PDA

View Full Version : democrats know...



Vagabond
03-09-2008, 10:02 PM
....how to shoot themselves in their foot.They have wonderfull opp0rtunity this year to beat the republicans for occupation of the white house.But Democrats are leaning towards picking their party`s nominee( ooooobaaamaaaa ) who is not credit worthy to be sleeping in the white house.
Vote Hillary, she can beat McCain and she will be a good president.

pooltchr
03-10-2008, 04:09 AM
The longer the battle continues on the Dem side, the better it is for the Republicans. As Hillary and Obama tear each other down, McCain is out raising money to take one either one. He is also getting a lot if ammunition to use against either one, courtesy of the other.
Steve

DickLeonard
03-10-2008, 07:34 AM
Pooltchr What happen to Denny Haster will happen to a lot of incumbents.$$$$

Deeman3
03-10-2008, 09:49 AM
So, let me get this straight. Any contest, state or vote that was not for Hillary in the Democratic Primaries was somehow "un-democratic"?

I can't wait to see the way they spin this to the "too black, too affluent, too Caucused states and voters that Obama won.

Clinton offering to let Obama be her vice president is a little like a losing pool player offering a split to the winner after the match.

This will be interesting. How will Clinton do this?

wolfdancer
03-11-2008, 12:39 AM
As a respected member of this board, your endorsement of Hillary may sway a few voters that were hoping for a 3rd term for GWB, but since it looks like he's not going to veto the term limit .....they are looking for guidance. Now if this is a paid endorsement, you should announce that. I know money wouldn't buy your vote, but maybe some copies of Bill's home movies????

Deeman3
03-11-2008, 07:35 AM
After careful consideration, I have decided I'd like that ringing telephone at 3:00a.m. to go unanswered.

DickLeonard
03-11-2008, 09:07 AM
Deeman how could you read all that into a one line post? I only know it wasn't intended. I know this country is anti- administration war policy and destroying of the Constitution. The only way we will be able to fix it is for a complete investgation of the previous and F(&k the Pardon,####

DickLeonard
03-11-2008, 09:13 AM
Deeman I know the phone ringing at 9.21 went unanswered. Somehow he turned that around to be the War President insead of the Snore President. Go figure.####

SKennedy
03-11-2008, 09:19 AM
Surely the whitehouse has caller id?

wolfdancer
03-11-2008, 10:17 AM
I posted that in the middle of the night....thinking I was replying to you?????
I've got to change these meds....I get nightmares lately...wake up in the middle of the night screaming...thinking that I had just voted a Republican ticket by mistake, and GWB won by one vote in the state, and that got him elected

Deeman3
03-11-2008, 10:19 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: DickLeonard</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Deeman how could you read all that into a one line post? I only know it wasn't intended. I know this country is anti- administration war policy and destroying of the Constitution. The only way we will be able to fix it is for a complete investgation of the previous and F(&k the Pardon,#### </div></div>

I know it is indeed a crazy political season out there and whatever happens, we have a selection of candidates that are as crooked as a cue stick in a redneck bar in Mississippi. I only wish one of them had our best interests at heart.

SKennedy
03-11-2008, 01:22 PM
Nightmare? Heck, that's a wet dream!

sack316
03-11-2008, 02:57 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Deeman3</div><div class="ubbcode-body">After careful consideration, I have decided I'd like that ringing telephone at 3:00a.m. to go unanswered. </div></div>

That reminds me... did you happen to see the stuff about the little girl that was sleeping in that commercial? Well she is much older now than she was when that part was shot (I'm assuming it was being made for something else years ago), and she is... in fact... and Obama supporter! There was an interview with her on one of the news channels and she even went as far as to say that she'd like to get back into acting and make a response campaign ad for Mr. Obama. Now THAT would be interesting!

Sack

Gayle in MD
03-23-2008, 07:38 AM
Tap Tap Tap! I couldn't agree more. I'd wager lots of those white folks who voted for Obama early on, would make a change if given another opportunity. Last poll numbers I saw indicated Hillary had better numbers on beating McCain, than Obama.

This is just what we needed, right? Another President, just like the present one, who doesn't have any foreign policy experience, and a former coke head burn out to boot!

Hillary is the ONLY candidate that can turn around the mess Bush has made for this country, but hey, Osama is happy, the Carlyle Group, Halliburton, and their subsidiaries are racking in the dough, Cheney's plan is right on schedule, with gas over three dollars a gallon, big oil racking in the billions, and still getting subsidies, so happy they're all wetting their pants! As long as we can continue paying the Iraqis to cease killing our soldiers, Bush can continue to call this pointless surge, a success. Screw the costs, we won't get the skinny on that for years, anyway. Iraqis are poised to resume their civil war, as soon as they can run our country into the ground.

Woe is me! If McCain gets in there, those old line Democrats who jumped on the Obama wagon will reap just what they sowed, and we'll have another mentally ill nut in the White House, if McCain and the Repubs manage to throw another election, but the present alternative, Obama, isn't much to crow about, IMO.

However, the Repubs are leaving town like bank robbers, got to get out before the new rules kick in, and they have to wait an extra year before they can rack up their kickbacks from their former clients, the Washington Lobbyists for the corporate fascists. Trent Lott was the first to jump ship, and the rest of the bilkers and milkers are close behind.

Oh well, as long as we're still occupying an Arab Country, and thereby pissing off the Arab extremists, helping their recruitment process, and big oil is racking in our money, we couldn't be going in the wrong direction, could we?

What a crock!

Gayle in Md.

Deeman3
03-24-2008, 01:15 PM
I saw a snippet of a nice commercial of Hillary answering the phone at 3:00a.m. and a lady asking her questions about how she was gonna pay for health care, teacher extortion, etc. and all Hillary would say is, "Do you know what time it is?" Funny, but I don't think the Hillary campaign put it out. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

I do now think the Democrats will rally around Hillary, the white ones and those who pay no taxes, anyway, by the convention and try to broker peace by letting Obama stay in the Lincoln Room like 10 nights a year. Of course, they can pay off Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson with a "Rainbow Love Offering" and all will be well. However, they gotta cut a deal before Hillary would have to release those tax records. That would be the end for her and Obama has enough influence to make her release them if he presses the issue.

