting for someone.  No, nothing positive about him...AND I'm not even hearing anything negative against McCain's plan.  It's just vicious rumors, lies, and conjectures about Sarah Palin.  Let's see.  I've heard she hunts, she's for killing innocent soldiers and civilians in Iraq, she has a tanning bed, her daughter's pregnant, she didn't answer questions the way you would answer them (which in all fairness to her the interview was a bait & trap situation - especially when half the country was asking "what part is he asking her about?").  So for all those who say she didn't get it, neither did half the country (but those must be the people who cling to their guns and religion).  Let's see...what else.  She's selling her baby on e-bay, the father of her daughter's baby is skum, she believes in God, etc, etc.  Oh yes, the best one was someone didn't like her because she is pretty and was in a beauty pagent (although I can't decide whether that is the best or that someone believes she was selling her baby on e-bay).  Yet you refuse to list any of her good qualities like she cut out pork spending, she balanced the budget, she stands up to the big guy, she gave refunds to all Alaskan citizens who paid too much in money to the oil executives, she's smart about energy and she's for drilling here in the states (which will cut our gas and oil prices in half), and the numerous other good things she has done.  I've heard she's not experienced (but you won't admit that neither is Obama). Then of course when someone posts something positive about her you jump down their backs and are just really nasty.  And then what kind of comments do I hear about McCain?  He doesn't use the computer (someone was actually complaining about him not sending out emails himself on September 11th), and someone else was making fun of him because he doesn't comb his hair.  I hear that and think that there are people who have small minds.  He can't do either because he was beaten without mercy and he can't lift his arms up to do these activities (and you have the audacity to make fun of him for that?)  But you know what?  At least he can still put his hand over his heart when the pledge of allegience is being said and the national anthem is being played. 

You know, if your going to say something negative about someone at least have a comeback with something negative that is halfway intelligent and counter it with something positive from the candidate you support.

And for petes sake, use John McCain's real name, not the phony acronyms you like to use.  He was in a POW camp for five years beaten til near death every day.  He's earned the respect to at least call him by his real name.  Whether or not you hate him so much, he is not Bush and he is not more of the same.  His policies and voting record proves differently.  You can't say he voted the same as Bush because Bush doesn't vote.  Anything that's been voted on that you want to blame Bush for you need to take a look at the democrat congress.  Their the ones voting, and its the democrats who have stopped the impeachment hearing for Bush.  Why????  McCain's policies, health care plan, his reform plan, his economy plan, and everything else about what he will do when he becomes president is different than what Bush has done.  Bush is Bush, McCain is McCain.  If anyone is to be compared to Bush it would be Obama because the people who are directing Bush are also the same group that is directing Obama.

So, can we please be civilized adults, and come up with hard facts before accusing one candidate of something that is obviously false.  Stick to issues and no rumors.

Can we get the political board back to the true purpose of this board – to share opinions of why we like our candidate.  Not bash and cut down others because they don’t agree with you.

I stayed away from this board for the past couple days because anyone who had anything positive to say about Sarah Palin got slammed, bashed, kicked down, etc.  After awhile I found it all too draining, and was not seeing any reason to come.  Yes, I did see some of it towards people who favored Barack Obama, but if you read the posts again it is mostly towards anyone who favored Sarah Palin/John McCain.

I thought the political board was for posting information regarding politics and candidates.  What I have seen for the past few days is that it has been an attack board.  Especially if you have anything positive you want to share about Sarah Palin.  You say something good about her and you get attacked, you answer back, and you get attacked more, and then when you get mad and pretty much say stop attacking me, they come back with this “Geez, I’m allowed to have an opinion”.

Another thing I am tired of seeing is the slanderous, hate filled, really off the wall comments about Sarah Palin.  The latest was something about her daughter actually had her baby.  Talk about just bizarre comments.  I thought what’s next, she’s an alien from another planet?  The more I kept reading the more the comments were getting just really weird and bizarre.  Of course nobody ever having any proof of any of these allegations.  I then came to realize that the posters were just trying to get a fight going.

I also saw posts that had nothing to do with politics but attacking a poster named Sam.  Again, probably trying to get another fight going for no good reason and on things that have nothing to do whatsoever with politics.  I’ve read “Sam is like an annoying nat that you sway away”, “Sam, please let me know where you work” or “she must have her quota” or “sam is to the politics board as oracle is to the”  This childish rhetoric is getting old.  I’m not defending sam she is a big girl and I can see by her posts she can take care of herself, but my point is that this has nothing to do with politics.  If you want a fight maybe you could request that the administrator create a separate “fight and degrade” section.

