Who is YOUR GUY (or girl) for 2008?

[LOVEMYIRISH]

I will never agree with your point of view on Gitmo. The very large majority of people there are not innocent.

They were soldiers on a Battlefield. How do they NOT get covered by the Geneva Convention? (which we hold dear)

 

[SuperBowlIVBaby]

Clinton had a plan to "roll back" Al Qaeda. I guess he realized that plan one day before Bush took over. If He had the plan and never did anything about it then I place even more blame on him for 9/11 and the situation we are in. He is a coward and a political hack. If he had a pland which he should hae had in1993 at the latest then why didn;t he do anything. Seems to me that Clinton, NOT BUSH, is a murder! String him and his wife up by their balls (and yes they are both male)!

 

[LOVEMYIRISH]

Clinton had a plan to "roll back" Al Qaeda. I guess he realized that plan one day before Bush took over. If He had the plan and never did anything about it then I place even more blame on him for 9/11 and the situation we are in. He is a coward and a political hack. If he had a pland which he should hae had in1993 at the latest then why didn;t he do anything. Seems to me that Clinton, NOT BUSH, is a murder! String him and his wife up by their balls (and yes they are both male)!

Actually, if you read the article you will see that is not the case.

http://www.time.com/time/covers/1101020812/story.html

 

[LOVEMYIRISH]

Seems to me that Clinton, NOT BUSH, is a murder! String him and his wife up by their balls

Neither is a murderer per se...

 

[tommy]

as long as a bush isnt in office ill be happy

 

[marv81s]

alright LOVEMYIRISH, you made some very good points on my rant, very good arguements indeed, but lets get some things straight here, first off, if Clinton was so worried about Al Queda back in his day, why did he cut our military nearly in half, his reasoning behind those massive defense cuts was because "there is no logical threat to the United States" Those cuts and the massive amount of base closings are a large part of the reason why our military is so dependent on the reserves now. Bin Laden's location was given to Clinton on a few occassions, each time he was passed up. Now granted Bush Jr had him in Tora Bora, but for some reason we let others go in when we should have. I am getting pretty damn frustrated by Pakistan playing both sides of the fence in this war, but that is not what we are talking about.

I didn't say IRan and Syria are funding the insurgency, I said they are not helping matters, I am sure they are providing arms and they are also performing some of the attacks against Sunni's to help fule a civil war in iraq. So lets not dismiss Iran and Syria's involvement in this conflict. Your totally missing the point on the shells with chemical weapons, they were still a threat, I and every other person understands that they weren't the reason for the invasion, but the chemical weapons that Saddam had and his obsession with obtaining a nuke were, because everyone knew what that would mean to that region and you must even know that he would sell a weapon like that to a terrorist organization.

How many prisoners died in Abu Grahib from those pictures. You think making a person stand with a dog coller around their neck is torture? While it is stupid what those reservist did, especially taking pictures of it, those pictures were hazing in its truest definition of the term. I think at the most, 3 prisoners died in our custody at that prison. My heart breaks for those that tried to kill our soldiers. I would say what happened at that prison under Saddam's reigm is far less severe.

I understand that a lot of soldiers have been injured in this war, but once again, considering this is urban warfare, the number is far less than what the generals and other brass were expecting. Whether your willing to admit it or not, the vast majority of our men and women believe in what they are fighting for over there. I am not even going to try and convince you that the media coverage of this war is blantantly biased. The politicians have f'd this war up from the get go, we agree on that. Same thing happened during Korea and Vietnam, you would think the idiots would have learned from those mistakes.

Clinton had plenty of time to not spend like Bush is. He wasn't fighting two wars, he didn't have the two huge storms batter our gulf coast, I agree that we had a dumbass in charge of FEMA who had no business being in that position, but I am just talking about the cost of those two hurricanes. To compare what Bush is going through compared to Clinton during their terms as president is a non issue. How can Bush not spend the amount of money that he has so far. What do you do, cut spending to the military in a time of war? Do you not even try to beef up national security to defend your country after two of the most viscious attacks against us? After the jerkoffs at the UN call you out for not giving enough for the Indonesia disaster, do you not give more?

The message I was making was that many americans and others are getting inpatient with the process in Iraq with their gov't. It takes time, a democracy isn't made in 5 years, especially in that part of the world where you have a country like Iran that wants nothing more than for it to fail. I believe our true intentions is to have Iraq succeed so we do have an ally, is that likely to happen, not if we continue on this current path that we are in and if people don't realize what is truely at stake over there.