I had just mistakenly, for some odd reason, beleived this might be a problem for them in November. My Bad. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

eg8r
03-24-2008, 02:49 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">This is just what we needed, right? Another President, just like the present one, who doesn't have any foreign policy experience</div></div>If your Dems thought the same as you they would have put someone up with the experience. Hillary's self-proclaimed experience is hogwash.

eg8r

Deeman3
03-25-2008, 07:16 AM
WASHINGTON - Hillary Rodham Clinton's campaign said she "misspoke" when saying last week she had landed under sniper fire during a trip to Bosnia as first lady in March 1996. She later characterized the episode as a "misstatement" and a "minor blip."

The Obama campaign suggested the statement was a deliberate exaggeration by Clinton, who often cites the goodwill trip with her daughter and several celebrities as an example of her foreign policy experience.

During a speech last Monday on Iraq, she said of the Bosnia trip: "I remember landing under sniper fire. There was supposed to be some kind of a greeting ceremony at the airport, but instead we just ran with our heads down to get into the vehicles to get to our base."


According to an Associated Press story at the time, Clinton was placed under no extraordinary risks on the trip. And one of her companions, comedian Sinbad, told The Washington Post he has no recollection either of the threat or reality of gunfire.

When asked Monday about the New York senator's remarks about the trip, Clinton spokesman Howard Wolfson pointed to Clinton's written account of it in her book, "Living History," in which she described a shortened welcoming ceremony at Tuzla Air Base, Bosnia-Herzegovina.

"Due to reports of snipers in the hills around the airstrip, we were forced to cut short an event on the tarmac with local children, though we did have time to meet them and their teachers and to learn how hard they had worked during the war to continue classes in any safe spot they could find," Clinton wrote.

"That is what she wrote in her book," Wolfson said. "That is what she has said many, many times and on one occasion she misspoke."

Asked about the issue during a meeting with the Philadelphia Daily News' editorial board on Monday, Clinton said she "misspoke."

'Minor blip'
"I went to 80 countries, you know. I gave contemporaneous accounts, I wrote about a lot of this in my book. You know, I think that, a minor blip, you know, if I said something that, you know, I say a lot of things -- millions of words a day -- so if I misspoke, that was just a misstatement," she said.

A spokesman for rival Barack Obama's campaign questioned whether Clinton misspoke, saying her comments came in what appeared to be prepared remarks for the Iraq speech. His campaign's statement included a link to the speech on Clinton's campaign Web site with her account of running to the cars. Clinton's campaign said what is on the Web site is not the prepared text, but a transcript of her remarks, including comments before the speech in which she talked about the trip to Bosnia.

Obama spokesman Tommy Vietor said in a written statement that Clinton's Bosnia story "joins a growing list of instances in which Senator Clinton has exaggerated her role in foreign and domestic policymaking."


It has got to be embarrassing when they have film and reporters who directly contridict every word you have on an event like this. A little harder than "forgeting" like all the Arkansas and White House memory losses.

Is it acceptable to have a president who misrepresents so much of her public life. After all, the Democrats have claimed much the same although less cases with GWB.

eg8r
03-25-2008, 08:31 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">WASHINGTON - Hillary Rodham Clinton's campaign said she "misspoke" when saying last week she had landed under sniper fire during a trip to Bosnia as first lady in March 1996. She later characterized the episode as a "misstatement" and a "minor blip."

The Obama campaign suggested the statement was a deliberate exaggeration by Clinton, who often cites the goodwill trip with her daughter and several celebrities as an example of her foreign policy experience.</div></div> It does not take a rocket scientist to know that the Clintons will embellish everything at the time to sway a vote and when the lie is proven to be a lie they will say "sorry" I misspoke.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">"I went to 80 countries, you know. I gave contemporaneous accounts, I wrote about a lot of this in my book. You know, I think that, a minor blip, you know, if I said something that, you know, I say a lot of things -- millions of words a day -- so if I misspoke, that was just a misstatement," she said.
</div></div> Millions of words a day? That sounds exactly like a woman. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Obama spokesman Tommy Vietor said in a written statement that Clinton's Bosnia story "joins a growing list of instances in which Senator Clinton has exaggerated her role in foreign and domestic policymaking."</div></div> In another thread I mentioned that Barak's team will begin pointing out all these gross exaggerations that are commonplace in the Clinton way of doing things.

eg8r

Deeman3
03-25-2008, 09:19 AM
Well, it is nice to know Hillary did not lie, she just "Mispoke".

If a reasonable person believes you "remember" incoming sniper fire and ducking to get to the cars as mispeaking, and not flat out lieing, then Bush simply mispoke about the intellegence on WMD and no one should be upset. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

A norla person would not be able to face the public after such a lie unless they had been conditioned along with the American public to accept fasehoods (Lies) under the experience of sex not really being sex and "for the greater good."

Qtec
03-25-2008, 10:38 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Deeman3</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Well, it is nice to know Hillary did not lie, she just "Mispoke".

If a reasonable person believes you "remember" incoming sniper fire and ducking to get to the cars as mispeaking, and not flat out lieing, then Bush simply mispoke about the intellegence on WMD and no one should be upset. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

A norla person would not be able to face the public after such a lie unless they had been conditioned along with the American public to accept fasehoods (Lies) under the experience of sex not really being sex and "for the greater good." </div></div>


Did she exaggerate.
Did she lie.
Did she make it up.

Who cares. Even if she lied, its a white lie, not a big black lie. LOL I mean, nobody died because of it.


OTOH, did she lie? Was there anywhere in the vicinity snipers who might have shot at Hillary? Was her statement accurate but not truthful?





Q...............every fisherman must be a liar as well. LOL


Here's a good one.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">03/18/2008 02:46 AM ID: 69396
Bush Says He Would Like to Serve On Front Line-If He Were Younger


During a video conference, Bush heard from the US military about the challenges they face in Afghanistan as they build a democracy. He heard stories of fighting corruption, traveling over mountains to attend meetings, and meeting local residents.