I’ve read the administrators post a couple different times called Beware of Flaming.  She/he said as long as we realize that not everyone is going to agree we shouldn’t wear our feelings on our sleeves and a little more oversight on here would be good.  Let people express his or her opinion and move on.  If you don’t like someone just ignore that person. “It’s not rocket science, you know” (I liked that statement)

I consider posting on this board a privilege and not a right.  If you don’t agree with something and you post that you don’t agree and state the facts why (and are civilized about it) that’s one thing, but when you bash and degrade others without showing proof and just want to start fights and belittle others it just seems a bit juvenile to me.

I come to the politics board to hear ideas and stuff (facts) about the candidates.  That is how I’m learning about each one, but I don’t want to read people attack other posters for no good reason.  I'd like to hear about Obama/Biden & McCain/Palin, but I want to hear facts.

If you like to fight so much why don’t you pick on people that you can fight to face to face. 

his own personal reasons.

http://www.tompaine.com/articles/20050620/why_george_went_to_war.php

The Downing Street memos have brought into focus an essential question: on what basis did President George W. Bush decide to invade Iraq? The memos are a government-level confirmation of what has been long believed by so many: that the administration was hell-bent on invading Iraq and was simply looking for justification, valid or not.

Despite such mounting evidence, Bush resolutely maintains total denial. In fact, when a British reporter asked the president recently about the Downing Street documents, Bush painted himself as a reluctant warrior. "Both of us didn't want to use our military," he said, answering for himself and British Prime Minister Blair. "Nobody wants to commit military into combat. It's the last option."

Yet there's evidence that Bush not only deliberately relied on false intelligence to justify an attack, but that he would have willingly used any excuse at all to invade Iraq. And that he was obsessed with the notion well before 9/11—indeed, even before he became president in early 2001.

In interviews I conducted last fall, a well-known journalist, biographer and Bush family friend who worked for a time with Bush on a ghostwritten memoir said that an Iraq war was always on Bush's brain.

"He was thinking about invading Iraq in 1999," said author and Houston Chronicle journalist Mickey Herskowitz. "It was on his mind. He said, 'One of the keys to being seen as a great leader is to be seen as a commander-in-chief.' And he said, 'My father had all this political capital built up when he drove the Iraqis out of Kuwait and he wasted it.' He went on, 'If I have a chance to invade…, if I had that much capital, I'm not going to waste it. I'm going to get everything passed that I want to get passed and I'm going to have a successful presidency.'"

Bush apparently accepted a view that Herskowitz, with his long experience of writing books with top Republicans, says was a common sentiment: that no president could be considered truly successful without one military "win" under his belt. Leading Republicans had long been enthralled by the effect of the minuscule Falklands War on British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher's popularity, and ridiculed Democrats such as Jimmy Carter who were reluctant to use American force. Indeed, both Reagan and Bush's father successfully prosecuted limited invasions (Grenada, Panama and the Gulf War) without miring the United States in endless conflicts.

Herskowitz's revelations illuminate Bush's personal motivation for invading Iraq and, more importantly, his general inclination to use war to advance his domestic political ends. Furthermore, they establish that this thinking predated 9/11, predated his election to the presidency and predated his appointment of leading neoconservatives who had their own, separate, more complex geopolitical rationale for supporting an invasion.

Conversations With Bush The Candidate

Herskowitz—a longtime Houston newspaper columnist—has ghostwritten or co-authored autobiographies of a broad spectrum of famous people, including Reagan adviser Michael Deaver, Mickey Mantle, Dan Rather and Nixon cabinet secretary John B. Connally. Bush's 1999 comments to Herskowitz were made over the course of as many as 20 sessions together. Eventually, campaign staffers—expressing concern about things Bush had told the author that were included in the manuscript—pulled the project, and Bush campaign officials came to Herskowitz's house and took his original tapes and notes. Bush communications director Karen Hughes then assumed responsibility for the project, which was published in highly sanitized form as A Charge to Keep.

The revelations about Bush's attitude toward Iraq emerged during two taped sessions I held with Herskowitz. These conversations covered a variety of matters, including the journalist's continued closeness with the Bush family and fondness for Bush Senior—who clearly trusted Herskowitz enough to arrange for him to pen a subsequent authorized biography of Bush's grandfather, written and published in 2003.