I still think any president would have been successful during the time Clinton was president. He had a booming society that his policies had nothing to do with, he overspent on Gov't programs that are being taken advantage of, like Medicaid. While it has good intentions, it is a heavily abused systems. The tax breaks for higher education is one good thing, but everything else Clinton did during his presidency was a joke. Including giving some of our secrets to China. That is a fact by the way.

i love this discussion!!

 

[marv81s]

Actually, if you read the article you will see that is not the case.

http://www.time.com/time/covers/1101020812/story.html

You can't seriously be using time as a reference, you might as well use Liberal's R' Us. They are about as unbiased as Al Jeezera

 

[ShivaIrish]

You can't seriously be using time as a reference, you might as well use Liberal's R' Us. They are about as unbiased as Al Jeezera

Actually, what's wrong with Al Jeezera? I've never read or watched anything by them so I don't know much about them. Just curious.

 

[marv81s]

They were soldiers on a Battlefield. How do they NOT get covered by the Geneva Convention? (which we hold dear)

I think we actually agree on this point, so I am not sure what I said to make you type this out. I think I may have been misunderstood when I should have said, that these Gitmo's prisoners do not deserve a trial, they PROBABLY should go infront of a military tribunal, not a civilian court. They are not entitled to the same constitutional rights as you and I. I'll never understand why anybody in this country sticks up for these guys when they wouldn't hesitate to cut your throat, just for being an American.

 

[marv81s]

Actually, what's wrong with Al Jeezera? I've never read or watched anything by them so I don't know much about them. Just curious.

Please tell me your kidding!

 

[ShivaIrish]

no I'm not, but I'm not going to assume that just because they're based in the Middle East that they are horrible or good. That's why I was asking--I never watched it.

 

[marv81s]

no I'm not, but I'm not going to assume that just because they're based in the Middle East that they are horrible or good. That's why I was asking--I never watched it.

Well, l think the biggest fact that you can say about Al Jeezera is that they are blantantly Terrorist sympathizers. How is it that they always, ALWAYS, come into possession of all the tapes released by Al Qaeda? They have never shed a good light on USA. They do not help matters over in the middle east, I would even go as far to say that they are a recruiting tool for the terrorist organizations in the middle east.

 

[SuperBowlIVBaby]

marv81, spoken like a true Dem (although Shiva claims NOT to be one), what's so wrong with being a terrorist sympathizer. After all they are humans, too! Anyone, who sympathizes with the Arab world and their extremist views are the brain-washed and need not call Fox News biased. The world would be a much safer/better place without the Arab culture. And as much of a generalization as that is, until they clean up their religion/culture, it is a reasonable statement.

I'm Catholic and we have generated a pretty reputation over the past 10-15 years. And I accept that. Until we clean up our religion we should expect the criticism and bias that we get. I expect the same from the Islamic/Arab world. Clean you $%! up and we'll treat you differently. Until then, expect bombs to come ripping through your front door!

 

[LOVEMYIRISH]

first off, if Clinton was so worried about Al Queda back in his day, why did he cut our military nearly in half, his reasoning behind those massive defense cuts was because "there is no logical threat to the United States"[/QUOTE/

The reason to have those numbers was to fight a 2 front war: China and the USSR.

Those people are no longer needed. Notice how Bush did not try to rebuild the military back to the size? It is not needed.

Aircraft carrier groups are not exactly good for on the ground man-hunts.

Those cuts and the massive amount of base closings are a large part of the reason why our military is so dependent on the reserves now.

That is true. But again, you don't see Congress or the President rushing to change that do you? And they won't anytime soon...

Bin Laden's location was given to Clinton on a few occassions, each time he was passed up.

1) reportedly
2) there were two other times he thought he had him (Afghanistan and Sudan). He struck both places... Life is complicated.

Now granted Bush Jr had him in Tora Bora, but for some reason we let others go in when we should have.

Bush simply did not want to commit ground troups in Afghanistan in any large number. JUST LIKE IRAQ.

I am getting pretty damn frustrated by Pakistan playing both sides of the fence in this war, but that is not what we are talking about.

Well, its run by a dictator who was our enemy before 9/11...should be no surprise or frustration...he's only a tool in our game. AND HE KNOWS IT.

I am sure they are providing arms and they are also performing some of the attacks against Sunni's to help fule a civil war in iraq. So lets not dismiss Iran and Syria's involvement in this conflict.