To this Bush replied "I must say, I'm a little envious," and went on to say, "If I were slightly younger and not employed here, I think it would be a fantastic experience to be on the front lines of helping this young democracy succeed."

Other stories Bush heard related to eliminating Taliban support in the region, and efforts to increase health care in remote areas.
</div></div>

Deeman3
03-25-2008, 10:43 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec[/quote</div><div class="ubbcode-body">


Did she exaggerate.
Did she lie.
Did she make it up.

Who cares. Even if she lied, its a white lie, not a big black lie. LOL I mean, nobody died because of it.

So, for you, its the person lying and the eventual result of the lie, not the lying of a candidate itself?


OTOH, did she lie? Was there anywhere in the vicinity snipers who might have shot at Hillary? Was her statement accurate but not truthful?

Like what IS sex, rihgt? /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif





Q...............every fisherman must be a liar as well. LOL

How many other things has she, will she lie about? Won't those lies, perhaps, lead to loss of life?



</div></div>

eg8r
03-25-2008, 12:44 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Did she exaggerate.
Did she lie.
Did she make it up.

Who cares.</div></div> You hit the nail on the head. When referring to all lies from a Clinton mouth the lefty reply is, "Who cares!"

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">To this Bush replied "I must say, I'm a little envious," and went on to say, "If I were slightly younger and not employed here, I think it would be a fantastic experience to be on the front lines of helping this young democracy succeed."
</div></div> Even though this quote was probably taken out of context there is still no person on this planet that would believe W is envious of our brave men on the front line.

eg8r

Deeman3
03-25-2008, 12:57 PM
Obama 2008, the Guilty White Man's Vote of Choice!

eg8r
03-25-2008, 01:30 PM
Go Obama. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

eg8r

Gayle in MD
03-27-2008, 06:38 AM
Gee, I didn't think Republicans cared one hoot about presidents lying! Atleast, I don't recall any posts protesting the lies that Bush told us which led this country into a war, nor the on-going lies about that war.

One hundred and forty people were killed in Shiia militia against US/Iraqi forces in the last two weeks, including car bombs in Baghdad, the center of the so called successful surge. yet, when asked about the fact that the vast majority of American Citizens are against this war, Cheney responds, "So?" SO, WE THE PEOPLE are paying for it, Dickhead, that's what, and not one of your relstives are in it.

The Military leaders told Bush, point blank, that they are concerned about the strain on our troops, and the weakened results on our military, and McCain is out there vowing to stay another hundred years. I hardly think, given this completely failed administration, know for lies and incompetence, and protected by Republican operatives who promoted and work to sell the lies, that when voters decide on the person they want in the White House, that Hillary's and Obama's slip ups will be the determining factors.

Nothing is more ridiculous than a Republican, making a big deal over politicians lying, given four thousand mostly under thirty, young Americans dead, and over thirty thousand wounded, estimates of ten trillion debt, and McCain ready to continue spending 12 billion a month, as our own country declines down this Republican led quagmire, in the midst of an Iraqi civil war.


As for experience, eight years of active participation in her husband's political career, and administration, more than qualifies Hillary to lead this country, not to mention the years of active participation in his governorship, and her own accomplishments during eight years, (by voting time) in the Senate. As any married woman who has engaged herself in every goal and problem her husband has ever faced in life, business and otherwise, knows, marriage is a partnership, and two heads often prove far better than one in that process. Being imprisoned in Vietnam, while tragic, is hardly equal to front line involvment as the President's most trusted advisor, and a roving embassador visitig 80 countries, and hosting every major leader in the world.

Hillary is by far the most experienced of the three, and by far the most intelligent. Surely we wouldn't have to live with the embarrassment of a President who is not clear about just whom the enemy is, such as McCain, nor would we have to cringe over statements such as, "Our children is learning" /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif

I met and talked with a young woman who works on The Hill, in the Sdoption Coalition. Her exact words were, "No matter what we need, there's only one Senator that we can count on to get it for us, and that's Hillary Clinton."

It's long past time for this country to get past the greatest and longest lasting discrimination in history, and that has clearly been against women, far more so than against black men.

pooltchr
03-27-2008, 05:56 PM
None of that has anything to do with Hillary lying about coming under sniper fire on her good will trip. Her experience as first lady does nothing to qualify her to be president. Every time she talks about her experience, it turns out to be just an inflated story to portray her as something she is not...qualified!

As for your last sentence...you must be kidding, right?????

Steve

Gayle in MD
03-29-2008, 10:03 AM
Unfortunately, Steve, lying isn't a subject I can discuss with Republicans. Since they view every and all lies with equal disdain, I don't find their take on the subject as being at all reasonable.

I don't like lies, but I do discriminate according to intention, and damage to others. Regardless, Hillary shouldn't have taken a shot at exaggerating her risk taking trip. It was risky, to go where she went at that time. And alas, she didn't sneak in in the dark of night. Imagine that!

I meant every word of my last sentence. Black men were given the vote decades before women of any color or race. I view sexism as the most vicious form of discrimination, and the most prevasive and frequent, daily, throughout history, both here, and in every country in the world.


Bush lied, and four thousand Americans are dead, OBL is still plotting, the Middle East is in chaos, the surge has accomplished no measurable advance in Iraq, Iraqis are still killing one another, known as a civil war, hundreds of thousands of Iraqis are dead, Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, at the least, are financing the war, and through that, chipping away at our economy here, as China, Saudi Arabia and Russia, use our interest payed to buy our country. Didn't Nikita say they would take us from within? Bush is STILL lying and our troops are still dying, and the Iraqi Parliament is busy planing their vacation for 08! But you go right a head and focus on Hillary's lie.... /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/laugh.gif

pooltchr
03-29-2008, 02:41 PM
And Hillary has lied in the past while she was first lady. She has lied during the campaign. Why would you expect anything less if she were elected president?
And yes, lying is lying, regardless of who is doing it or for what reason. Of course, we can't discuss lying with Democrats because they think lying is only bad if someone else is doing it.
Steve

Gayle in MD
03-30-2008, 06:04 AM
Hey, like I said, you go right on and focus on Hillary's lie, since Republicans are experts at ignoring the devastating damage caused to this country by their Republican philosophies which are presently bringing this country down. Fourteen million dollars an hour wasted in Iraq, where we wouldn't be without Bush's lies that drove the worst foreign policy decisions in history.

