The Ultimate Hypocrite- John Edwards

[LOVEMYIRISH]

Don't forget about Clinton's "great" AIDS prevention methods too. I mean who doesn't love the idea of using our tax dollars to buy condoms for Brazillian prostitutes under the guise of helping to stop the spread of AIDS.

well, if it works...

 

[ShivaIrish]

You might want to check your history. That whole Russian and Egyptian campaign thing didn't work out real well for him. And then there's that whole Waterloo mess that was partially caused from his impatience and stubbornness to learn from his mistakes.



Genghis Khan was able to maintain his empire because of his great leadership, and a willingness to learn, eliminate threats, and meld cultures.

Sorry if my points weren't clear on my previous post.

My point about Napoleon is not that he didn't eventually get defeated, but that he won and expanded his empire to a great degree--not really a pushover, militaristically speaking. And if we only are talking about nations/empires with a perfect win/loss record, you have to count the U.S. out then too.

My point about Khan was that in the annals of history, he is seen as a ruthless bloodthirsty dude, who massacred many a people. I would rather judge a nation or a people by their peace and cultural achievements, not by how much land they have, or how many people they killed. Certainly you can have a ruthless dictator who is successful at achieving his goals. After all, Sadaam was able to achieve some success by quashing a lot of the internal fighting in Iraq (something that has become apparent recently)--but that doesn't make him somebody to aspire to.

 

[stonebreakerwasgod]

I'm not sure why we are arguing about going into Iraq. Congress approved it, and funded it. Powell laid out the info (accurate at the time) for the UN. What America needs to do, is get over WHY we went to war, and figure out the BEST course of action for the future. Congress is playing games with funding, and wants to withdraw prematurely. Most people think that is a HUGE mistake, both for the Iraqis, and US national interests. Although I hear that Iran and Syria would be much obliged.

 

[LOVEMYIRISH]

Congress is playing games with funding, and wants to withdraw prematurely.

Americans want to withdraw, Congress is reflecting that. It's not playing games though. It's called Checks and Balances.

I think it's beyond wrong to not at LEAST have milestones for progress. If we stay until things are "stable" we will NEVER leave. Ever.

Most people think that is a HUGE mistake, both for the Iraqis, and US national interests.

If by most, you mean "less than half"...then you are right.

 

[stonebreakerwasgod]

I'm sorry, I was talking about those Americans who:

1) Think there should be a military
2) Believe that it should be used at all
3) Understand the implications if we withdraw prematurely.
4) Read, or get news from a multitude of sources, and are informed.



So yeah, I may have excluded the uninformed and nutjobs from my post.

 

[Sureal]

It's quite simplistic to simply dismiss someone for contracting AIDS. It's their fault, right? I suppose it's just a coincidence, then, that the biggest infestation of AIDS is in some of the poorest parts of the world. Not having many options put many people in desperate situations.

Condoms is a good thing compared to some of the alternatives. People who are against the education and the increased access to those forms of protection may be driven by a Christian-influenced agenda. Personally, I don't think having Christian morals is a bad thing, but don't force it on others.

Right.

But force every other religion, culture, language and whatever else down our throats. You say anything about Jesus Christ your stiffnecked. You say anything that Christians believe in you're a caveman.

So if I use drugs and contract AIDS who fault is it exactly? Of course you have sympathy for the person who contracted it but WHO ARE YOU going to blame? The government???

I know welfare moms that got sick of being on welfare and got off their behinds and got a job. I know drug addicts who got tired of being on drugs, tired of blaming others or their childhood for their choices and got delivered from drug use. We don't need bigger government or to throw more money at problems. People need more CHRISTIAN MORALS.

As for third world countries getting ravaged by AIDS. I am sympathetic to the sufferering but I can't condone sending dollars to certain countries when their gov't is corrupt and/or the supplies/dollars don't get to where they are needed. The U.S is the most charitable nation in the world. We give more aid than anybody on this planet. Sorry. We can't fix every problem on this earth and to blame everything on the U.S...

I don't agree with the war although. I just think the timing was wrong. Should have dealt with Al-Qaeda and Bin Laden first.