Fair enough, I misunderstood your position. There is no doubt they are taking part overall.

Your totally missing the point on the shells with chemical weapons, they were still a threat, I and every other person understands that they weren't the reason for the invasion, but the chemical weapons that Saddam had and his obsession with obtaining a nuke were, because everyone knew what that would mean to that region and you must even know that he would sell a weapon like that to a terrorist organization.

And we had men on the ground BEFORE the war who could have gotten to them. In fact, many of them were inventoried and we are simply finding them AGAIN.

How many prisoners died in Abu Grahib from those pictures.

Pictures? 0. Tortune...a few at least.

You think making a person stand with a dog coller around their neck is torture?

That is the opinion of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA...not me. Bush. Your C-in-C. It is torture under the Geneva Convention...

While it is stupid what those reservist did, especially taking pictures of it, those pictures were hazing in its truest definition of the term. I think at the most, 3 prisoners died in our custody at that prison. My heart breaks for those that tried to kill our soldiers. I would say what happened at that prison under Saddam's reigm is far less severe.

This is not a relativist debate.

It's no more wrong to kill 1,000 in cold blood than it is to kill 10 in cold blood.

I understand that a lot of soldiers have been injured in this war, but once again, considering this is urban warfare, the number is far less than what the generals and other brass were expecting.

Yeah, 20,000+ is low. whee

Whether your willing to admit it or not, the vast majority of our men and women believe in what they are fighting for over there.

And that is what? REALLY?

How can Bush not spend the amount of money that he has so far.

ummm...easy? He spends like a drunken sailor. There is no spending bill to big for him.
$55M for an Amazon Rainforest Bio-Dome in Iowa? Fine.
$250M+ for a bridge to nowhere in Alaska? Fine.

What do you do, cut spending to the military in a time of war?

Cut pork barrel. Veto it. The last Highway Bill comes to mind.

I still think any president would have been successful during the time Clinton was president. He had a booming society that his policies had nothing to do with, he overspent on Gov't programs that are being taken advantage of, like Medicaid.

Easy to scoff at the guy who did well.

Medicaid?

OK, how about 440B for Medicare? Then threatening to fire the guy who releases the REAL number to Congress? - Bush

The tax breaks for higher education is one good thing, but everything else Clinton did during his presidency was a joke. Including giving some of our secrets to China. That is a fact by the way.

Joke? Jobs? Welfare reform? Education? Transportion? Missile Defense? Kosovo?

Please...

 

[SuperBowlIVBaby]

The fact is and was that this world became a much more dangerous place the second that the USSR disbanded. I remember studying multiple experts points of view on this back in the early 90s. It was common knowledge to even lay people like me. So, why didn't president Hilary Clinton and her husband Mr. Clinton know about it?

 

[irishwavend]

I don't know how you can say the Republicans can do better than Giuliani/ McCain...The goal is to win the election with viable candidates that people know about... Those two are visible and they are towards the middle...easily defeating any of the Democratic radicals. The closest to the middle that the Dems get is Lieberman. I would almost say Giuliani & the Georgia Republican who used to be a dem might be a good ticket.

Let's look at Giuliani for a second. Do you remember NYC before he was mayor? Just watch Ghostbusters II...It was an awful place...he did pretty well at cleaning it up, and he did pretty well in handling 9/11. Plus, again, he has visibility.

I am not a big fan of McCain, though, because he seems to go a little of the deep end sometimes, so I think he would be a good VP. Or, the GA guy, b/c he might help swing a couple of those middle votes over to the right.

We need a legit middle party, but we don't have that. Both sides are leaning towards the radical sides, which only creates big problems in the country. Then, you are left with a situation like the last election...Who is the better of two evils. We knew both guys were gonna suck, but which one wasn't gonna suck worse...Bush, in my opinion.

I want to the Republicans to win the election with people who have a good head on their shoulders, or if a Dem has to win, I hope it is Lieberman....Hillary, Kerry, & Obama are a serious joke. I do hope that the Dems own part of the bicameral legislature with the republicans owning the other half and the presidency. There have to be checks and balances, b/c the Dems do bring some good things to the table...one party cannot be left unchecked.

THE END

 

[SuperBowlIVBaby]

That was a great post , wave!

 

[LOVEMYIRISH]

The fact is and was that this world became a much more dangerous place the second that the USSR disbanded. I remember studying multiple experts points of view on this back in the early 90s. It was common knowledge to even lay people like me. So, why didn't president Hilary Clinton and her husband Mr. Clinton know about it?