And don't forget to run on out there and vote for McCain, the "I don't know much about economics" candidate. I'm sure you'll be impressed with yet another tool of the military industrial complex running the show, John McCain, bilking all of us for another four years.

Half of the federal expenditures right now go straight into the hands of the military industrial complex, aka corporate fascist pigs, aka the Neiocon-Republican War Machine.

Writers on this forum who seize on every little campaign fib, while overlooking our troops dying every day, compliments of the present continuing lies, and former liesk, from Bush et al, are nothing but a joke, anyway, as far as I'm concerned. Americans defending torture, ruthless attacks on our Constitution, politicisation of our department of justice, removal of checks and balances intended by our framers, the illegal occupation of a foreign country, support for corporate fascists out to suck the last dime out of every American worker, bilking the American comsumer, worker, homeowner, all to build their own wealth don't have any effect on me. As far as I'm concerned they can take their free market BS, and their secret oil deals, paid for with the blood of our youth, and shove 'em where the sun don't shine. We're in a recession, up to our ears in debt to communists, and Arabs, and you can thank Neocon Republicans for all of it. You're right, Democrats do know, as your title suggests, that McCain will be Bush on crack, and if you think this country is going to put another Republican in the White House, you're about as delusional as your leader, the chimp, who's out there right now praising the latest Iraqi surge of violence as proof of success for his "Surge" tactics for saving his already doomed legacy, but he can prove his 'Surge' is working, Iraqis are playing more soccer! /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/tired.gif /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/frown.gif

pooltchr
03-30-2008, 07:00 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Writers on this forum who seize on every little campaign fib, while overlooking our troops dying every day, compliments of the present continuing lies, and former liesk, from Bush
</div></div>

I think I finally got it. If your girl doesn't tell the truth, it just a little fib...if a Republican does it, it's a lie.
Thanks for clearing that up.
Steve

Gayle in MD
03-30-2008, 07:14 AM
No, believe me, you DON'T "Get it." /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smirk.gif

eg8r
03-30-2008, 03:25 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">And don't forget to run on out there and vote for McCain, the "I don't know much about economics" candidate. </div></div> At least he is honest. Your "I was under immediate sniper fire" is an admitted liar who is only in her position because she is a woman.

eg8r

pooltchr
03-30-2008, 06:15 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">And don't forget to run on out there and vote for McCain, the "I don't know much about economics" candidate. </div></div> At least he is honest. Your "I was under immediate sniper fire" is an admitted liar who is only in her position because she is a woman.

eg8r </div></div>

Ed, not only is it an outrageous lie, but it's a slap in the face to every person wearing a US Military uniform! Can you imagine anyone in the military, charged with the protection of the first lady, allowing her to be put in a position where sniper fire was a possibility? But then, we know the Clintons don't think much of our military men and women anyway.
Steve

pooltchr
03-30-2008, 06:17 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">No, believe me, you DON'T "Get it." /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smirk.gif </div></div>

Wrong again my liberal, blinded friend. The more you post, the more apparent it becomes.
Steve

Deeman3
03-31-2008, 07:33 AM
Steve,

You just hit the nail directly, squarely on the head.

Gayle in MD
04-10-2008, 01:50 PM
That's ridiculous, Ed, she's where she is because she is a scholar, was a woman who was accepted into law school at a time when few women were, was valedictorian of her class at a very prestigous college, and was a much admired member of the team of layers serving in the Watergate Hearings, was a governor's wife who was very active in his campaigns, and in her state, as the first lady of her stae, and also as Presidents wife, she was very involved in all of his public service, and his most trusted ally in his decision making. She has served in the Senate, for eight years now, and gained the respect of the Armed Services Committee, on which she has served, and of many Senators, on both sides of the isle. She is NOT where she is merely because she is a woman, however, some sexist, misogynistic men do need to think that way in order to feel OK about themselves.

I hope both you and Steve are feeling better now. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif I'm quite sure, that neither of you have wives who have contributed in any way to your own successes in life. Or have they?

Gayle in Md.

Gayle in MD
04-10-2008, 01:56 PM
They thought enough of them that they didn't send them to an un-necessary war on lies. Nor did they abuse them by redeploying them over and over into a chaotic civil war, with no military solution.

George Bush is the "Slap in the fact of every man and woman who has ever served in the Military." George Bush is the president who has hidden the coffins of our brave dead soldiers whom he has left to die in a slaughter, in order to try to rescue the idiotic incompetence of his legacy, and this illegal failure in Iraq.


George Bush is the man who has dishonored our military, and our National guard, and McCain is the Senator who has dodged signing onto a bill to provide more assistance, and college aid for our veterans.

In fact, in five years, I have never seen either of them at Walter Reed, not once.

pooltchr
04-10-2008, 03:29 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
In fact, in five years, I have never seen either of them at Walter Reed, not once.


</div></div>

I'll ask them to be sure an check in with you the next time they are there.
Steve

DickLeonard
04-11-2008, 08:02 AM
Gayle as a father of 5 daughters and 2 granddaughters all who have outshined their parents and grand parents. Anyone who doubts the Intelligence of women is sadly mistaken.

Hilliary can spot GWB 60 IQ points and still trounce him. Maybe even LWW too.####

pooltchr
04-11-2008, 06:09 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: DickLeonard</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
Hilliary can spot GWB 60 IQ points and still trounce him. Maybe even LWW too.#### </div></div>

She could probably give the same odds to Al Gore. What does that prove? You guys have spent 7 years calling our President a "Chimp", and now you say Hillary is smarter.