 

[stonebreakerwasgod]

Hard to disagree about the timing of the war. In hindsight, most people (including alot who thought it was necessary to go in) wish it never happened. Do over! Now that we are there, we should be careful not to let chaos persist, nor give Iran an opening to exert its influence.

 

[LOVEMYIRISH]

I'm sorry, I was talking about those Americans who:

1) Think there should be a military
2) Believe that it should be used at all
3) Understand the implications if we withdraw prematurely.
4) Read, or get news from a multitude of sources, and are informed.

So yeah, I may have excluded the uninformed and nutjobs from my post.

My statement still stands.

Most people who believe in a military,that it should be used, understood the implications of going in, and are informed never wanted to go into Iraq. Colin Powell comes to mind. The JCS too.

Funny that.

 

[kjones]

Watch your tempers boys, things are getting a little heated in here. Try longer, more informative posts, a lot of these shorter posts generate knee-jerk reactions because they are saying things that get said in a lot of media sources on both sides.

It's worth the time to explain fully, not just go surface detail and perpetuate misunderstandings, but to really go into what you think. Try to take the tack of explaining what you believe and trying to understand what the other person thinks, rather than trying to convice via short pithy statements that hinge on your point being obvious. Both sides think their sides are "obvious" but they clearly are NOT, otherwise consensus would be easy. Try explaining in more detail what you think and we just might get somewhere. Probably not agreement, but at least a better understanding of where the other person is coming from and why what is obvious to you, isn't obvious to them.

Lets just not stoop down to the level of normal political debate in the US, which is nothing more than glorified mud-slinging and a lot of posturing and assuming your point has already been made.

As for my personal views, they are more in line with Stoney than with Shiva or LMI, but I think both of you are intelligent and have good points. I think Shiva's and LMI's points especially deserve to be really talked about and clear reasoning WHY you disagree given, not just bee dismissed or drowned out by a chorus of no's.

Also, this is a funny web page, you should check it out:
http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/text/victories.html

 

[GoshenGipper]

Don't forget about Clinton's "great" AIDS prevention methods too. I mean who doesn't love the idea of using our tax dollars to buy condoms for Brazillian prostitutes under the guise of helping to stop the spread of AIDS.

It's quite simplistic to simply dismiss someone for contracting AIDS. It's their fault, right? I suppose it's just a coincidence, then, that the biggest infestation of AIDS is in some of the poorest parts of the world. Not having many options put many people in desperate situations.

Condoms is a good thing compared to some of the alternatives. People who are against the education and the increased access to those forms of protection may be driven by a Christian-influenced agenda. Personally, I don't think having Christian morals is a bad thing, but don't force it on others.

Please tell me you just didn't try to justify this. Here's a wild idea. Brizillians don't won't to get AIDS, don't go sleep with prostitutes then. You're just asking for something then. So yes, IT IS THEIR FAULT!!!!!

 

[stonebreakerwasgod]

My statement still stands.

Most people who believe in a military,that it should be used, understood the implications of going in, and are informed never wanted to go into Iraq. Colin Powell comes to mind. The JCS too.

Funny that.

It may still stand, but it sure as hell is leaning over in a precarious position.

 

[IrishCalves]

Please tell me you just didn't try to justify this. Here's a wild idea. Brizillians don't won't to get AIDS, don't go sleep with prostitutes then. You're just asking for something then. So yes, IT IS THEIR FAULT!!!!!

I see your point, but the results are simple: sex is going to happen in this world no matter what, like it or not. There is prostitution in Brazil, in the United States, and in every other inhabited continent on the planet. In an ideal world, we could have the Brazilians stop sleeping with prostitutes while unprotected, and your solution would take place. But the world isn't ideal. People don't think a lot of times before they have sex.The best we can do is work with the results we're going to get, and considering that prostitution, while reprehensible, has gone on for thousands of years, we're going to need to look for other solutions.

It'd be nice if there was some kind of legislation that people would pay heed to, reminiscent of the birth control laws in China, but neither the United States nor Brazil is in a position to do that.