Everyone knew about it. No one has done anything to date.

Fer chrissakes, Bush was calling Putin "Pooty-poot" until the last year or so. And that guy is dangerous...downright dangerous.

Tell me, what has BUSH done in this area? Nothing.

I agree with you that Clinton did not form a grand plan to deal with the dissolution of the USSR. And that failure to counter it's effects continues to this very day.

Unfortunately, we have lost our great leaders in Foreign policy...

When Condoleeza Rice is your Secretary of State, you know you have problems.

Bring back BAKER!!!!! (that's James Baker III for those of you playing at home...)

 

[ShivaIrish]

marv81, spoken like a true Dem (although Shiva claims NOT to be one), what's so wrong with being a terrorist sympathizer. After all they are humans, too! Anyone, who sympathizes with the Arab world and their extremist views are the brain-washed and need not call Fox News biased. The world would be a much safer/better place without the Arab culture. And as much of a generalization as that is, until they clean up their religion/culture, it is a reasonable statement.

I'm Catholic and we have generated a pretty reputation over the past 10-15 years. And I accept that. Until we clean up our religion we should expect the criticism and bias that we get. I expect the same from the Islamic/Arab world. Clean you $%! up and we'll treat you differently. Until then, expect bombs to come ripping through your front door!

Have you ever met an Arab or Muslim (they are not the same. FYI, the country with the largest population of Muslims is not an Arab one). I also did not even claim to sympathize with the Arab world, I'm just not going to condemn a population I don't understand, that has been treated as pawns by other countries for quite a while. Just don't take Fox at face value, check out the parts of Media Matters that refutes their claims and reports, and decide for yourself. Did you ever wonder about the real reasons of the Middle East? Is it perhaps because each side believes they are absolutely right, and will not hear the other side at all? Instead, do many view the other side as just "terrorsist". It's a vicious cycle that I don't want to be a part of. I would rather not base my foreign policy on prejudice, stereotypes, and ignorance.

 

[marv81s]

well, i can say that we can agree to disagree about the job Clinton did in office LOVEMYIRISH. I never met a person that claims to be right of center that thinks Clinton did half as good of a job as president that you believe he did. But whatever, that is fine, I think Clinton had all the right elements working for him, he had the internet boom, the explosion of tech stocks and dot com companies, he did alot more than 2 aircraft carriers by the way when he cut the military, but that neither here or there, they are building more modern ships and subs and aircraft now. and i don't believe the missle defense system went anywhere in clinton's eight years. You and I will never agree on alot of the issues we've been discussing, so good discussion, you got some good points and I love the verbal jabbing. Were never going to change our minds about how we feel, so good discussion, now lets continue with the countdown to Irish football, T minus 24 days!

 

[LOVEMYIRISH]

well, i can say that we can agree to disagree about the job Clinton did in office LOVEMYIRISH. I never met a person that claims to be right of center that thinks Clinton did half as good of a job as president that you believe he did.

Politics can trump reality. However, I know plenty of people to the right who find Clinton to be far better than Bush.

I rarely find people who think Bush the elder was better than Bush the younger...but I personally think he was.

But whatever, that is fine, I think Clinton had all the right elements working for him, he had the internet boom, the explosion of tech stocks and dot com companies, he did alot more than 2 aircraft carriers by the way when he cut the military, but that neither here or there, they are building more modern ships and subs and aircraft now.

Sometimes advantages are developed by a team. Clinton was the tech world's sugar daddy... I work in that industry...and I can tell you that Republicans are no friends of High Tech. But they are sure big funders of oil and old industries. Look how many tax breaks the oil companies got. Then compare that to high tech.

and i don't believe the missle defense system went anywhere in clinton's eight years.

You can believe whatever you wish, but research continued and it remained funded.

A small but important issue... The Predator Drone got missiles because Clinton wanted it. He wanted it to have missiles so he could kill Osama. Go figure.

You and I will never agree on alot of the issues we've been discussing, so good discussion, you got some good points and I love the verbal jabbing. Were never going to change our minds about how we feel, so good discussion, now lets continue with the countdown to Irish football, T minus 24 days!

Agreed. However, my decisions about performance are based on outcomes and actions taken.

Clinton failed in numerous areas. He was no friend of the Environment and did little to fight Global Warming during his 8 years.