If she's so damn smart, why is she loosing the nomination to a "nobody"?
Steve

wolfdancer
04-11-2008, 06:29 PM
Forgetting the name calling....if "our President" is doing such a good job, and if we can estimate that the country is divided politically, half Republican, half Democrats, and other smaller parties....why are his approval ratings so low? Does this mean that even some Republicans don't approve of his policies...using Ed's terms...would that make them the loony right?
Why have so many of his appointees, insiders, cabinet members, etc...either quit, or are embroiled in legal problems?
What has he done for this country besides getting us into an unwinable war, that never should have taken place...and
getting us so deeply into debt that we may never recover?
Economists are now going beyond recession for their predictions, and mentioning "depression"....
As for the leading candidates to replace him, and try to correct this mess....I don't like any of them, but think McCain would be the most "dangerous" of the 3

Sid_Vicious
04-11-2008, 08:05 PM
the country is divided politically, half Republican, half Democrats, and other smaller parties....why are his approval ratings so low? Does this mean that even some Republicans don't approve of his policies...using Ed's terms

Answer that.

pooltchr
04-12-2008, 04:34 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Sid_Vicious</div><div class="ubbcode-body">the country is divided politically, half Republican, half Democrats, and other smaller parties....why are his approval ratings so low? Does this mean that even some Republicans don't approve of his policies...using Ed's terms

Answer that. </div></div>

Both Ed and I have stated on more than one occasion that we don't support all of GW's policies. Since I am a registered Republican, I guess you could say your comment is true. My point was that the left constantly comments on his intelligence, then Dick compared it with Hillary's. It's like saying Daffy Duck is smarter than Wylie Cyote. Maybe true, but hardly noteworthy.

For the past several elections, I have found myself supporting the candidate that I thought would be the lesser of two evils. Looks like I'm faced with the same situation in November. While McCain is hardly a great prospect, at least I don't think he will work toward turning the US into a Socialist country.
Steve

Gayle in MD
04-14-2008, 05:47 AM
Socialist? Silly man. don't you know yet that that language is a cover for the Republican goal of fascism. That's right, your Great party leaders learned long ago that the one thing their base can't deal with is charity for those who really deserve a halping hand. Instead of wasting money on needy Americans, they spend your money on subsidies, for the Corporate powers that be, who are racking up jnprecedented profits, already, in the Republican Fascist Society. Which do you choose, Socialism, or fascism. Never mind, I already know the answer. Republicans have managed to turn this country into a fascist nation, right before our eyes, and their supporters haven't noticed, they're so very bright. Republicans think their base, the hard core Clinton hating/Democratic hating, sheep, who would slit their wrists before they would vote for a Democrat, who die a thousand deaths, everytime their government spends a dime on any American who is ill, poor, down and out, homeless, regardless of how they got in the circumstances, oh, no no no!!@!! Give it to the billionaires, or better yet, give it all to China, or Halliburton, or Blackwater, let our wonderful Corporate Fascist pigs have the advantage....

Go on, Vote for the party that has torn this country apart. REPUBLICANS! The worst President in history, the worst SEcretary of Defense, Rumsfeld, The worst Vice President, Cheney, the worst FEMA director, the worst Secretary of STate, and National Security Advisor, Rice, Yeah, what we need is another fascist Republican in office, who can keep the great war mongering money machine going for himself and his elite corporate fscist pigs!

The McCain campaign is managed by a cadre of Washington-insider special interest lobbyists. He and his current wife are estimated to be worth about $100 million. He reportedly owns eight houses. His let-them-eat-cake economic policies are based on George Bush's failed radical conservative "you're on your own buddy" philosophy. One after another he supported trade agreements that protect the rights of corporations, but ignore the rights of labor, and have devastated one Pennsylvania community after another. He gets most of his campaign cash from the wealthiest corporate interests around. And he has the gall to call Barack Obama an "elitist"?


Those Republican voters. How very brilliant they have shown themselves to be. How very Christian, BWA HA HA HA....what a crock! The definition of insanity is voting Republican in the next election!

Gayle in Md.

Gayle in MD
04-14-2008, 06:21 AM
Dick, did you notice that neither Steve, nor Ed replied to my question about the contributions of their own wives, to their own successes in life?

Ah, but you know, my friend, we have to factor in for Bubbaspeak! women are dumb, blacks are lazy, and there is no connection between Bush's lies, supported by the previous decade of Republicans, and the overwhleming disaster that our country is facing right now!


Hey, if they get a neasly tax cut, their bought, hook, line and sinker. How long has it been since they were all on here praising this economy?

My next book title, "How To Avoid Talking To A Republican!"

Chapter One:

Before one commences conversation with a Republican, aka, sheep, it is essential to require their participation in the follow the dots picture on page six.

/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/laugh.gif /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smirk.gif /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif

Gayle in MD
04-14-2008, 06:39 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Both Ed and I have stated on more than one occasion that we don't support all of GW's policies. <span style="color: #330099">Ha ha ha, think you can get off that easily for voting for the worst prresident in history. twice? I don't think so. </span> Since I am a registered Republican, I guess you could say your comment is true. <span style="color: #000066">Since both you and Ed have defended Bush's bad economic policies, poor judgement, and lies, throughout his administration, while calling us partisan, Republican haters, perhaps, we Democrats just think that you guys are the mosre partisan of posters here. I don't recall any attempts by either of you to acknowledge any of the damaging lies told to Americans by YOUR party, or YOUR President. </span> My point was that the left constantly comments on his intelligence, then Dick compared it with Hillary's. It's like saying Daffy Duck is smarter than Wylie Cyote. Maybe true, but hardly noteworthy. <span style="color: #000066">It's noteworthy because no other president in history has damaged this country like your boy Bush. No party in history has encompassed as many bribe takers, damaging lies, and big spenders, as your party. Now if you want to talk about how smart Hillary is, VS. John McCain, lets start with the fact that Hillary knows the difference between a Shiite and a Sunni, just for starters, that is. she knows the difference between an insurgent in a civil war, and al Qaeda taking over in a country that hates al Qaeda. George Bush, and John McCain center their justification for this fiasco in Iraq by telling their sheep that if we leave, al Waeda will take over, and their sheep believe it! al Qaeda have never, and will never be a factor in Iraq. They weren't before we went in there, and they won't be after we leave. All political advisors have been cryuing for political reconciliation and cooperation from the surrounding countries for four years, and what has Rice accomplished in the Middle east&gt; NOTHING! Now let us discuss the mentality of Americans ready to go back to the polls and vote for another REPUBLICAN FASCIST! I'd love to hear some o9f the arguements for voting REpublican, given the state of our Union at present! BUT NOOOOOOO, instead, lets all focus on one insignificant exaggeration by hillary, one where no body died, made on the campaign trail, where EVERYBODY LIES, rather than zeroing in on the State Of The Union, which is crap, thanks to George Bush.