So, until someone finds a way to end an age old practice like prostitution, we'd might as well give the condoms a shot, and try to save people's lives, rather than sit on some moral high horse while people's lives go to waste.

 

[LOVEMYIRISH]

It may still stand, but it sure as hell is leaning over in a precarious position.

Well, remember that I support LEAVING the troops there for a bit longer.

However, a majority of folks who are very knowledgeable as far as the military goes really don't see a situation developing over there where we will see stability and thus want to leave.

Some people have a knee jerk reaction and are impatient. They just want out. I disagree with them fully.

However, when I hear former Generals and Commanders over there say "We might as well leave in 2007 since we CAUSE instability." I can't much argue with them.

I am willing to see how 2007 progresses. But if we hit December and things are still completely FUBAR then I may just hop on that bandwagon.

To say we should "Leave Iraq Now" is far from an extreme position...it's pretty widely held in conservative, liberal, and independent camps.

What I find sickening is those who want out because they are "tired" of it. "Tired" is irrelevant. You either DO something or DON'T do something. There is no in between. Leaving because you are tired of it is dumb. Leaving because EXPERTS say there is no way to fix it or make it better...that's an informed decision.

I have faith that something will occur...but I am looking for a breakthrough/miracle/unforseen-event that will improve things drastically. But in this case, I am placing my faith in Hope and God...and possibly the folks in Iraq will pull it together if they think we are leaving.

One can only hope.

 

[LOVEMYIRISH]

Please tell me you just didn't try to justify this. Here's a wild idea. Brizillians don't won't to get AIDS, don't go sleep with prostitutes then. You're just asking for something then. So yes, IT IS THEIR FAULT!!!!!

It is definitely the fault of people who utilize prostitutes when they get AIDS...it's even the fault of Prostitutes for getting it.

That does not mean sending them condoms to prevent it is wrong. It is simply the easiest way to prevent infections. Working towards SOLVING the fundamental problem, that's a much larger and far more expensive solution.

 

[GoshenGipper]

Well from what I understand there were restrictions in the foreign aid contract that stipulated that the money could not go for that use, but it did anyway. But, we still continued to give them the "foriegn aid" even after this was discovered my the then current administration. I guess it's not a huge deal now given that George W. Bush pulled the "foreign aid" soon after taking office. It just really gets under my skin when the left pulls stunts like that, if you want to give a country food or something like that I'm all for it, but using American tax dollars to buy condoms for a foreign country' prostitutes because they don't have enough self control to keep in their pants is more than a little overboard in my opinion.

 

[IrishCalves]

Well from what I understand there were restrictions in the foreign aid contract that stipulated that the money could not go for that use, but it did anyway. But, we still continued to give them the "foriegn aid" even after this was discovered my the then current administration. I guess it's not a huge deal now given that George W. Bush pulled the "foreign aid" soon after taking office. It just really gets under my skin when the left pulls stunts like that, if you want to give a country food or something like that I'm all for it, but using American tax dollars to buy condoms for a foreign country' prostitutes because they don't have enough self control to keep in their pants is more than a little overboard in my opinion.

The only issue I have with what you say is your last sentence. Its not so much self control, as it is a means of income, so they're going to continue to do so, particularly if they're backed into a desperate situation. Its not like prostitutes use sex to get their jollies - like it or not, it's their job, so its not as black and white as "self control". I see what you're saying, but... well, I guess I'll leave it at that. No use in arguing 'til we get blue in the face. I gave you a different perspective to chew on, but beyond that, it'd probably be foolish to get up on a soapbox at this point.

 

[stonebreakerwasgod]

Well, remember that I support LEAVING the troops there for a bit longer.

However, a majority of folks who are very knowledgeable as far as the military goes really don't see a situation developing over there where we will see stability and thus want to leave.

Some people have a knee jerk reaction and are impatient. They just want out. I disagree with them fully.

However, when I hear former Generals and Commanders over there say "We might as well leave in 2007 since we CAUSE instability." I can't much argue with them.

I am willing to see how 2007 progresses. But if we hit December and things are still completely FUBAR then I may just hop on that bandwagon.