I conducted those interviews last fall and published an article based on them during the final heated days of the 2004 campaign. Herskowitz's taped insights were verified to the satisfaction of editors at the Houston Chronicle, yet the story failed to gain broad mainstream coverage, primarily because news organization executives expressed concern about introducing such potent news so close to the election. Editors told me they worried about a huge backlash from the White House and charges of an "October Surprise."

Debating The Timeline For War

But today, as public doubts over the Iraq invasion grow, and with the Downing Street papers adding substance to those doubts, the Herskowitz interviews assume singular importance by providing profound insight into what motivated Bush—personally—in the days and weeks following 9/11. Those interviews introduce us to a George W. Bush, who, until 9/11, had no means for becoming "a great president"—because he had no easy path to war. Once handed the national tragedy of 9/11, Bush realized that the Afghanistan campaign and the covert war against terrorist organizations would not satisfy his ambitions for greatness. Thus, Bush shifted focus from Al Qaeda, perpetrator of the attacks on New York and Washington. Instead, he concentrated on ensuring his place in American history by going after a globally reviled and easily targeted state run by a ruthless dictator.

The Herskowitz interviews add an important dimension to our understanding of this presidency, especially in combination with further evidence that Bush's focus on Iraq was motivated by something other than credible intelligence. In their published accounts of the period between 9/11 and the March 2003 invasion, former White House Counterterrorism Coordinator Richard Clarke and journalist Bob Woodward both describe a president single-mindedly obsessed with Iraq. The first anecdote takes place the day after the World Trade Center collapsed, in the Situation Room of the White House. The witness is Richard Clarke, and the situation is captured in his book, Against All Enemies.

On September 12th, I left the Video Conferencing Center and there, wandering alone around the Situation Room, was the President. He looked like he wanted something to do. He grabbed a few of us and closed the door to the conference room. "Look," he told us, "I know you have a lot to do and all…but I want you, as soon as you can, to go back over everything, everything. See if Saddam did this. See if he's linked in any way…"

I was once again taken aback, incredulous, and it showed. "But, Mr. President, Al Qaeda did this."

"I know, I know, but…see if Saddam was involved. Just look. I want to know any shred…" …

"Look into Iraq, Saddam," the President said testily and left us. Lisa Gordon-Hagerty stared after him with her mouth hanging open.

Similarly, Bob Woodward, in a CBS News 60 Minutes interview about his book, Bush At War, captures a moment, on November 21, 2001, where the president expresses an acute sense of urgency that it is time to secretly plan the war with Iraq. Again, we know there was nothing in the way of credible intelligence to precipitate the president's actions.

Woodward: "President Bush, after a National Security Council meeting, takes Don Rumsfeld aside, collars him physically and takes him into a little cubbyhole room and closes the door and says, 'What have you got in terms of plans for Iraq? What is the status of the war plan? I want you to get on it. I want you to keep it secret.'"

Wallace (voiceover): Woodward says immediately after that, Rumsfeld told Gen. Tommy Franks to develop a war plan to invade Iraq and remove Saddam—and that Rumsfeld gave Franks a blank check.

Woodward: "Rumsfeld and Franks work out a deal essentially where Franks can spend any money he needs. And so he starts building runways and pipelines and doing all the necessary preparations in Kuwait specifically to make war possible."

Bush wanted a war so that he could build the political capital necessary to achieve his domestic agenda and become, in his mind, "a great president." Blair and the members of his cabinet, unaware of the Herskowitz conversations, placed Bush's decision to mount an invasion in or about July of 2002. But for Bush, the question that summer was not whether, it was only how and when. The most important question, why, was left for later.

Eventually, there would be a succession of answers to that question: weapons of mass destruction, links to Al Qaeda, the promotion of democracy, the domino theory of the Middle East. But none of them have been as convincing as the reason George W. Bush gave way back in the summer of 1999.

every single poster on this board.  You are rude, crude, obnoxious, insulting and totally intolerant.  I realize these are considered compliments in your narrow-minded circles, but most reasonable Americans don't care for people who behave as you insist on behaving.

How's it feel to be treated the way you treat others?

Nuff said.

consider you a threat.  Unfortunately, I just find your repetitive posts mind-numbingly feeble.  You look up a word on Google like socialist, read the two-line definition and then post it over and over and over.  You have no depth of knowledge on any of the subjects discussed here and so your posts are absolutely worthless.  It is like having to tolerate a homely little first-grader at a book club discussing Shakesphere.  You think you are cute and smart, but the adults loathe you.