Man, I can see the headlines now, "McCain Wins, How Can Forty Million People be so DUMB! Bomb, bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran."</span>
</div></div>

Gayle in MD
04-14-2008, 07:09 AM
Perhaps you prefer lies that kill? I thought so!

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">CommentThis war on terrorism is bogusThe 9/11 attacks gave the US an ideal pretext to use force to secure its global domination
Michael Meacher The Guardian, Saturday September 6 2003 Article historyAbout this articleClose This article appeared in the Guardian on Saturday September 06 2003 . It was last updated at 12:15 on December 04 2003. Massive attention has now been given - and rightly so - to the reasons why Britain went to war against Iraq. But far too little attention has focused on why the US went to war, and that throws light on British motives too. The conventional explanation is that after the Twin Towers were hit, retaliation against al-Qaida bases in Afghanistan was a natural first step in launching a global war against terrorism. Then, because Saddam Hussein was alleged by the US and UK governments to retain weapons of mass destruction, the war could be extended to Iraq as well. However this theory does not fit all the facts. The truth may be a great deal murkier.
We now know that a blueprint for the creation of a global Pax Americana was drawn up for Dick Cheney (now vice-president), Donald Rumsfeld (defence secretary), Paul Wolfowitz (Rumsfeld's deputy), Jeb Bush (George Bush's younger brother) and Lewis Libby (Cheney's chief of staff). The document, entitled Rebuilding America's Defences, was written in September 2000 by the neoconservative think tank, Project for the New American Century (PNAC).

The plan shows Bush's cabinet intended to take military control of the Gulf region whether or not Saddam Hussein was in power. It says "while the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein."

The PNAC blueprint supports an earlier document attributed to Wolfowitz and Libby which said the US must "discourage advanced industrial nations from challenging our leadership or even aspiring to a larger regional or global role". It refers to key allies such as the UK as "the most effective and efficient means of exercising American global leadership". It describes peacekeeping missions as "demanding American political leadership rather than that of the UN". It says "even should Saddam pass from the scene", US bases in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait will remain permanently... as "Iran may well prove as large a threat to US interests as Iraq has". It spotlights China for "regime change", saying "it is time to increase the presence of American forces in SE Asia".

The document also calls for the creation of "US space forces" to dominate space, and the total control of cyberspace to prevent "enemies" using the internet against the US. It also hints that the US may consider developing biological weapons "that can target specific genotypes [and] may transform biological warfare from the realm of terror to a politically useful tool".

Finally - written a year before 9/11 - it pinpoints North Korea, Syria and Iran as dangerous regimes, and says their existence justifies the creation of a "worldwide command and control system". This is a blueprint for US world domination. But before it is dismissed as an agenda for rightwing fantasists, it is clear it provides a much better explanation of what actually happened before, during and after 9/11 than the global war on terrorism thesis. This can be seen in several ways.

First, it is clear the US authorities did little or nothing to pre-empt the events of 9/11. It is known that at least 11 countries provided advance warning to the US of the 9/11 attacks. Two senior Mossad experts were sent to Washington in August 2001 to alert the CIA and FBI to a cell of 200 terrorists said to be preparing a big operation (Daily Telegraph, September 16 2001). The list they provided included the names of four of the 9/11 hijackers, none of whom was arrested.

It had been known as early as 1996 that there were plans to hit Washington targets with aeroplanes. Then in 1999 a US national intelligence council report noted that "al-Qaida suicide bombers could crash-land an aircraft packed with high explosives into the Pentagon, the headquarters of the CIA, or the White House".

Fifteen of the 9/11 hijackers obtained their visas in Saudi Arabia. Michael Springman, the former head of the American visa bureau in Jeddah, has stated that since 1987 the CIA had been illicitly issuing visas to unqualified applicants from the Middle East and bringing them to the US for training in terrorism for the Afghan war in collaboration with Bin Laden (BBC, November 6 2001). It seems this operation continued after the Afghan war for other purposes. It is also reported that five of the hijackers received training at secure US military installations in the 1990s (Newsweek, September 15 2001).

Instructive leads prior to 9/11 were not followed up. French Moroccan flight student Zacarias Moussaoui (now thought to be the 20th hijacker) was arrested in August 2001 after an instructor reported he showed a suspicious interest in learning how to steer large airliners. When US agents learned from French intelligence he had radical Islamist ties, they sought a warrant to search his computer, which contained clues to the September 11 mission (Times, November 3 2001). But they were turned down by the FBI. One agent wrote, a month before 9/11, that Moussaoui might be planning to crash into the Twin Towers (Newsweek, May 20 2002).

All of this makes it all the more astonishing - on the war on terrorism perspective - that there was such slow reaction on September 11 itself. The first hijacking was suspected at not later than 8.20am, and the last hijacked aircraft crashed in Pennsylvania at 10.06am. Not a single fighter plane was scrambled to investigate from the US Andrews airforce base, just 10 miles from Washington DC, until after the third plane had hit the Pentagon at 9.38 am. Why not? There were standard FAA intercept procedures for hijacked aircraft before 9/11. Between September 2000 and June 2001 the US military launched fighter aircraft on 67 occasions to chase suspicious aircraft (AP, August 13 2002). It is a US legal requirement that once an aircraft has moved significantly off its flight plan, fighter planes are sent up to investigate.

Was this inaction simply the result of key people disregarding, or being ignorant of, the evidence? Or could US air security operations have been deliberately stood down on September 11? If so, why, and on whose authority? The former US federal crimes prosecutor, John Loftus, has said: "The information provided by European intelligence services prior to 9/11 was so extensive that it is no longer possible for either the CIA or FBI to assert a defence of incompetence."