Gays in the military? He pussed out on that one (right or wrong, he took a convenient half-assed approach).

However, Economically he was as conservative as any Republican has been since Ike.

 

[marv81s]

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/POLITICS/LIES.html

Interesting reading. But you know what, Bill Clinton did spend more on the defense, even though alot of bases and military personel were cut, He did budget more that GWB. So I apologize LOVEMYIRISH. He didn't fund as much as Reagan and Bush Sr did for the missle defense system, but he did keep it going, so I was wrong on that also.

 

[irishwavend]

I used to hunt with some of Clinton's best buddies, and they spoke of some seriously corrupt stuff like it was nothing. My Dad and I were like what the f?!?! But, it's over...let's look forward to what is coming and what we have to choose from.

 

[NDXUFan]

Hillary Clinton For President. Some tidbits about Rudy you might not no. His first wife was his cousin,he treated his second wife ( who was the first lady of New York ) like shyt. She was a sucessful anchor woman for a local station when she met that bastard. He took so much credit he didnt deserve for 9-11 that it is crazy. Turn to find out his Police Commisioner was corrupt working with the mob while he was Rudy's boy. Was convicted last month for his crime's. Had his name tooking from a jail that was named after him just last month. Bernard Kerik the first police commisioner of the history of New York City to be convicted of a crime. Oh lest not forget he was suppose to be our first Homeland Security Chief but jack ass (Bush) found out about his bullshit and asked him to drop out of the running. Believe me there more but have to said, but I have take the future wife out for her B-day. Rudy not running for jack. To many skeletons in the closet to be opened.

If you think that is bad, you might want to read "Partners in Power" by Roger Morris, Ph.D., who was a staffer to L.B.J. and Walter Mondale. Hillary is the second coming of Richard Nixon, personality wise.

Shark

 

[NDXUFan]

Politics can trump reality. However, I know plenty of people to the right who find Clinton to be far better than Bush.

I rarely find people who think Bush the elder was better than Bush the younger...but I personally think he was.



Sometimes advantages are developed by a team. Clinton was the tech world's sugar daddy... I work in that industry...and I can tell you that Republicans are no friends of High Tech. But they are sure big funders of oil and old industries. Look how many tax breaks the oil companies got. Then compare that to high tech.



You can believe whatever you wish, but research continued and it remained funded.

A small but important issue... The Predator Drone got missiles because Clinton wanted it. He wanted it to have missiles so he could kill Osama. Go figure.



Agreed. However, my decisions about performance are based on outcomes and actions taken.

Clinton failed in numerous areas. He was no friend of the Environment and did little to fight Global Warming during his 8 years.

Gays in the military? He pussed out on that one (right or wrong, he took a convenient half-assed approach).

However, Economically he was as conservative as any Republican has been since Ike.

Why did Clinton veto welfare reform, twice?

Shark

 

[LOVEMYIRISH]

Why did Clinton veto welfare reform, twice?

Shark

Why did he sign it finally? He did not have to...but he did. He signed the bill that changed welfare forever.

And, if you read the Economist, they did a nice piece on it in the last month or so.

He could have vetoed it. He could have let it sit (and thus become law). But he signed it against the wishes of his party.

Maybe he signed it when it was to his liking. Presidents are funny that way.

 

[lattedatte]

I like to think of myself as ind.(like ND) as they come, I voted for gore in 2000 and bush in 2004. But I would say that bush is doing a terrible job overall, what has he really accomplished, especially on the domestic side, in nearly six years. He is an ADD president. He goes from topic to topic without ever accomplishing anything, colosal failure. Everyone should note this is with a Rep. controlled senate and house.

Some failures:
1. Healthcare reform. I pay literally had to pay an arm and a leg for my last surgery.
2. Social security reform. What happened there?
3. Iraq. my brains on why americans are still dying there. shouldn't pull out but Iraqi's should be the one's in harms way.
4. Border control. Hola??
5. Katrina, I admit failures at all levels of gov't. But someone actually got a sex change with those cash cards the feds were giving out. That's a good use of my hard earned taxes. How does that make you feel?
6. Spending, balanced budget. I thought only dems were the big spenders?
7. Continued loss of jobs overseas. Curry anyone??
8. Stemcells, really why is not everyone in the world for this???
9. Gas prices, arguably not his fault, but what has done to fix the problem.

Terrible job. You better hope that democracy some how makes it in the Middle East or his legacy will rival Jimmy Carter's.