You're disturbed because I proved (yet again) that she's a liar, but you're not disturbed that she maliciously attacks each and every single poster who dares to even THINK about disagreeing with her?

Tells me pretty much all I need to know about you. 

If you like liars and bullies, go back to the Conservative boad.

This president has ignored every single thing ever suggested to him, even as it regards terrorism.  I wonder what the terrorists will be planning for us in the future and how much information and knowledge they've learned from this about our weak spots.  They must see American frustration with Bush's incompetence, and they must really be enjoying that.  This is AMERICA.  We're supposed to have our act together.

Here we go again - Rove's tactic of personal attacks on those who bring forth damaging information. Media matters states inaccuracies of the press on both sides.  They back their statements up with proof and facts.  You can argue they are "left" "right" "middle" or "ovoid" but they still present information and back it up with verifiable facts.

Sarah Palin for her lack of experience just kill me here.  You discredit all the experience she has by saying that being governor means nothing when previous presidents were governors prior to their presidency.  She has run a state and has done a successful job at it and yet you Obama supports refuse to see that.  You feel more compelled to discuss her clothes or how she should stay home with the kids instead of running for office.  Which is a horribly sexist thing to say. 

You refuse to see anything positive she has done in her career and cry that she lacks experience and yet you are so blind to see that Barrack Obama has very little experience himself.  He has climbed the ladder through the help of various radicals and crooks.  Obama has all these associations with radicals and racists people and you see nothing wrong with that?  He has requested more spending for earmarks and pork in 4 years than John McCain has during his whole career.  Obama wants to spend more of OUR money. 

Government has really messed things up.  Why do we want bigger government when government has already failed us?  Yet here we are putting our trust in a man who has questionable associations just because he promises change.....change that he can't possibly deliver on and if he does......there goes the country.  He wants more government spending, higher taxes, and bigger government. 

I'm sorry but I want smaller government, less government spending, and don't raise taxes during a recession.

biological attack.  Or a flu pandemic.  Lots of scenarios available for his use. 

I share your fears 100%.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2008/11/20/pentagon-cyber-siege-unprecedented-attack/

The Pentagon has suffered from a cyber attack so alarming that it has taken the unprecedented step of banning the use of external hardware devices, such as flash drives and DVD's, FOX News has learned.

The attack came in the form of a global virus or worm that is spreading rapidly throughout a number of military networks.

"We have detected a global virus for which there has been alerts, and we have seen some of this on our networks," a Pentagon official told FOX News. "We are now taking steps to mitigate the virus."

The official could not reveal the source of the attack because that information remains classified.

"Daily there are millions of scans of the GIG, but for security reasons we don't discuss the number of actual intrusions or attempts, or discuss specific measures commanders in the field may be taking to protect and defend our networks," the department said in an official statement. 

Military computers are often referred to as part of the Global Information Grid, or GIG, a system composed of 17 million computers, many of which house classified or sensitive information.

FOX News obtained a copy of one memo sent out last week to an Army division within the Pentagon warning of the cyber attack.

"Due to the presence of commercial malware, CDR USSTRATCOM has banned the use of removable media (thumb drives, CDRs/DVDRs, floppy disks) on all DoD networks and computers effective immediately."

smallpox, because after 4 years, we STILL don't have enough vaccines to protect Americans.  That's something that should have been a priority, but you're right.  He doesn't care how many people die under his watch.  He said so himself regarding his legacy:  He'll be dead. 

I'm sure not celebrating what he does.  All I can do is hold my breath for the next 3 years and hope he can do no further HARM of a permanent nature.

I wonder how many American deaths he's going to be responsible for through neglect and obsession with Iraq before the end of 2008.

And yes, I'm angry because I think we're morally STUCK in Iraq.  Bush broke it, and we will all be fixing it for generations to come.

That's the most I will say.  I don't want them running to the moderator.  

So if someone called me a big, fat, smelly, ugly, loud-mouthed, foul hag that could qualify as an observation (in your words) and would therefore be acceptable?  I mean, technically someone could say they OBSERVED these traits in me.  When does something cross the line and become a personal attack?

My take on all this is that if it originates from one of the C-posters it's an observation.  If it originates from an L-poster it's an attack.  Not always, but in general.  Could be due to the whole political board system have a very very far right-leaning slant........