Nor is the US response after 9/11 any better. No serious attempt has ever been made to catch Bin Laden. In late September and early October 2001, leaders of Pakistan's two Islamist parties negotiated Bin Laden's extradition to Pakistan to stand trial for 9/11. However, a US official said, significantly, that "casting our objectives too narrowly" risked "a premature collapse of the international effort if by some lucky chance Mr Bin Laden was captured". The US chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, General Myers, went so far as to say that "the goal has never been to get Bin Laden" (AP, April 5 2002). The whistleblowing FBI agent Robert Wright told ABC News (December 19 2002) that FBI headquarters wanted no arrests. And in November 2001 the US airforce complained it had had al-Qaida and Taliban leaders in its sights as many as 10 times over the previous six weeks, but had been unable to attack because they did not receive permission quickly enough (Time Magazine, May 13 2002). None of this assembled evidence, all of which comes from sources already in the public domain, is compatible with the idea of a real, determined war on terrorism.

The catalogue of evidence does, however, fall into place when set against the PNAC blueprint. From this it seems that the so-called "war on terrorism" is being used largely as bogus cover for achieving wider US strategic geopolitical objectives. Indeed Tony Blair himself hinted at this when he said to the Commons liaison committee: "To be truthful about it, there was no way we could have got the public consent to have suddenly launched a campaign on Afghanistan but for what happened on September 11" (Times, July 17 2002). Similarly Rumsfeld was so determined to obtain a rationale for an attack on Iraq that on 10 separate occasions he asked the CIA to find evidence linking Iraq to 9/11; the CIA repeatedly came back empty-handed (Time Magazine, May 13 2002).

In fact, 9/11 offered an extremely convenient pretext to put the PNAC plan into action. The evidence again is quite clear that plans for military action against Afghanistan and Iraq were in hand well before 9/11. A report prepared for the US government from the Baker Institute of Public Policy stated in April 2001 that "the US remains a prisoner of its energy dilemma. Iraq remains a destabilising influence to... the flow of oil to international markets from the Middle East". Submitted to Vice-President Cheney's energy task group, the report recommended that because this was an unacceptable risk to the US, "military intervention" was necessary (Sunday Herald, October 6 2002).

Similar evidence exists in regard to Afghanistan. The BBC reported (September 18 2001) that Niaz Niak, a former Pakistan foreign secretary, was told by senior American officials at a meeting in Berlin in mid-July 2001 that "military action against Afghanistan would go ahead by the middle of October". Until July 2001 the US government saw the Taliban regime as a source of stability in Central Asia that would enable the construction of hydrocarbon pipelines from the oil and gas fields in Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, through Afghanistan and Pakistan, to the Indian Ocean. But, confronted with the Taliban's refusal to accept US conditions, the US representatives told them "either you accept our offer of a carpet of gold, or we bury you under a carpet of bombs" (Inter Press Service, November 15 2001).

Given this background, it is not surprising that some have seen the US failure to avert the 9/11 attacks as creating an invaluable pretext for attacking Afghanistan in a war that had clearly already been well planned in advance. There is a possible precedent for this. The US national archives reveal that President Roosevelt used exactly this approach in relation to Pearl Harbor on December 7 1941. Some advance warning of the attacks was received, but the information never reached the US fleet. The ensuing national outrage persuaded a reluctant US public to join the second world war. Similarly the PNAC blueprint of September 2000 states that the process of transforming the US into "tomorrow's dominant force" is likely to be a long one in the absence of "some catastrophic and catalyzing event - like a new Pearl Harbor". The 9/11 attacks allowed the US to press the "go" button for a strategy in accordance with the PNAC agenda which it would otherwise have been politically impossible to implement.

The overriding motivation for this political smokescreen is that the US and the UK are beginning to run out of secure hydrocarbon energy supplies. By 2010 the Muslim world will control as much as 60% of the world's oil production and, even more importantly, 95% of remaining global oil export capacity. As demand is increasing, so supply is decreasing, continually since the 1960s.

This is leading to increasing dependence on foreign oil supplies for both the US and the UK. The US, which in 1990 produced domestically 57% of its total energy demand, is predicted to produce only 39% of its needs by 2010. A DTI minister has admitted that the UK could be facing "severe" gas shortages by 2005. The UK government has confirmed that 70% of our electricity will come from gas by 2020, and 90% of that will be imported. In that context it should be noted that Iraq has 110 trillion cubic feet of gas reserves in addition to its oil.

A report from the commission on America's national interests in July 2000 noted that the most promising new source of world supplies was the Caspian region, and this would relieve US dependence on Saudi Arabia. To diversify supply routes from the Caspian, one pipeline would run westward via Azerbaijan and Georgia to the Turkish port of Ceyhan. Another would extend eastwards through Afghanistan and Pakistan and terminate near the Indian border. This would rescue Enron's beleaguered power plant at Dabhol on India's west coast, in which Enron had sunk $3bn investment and whose economic survival was dependent on access to cheap gas.

Nor has the UK been disinterested in this scramble for the remaining world supplies of hydrocarbons, and this may partly explain British participation in US military actions. Lord Browne, chief executive of BP, warned Washington not to carve up Iraq for its own oil companies in the aftermath of war (Guardian, October 30 2002). And when a British foreign minister met Gadaffi in his desert tent in August 2002, it was said that "the UK does not want to lose out to other European nations already jostling for advantage when it comes to potentially lucrative oil contracts" with Libya (BBC Online, August 10 2002).

The conclusion of all this analysis must surely be that the "global war on terrorism" has the hallmarks of a political myth propagated to pave the way for a wholly different agenda - the US goal of world hegemony, built around securing by force command over the oil supplies required to drive the whole project. Is collusion in this myth and junior participation in this project really a proper aspiration for British foreign policy? If there was ever need to justify a more objective British stance, driven by our own independent goals, this whole depressing saga surely provides all the evidence needed for a radical change of course.