To say we should "Leave Iraq Now" is far from an extreme position...it's pretty widely held in conservative, liberal, and independent camps.

What I find sickening is those who want out because they are "tired" of it. "Tired" is irrelevant. You either DO something or DON'T do something. There is no in between. Leaving because you are tired of it is dumb. Leaving because EXPERTS say there is no way to fix it or make it better...that's an informed decision.

I have faith that something will occur...but I am looking for a breakthrough/miracle/unforseen-event that will improve things drastically. But in this case, I am placing my faith in Hope and God...and possibly the folks in Iraq will pull it together if they think we are leaving.

One can only hope.

I was only jesting about your position. I am aware that you see the need for some sort of end game.

 

[IRISHDODGER]

"My boy Clinton" had a Rhodes Scholarship. Thats why he didn't go to Vietnam. If you have that offer, you take it. Bush was pulling C's at Yale and then disappeared from the Alabama Air National Guard. Cheney was pulling deferment after deferment so as to stay away from Vietnam. Big Difference.

Not really. You make it sound like Clinton would have been the next Audie Murphy had he not rec'd the scholarship. I'm confident that he performed a quite successful letter writing campaign to ensure his precious ass was kept out of Vietnam.

Any way, you missed the point, both Presidents are responsible for sending our men/women into harm's way & both wanted no part of Vietnam. To me, Bush is nothing more than the lesser of 2 evils when compared to Al Gore & John Kerry. I would not be against impeaching his ass for the weak ass immigration crap that he & Congress are trying to sneak into law right under our noses.

 

[stonebreakerwasgod]

I don't think Bush was pulling C's at Yale. His grades were better than John Kerry, yet people seem to think that he is some sort of smart guy. Funny how the left tears down people they disagree with.

If they don't debate the immigration bill, ya know something is fishy with the whole thing.

 

[marv81s]

you know, if people like Nancy Pelosi and Reid are against it, then a large majority of this immigration reform bill must be pretty damn good.

I was listening to the radio this AM and one of the founders of the minuteman was talking about this bill and he was very happy with it and after looking it over today and tonight, I am not all that against it. I don't like the amnesty part of it and letting these 12 million illegals here getting the "fast track" to citizenship. That part is bullshit, but putting border security at forefront and the benchmarks that need to be met are reasonable. Now, how many of these illegals are going to pay the 5K fine is another issue, or tracking down those that do not follow through with this proposed plan is another issue in of itself.

But lets face it, this is probably the best we are going to get out of these f*#%ers, so I guess I'll take it. And most of the items in this bill are items that the minutemen group were lobbying for. The amnesty is my biggest bitch, call it what you want, its amnesty.

 

[stonebreakerwasgod]

You know Marv, ya probably hit the nail on the head. This probably is the best we can get from our spineless congressmen. It's called the "Let's not enforce the old laws, so we must make some new ones that they might adhere to" Laws.

 

[GoshenGipper]

you know, if people like Nancy Pelosi and Reid are against it, then a large majority of this immigration reform bill must be pretty damn good.

Hahaha, agreed! I hear Pelosi needs to brush up on her etiquette for addressing royalty as well.

 

[LOVEMYIRISH]

I don't think Bush was pulling C's at Yale. His grades were better than John Kerry...

Their grades were the same:
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/w...grades_portray_kerry_as_a_lackluster_student/

The only key difference is that Kerry got a few more bad grades his first year. He trended upward more than Bush...but not in some major way.

 

[LOVEMYIRISH]

I was only jesting about your position. I am aware that you see the need for some sort of end game.

gotcha...sorry...long day at work

 

[ShivaIrish]

I'm not sure why we are arguing about going into Iraq. Congress approved it, and funded it. Powell laid out the info (accurate at the time) for the UN. What America needs to do, is get over WHY we went to war, and figure out the BEST course of action for the future. Congress is playing games with funding, and wants to withdraw prematurely. Most people think that is a HUGE mistake, both for the Iraqis, and US national interests. Although I hear that Iran and Syria would be much obliged.

Although I do think that it is important for us to know history, (and realize the way Bush, etc. mislead people), I largely agree with you that as far as how we are dealing with the current situation, arguing about the past is not the chief way to do it. (That is easier said than done, however. If people could accept current situations, and try to deal with it, as opposed to just focusing on the wrong things that led to the situation, I think the Palestinian-Israel situation would be different). However, interestingly enough, the same mentality of "let's not dwell on the past, let's deal with the present," may be behind giving illegals amnesty (just a thought). But I agree, what is to be done now is the issue, and that is different than simply dealing with how the situation started in the first place.

 

[IRISHDODGER]

you know, if people like Nancy Pelosi and Reid are against it, then a large majority of this immigration reform bill must be pretty damn good.

I was listening to the radio this AM and one of the founders of the minuteman was talking about this bill and he was very happy with it and after looking it over today and tonight, I am not all that against it. I don't like the amnesty part of it and letting these 12 million illegals here getting the "fast track" to citizenship. That part is bullshit, but putting border security at forefront and the benchmarks that need to be met are reasonable. Now, how many of these illegals are going to pay the 5K fine is another issue, or tracking down those that do not follow through with this proposed plan is another issue in of itself.

But lets face it, this is probably the best we are going to get out of these f*#%ers, so I guess I'll take it. And most of the items in this bill are items that the minutemen group were lobbying for. The amnesty is my biggest bitch, call it what you want, its amnesty.

I don't know what to think, but I ain't happy w/ Bush, McCain, Spector & especially, Kyl. My question is what about the illegals who aren't interested in becoming Americans? We can't assume they're all hard working family men/women just looking for hard honest work. And they're also not all Latinos, as seen by the 3 Albanians who sneaked across the Mexican border to the U.S. & then tried to murder our military. There's no way every illegal can pay the approx. $5000, so they'll stay in the "shadows". And don't get too excited over the add'l 6000 border patrol...that's all bureacracy BS. Finally, Bush approved the 800 mile fence & we've only seen two lousy miles constructed....so don't hold your breath on there every being a true fence. Wonder if Bush would agree to a "virtual" fence surrounding the White House?

McCain has done more for the Democratic party in the last 6 years than most Dems have done for their own party in the last 40 yrs. With the combination of Campaign Finance Reform & the new Immigration proposal, he has all but handed the future of the U.S. gov't to what will amount to a one-party system...& it ain't gonna be Republican. You can't believe for a minute that any of the 12 million illegals are going to vote anything but Democrat. The Dems are excited b/c they realize the welfare state is being expanded which means their voting base will be expanded, too.

 

[stonebreakerwasgod]

Their grades were the same:
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/w...grades_portray_kerry_as_a_lackluster_student/

The only key difference is that Kerry got a few more bad grades his first year. He trended upward more than Bush...but not in some major way.

The same, but Bush's were ever so sllightly better according to several media outlets. (not that I care, but it seems funny for people to think of bush as stupid)

 

[sonomairishfan]

With all the money trial lawyers give dems, there is a greater likelihood of snow falling in downtown victorville, than tort reform taking place. Sad.

(and people will continue to bitch about the price of healthcare...wake the f. up!)

yeah all the oil hungry republicans in the white house now have done so much for our country.

the dollar is the weakest it ever has been overseas. bullshit wars..............

 

[marv81s]

whoa my man, both sides have their share of oil whores, neither side is innocent when it comes to being in big oils back pockets.

 

[stonebreakerwasgod]

yeah all the oil hungry republicans in the white house now have done so much for our country.

the dollar is the weakest it ever has been overseas. bullshit wars..............

You sound angry man. Congress did approve the wars you know (with the same intel as the president).

As far as oil hungry....if gas goes above 4.00 a gallon, we are ALL going to be oil hungry. Besides, we might not need the oil in the middle east, if the libs would have let us do some new drilling in anwar and off the coastlines. Feinstein and about every california democratic representative opposed drilling. Bill Clinton vetoed legislation in 1995 that would have allowed drilling in Anwar. Not to mention the libs thwarting plans for nuke power plants.

Bottom line..all of us are to blame, not just one side. Don't be a hater, dude.