Michael Meacher MP was environment minister from May 1997 to June 2003







News
US banks slip further into credit crunch crisis
Sport

<span style="color: #000066">Atleast the British are smart enough to know when to make a clean sweep, and change direction entirely, unlike our resident REpublican sheep here in this country. It starts with a focus on being able to prioritize, both in damage suffered from really bad lies that kill people, and lies that are mere exaggerations on the campaign trail. No surprise, those sheep on the right are unable to prioritize, on the important issues, hence eight years of BUSH! Now look where we are, and you want another four years with McCain, a man who has been out there lying consistantly about Iraq, throughout his campaign. Al Qaeda is not an issue in Iraq, nor was it ever an issue, yet McCain is relying on the usual tactic that scares those little sheep to death, FEAR. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/cry.gif /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/cry.gif </span>



</div></div>

eg8r
04-14-2008, 09:51 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Dick, did you notice that neither Steve, nor Ed replied to my question about the contributions of their own wives, to their own successes in life?</div></div> It was because I did not care to entertain your questions not because I felt you might have a point which certainly is not the case then or now.

eg8r

eg8r
04-14-2008, 09:54 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">That's right, your Great party leaders learned long ago that the one thing their base can't deal with is charity for those who really deserve a halping hand.</div></div> LOL, not speaking about legislation...which party is the biggest charitable givers?

eg8r

eg8r
04-14-2008, 09:57 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Perhaps you prefer lies that kill? I thought so!</div></div> Keeping touting your lies if it makes you and the sheep of the left feel warm at night.

eg8r

pooltchr
04-14-2008, 06:02 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
Go on, Vote for the party that has torn this country apart. REPUBLICANS!
Gayle in Md. </div></div>

Therein lies the big difference in the way we think. You think in terms of voting for a party....I prefer to vote for a candidate.
Yet, somehow, you think I am the partisan. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif
Steve

pooltchr
04-14-2008, 06:04 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
Ah, but you know, my friend, we have to factor in for Bubbaspeak! women are dumb,
</div></div>

Personally, I never thought that, but I must admit, you do make a good case for anyone who does!
Steve

sack316
04-14-2008, 10:32 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
Go on, Vote for the party that has torn this country apart. REPUBLICANS!
Gayle in Md. </div></div>

As opposed to the party that chooses to play both sides of the fence. For example: We will raise minimum wage, AND at the same time give a speech about the lady who lost hours at work afterwards due to the company cutting back to offset the increase that WE made. We'll take credit for upping the minimum, yet at the same time blame republicans for the fact that companies won't spend any more money anyway and as a whole nobody is any better off. Every single job lost is because of the war, faultering economy, and the Bush admin... and of course has absolutely nothing to do with any extra strain the left will put on cooperations. Obviously businesses both big and small will always be happy to pay higher wages AND pay more taxes at their own expense and no workers or consumers will ever feel the effects. Hell, and even if they do we can always blame the right. That's a good sign of great uniters.

Sack

Gayle in MD
04-15-2008, 04:57 AM
Sack,
The Corporate world is doing fabulous. I don't think any of us need worry about the Corporations. We do need to remove the de-regulatory policies of the Republicans, beginning with Reagan, so we don't have to worry about being poisoned. We do need to take away Republican policies which encourage Corporations to relocate their manufacturing over seas, and allow other countries to rob us international trade. We do need to build manufacturing here, without having to promote wars in order to do so. We do need to rescue Americans from being gouged by big oil, the phramaceutical and medical health care racket. We do need to fix a tax system which favors the richest among us, subsidizes corporate oil, with no benefit to the comsummer, and we do need to remove the loopholes for the wealthiest Americans, and corporations, which encourage trillions to be hidden in fake accounts, free of any taxes, in the carribbean. Bush's tax cuts for the rich, are called that for a reason, in spite of all the denials flowing from the right wing sheep.

I think we, above all, must educate ourselves beyond talking points. Universal Health care, for example, is often described by some here as socialism. In fact, it is a moral question, do we as Americans want all of our citizens to be covered by health care, or is that, too, going to become something that only the rich can afford? Actually, if one looks at the numbers of families without it, perhaps, it has already reached that circumstance.

There are countries which provide excellent health care for their citizens, and spend less of their GDP than we do for a system that has become just another insurance scam.

You might want to catch the up-coming program, "Sick Around The World" which airs tonight on Frontline, at nime o'clock. You will see that Universal Health Care works well in many foreign countries, and the effort made by Republicans to brand it as nothing more than socialism, is ridiculous, and nothing but a desperate partisan attempt to dirty Democratic goals.

What I see in the Republican Party is exactly what I predicted when Bush creashed the White House. Our problems now are too severe to be masked by pushing personal, private family issues to the forefront of our election. As I wrote here, back then, after Bush is finished, we'll have plenty of problems, enough, so that the Republicans will not be able to cloud pressing issues with rhetoric about gay marriage, abortion and other personal, private, family issues, issues which do not belong in a general election.

Here we have millions of families without health care, two wars, losing ground in both, in actuality, oppressive and building debt, poison in our food, airplanes in the air which are not mechanically safe, virtually no border control, bin Laden, still directing his followers from his true safe haven, Pakistan, the Middle East standing on the edge of regional chaos, having had virtually no political conciliation, and no successful efforts accomplished by Rice, Bush or Cheney, diplomatically, as our trillions in debt to China, increases daily, including interest, and our budget deficits soar. All Foreign affairs experts seem to agree that America has lost its moral high ground, due to Bush's penchant for torturing people, among other things, and that Bush, as a president, is the worst in our history. The middle class in this country is sliding into the abyss, the banking and mortgage industries, abandoned any semblence of fudiciary responsibility, having used predatory lending practices which helped to bring on the most critical Real Estate losses, in both home values, and in foreclosure rates, since the depression, with the country heading into a deep recession, and some people don't want to believe that the removal of regulations from various industries have anything to do with these results, when all of them are tied to Republican policies, clearly, from Reagans deregulation plolicies, to the neocon "Project Fror The New American Century" which called for invading Iraq, and removing Saddam, a supposed cake walk, which has put our country into serious, and potentially critical risk in our ability to deal with countries like China, and others. We all saw the complete "Get lost" attitude that Bush and Cheney both recieved when they went flying around trying to get a deal to relieve this mess we're in at the pumps.

Now if you believe that John McCain, a man whose former M.O. was a that of a maverick, yet all who have known him over the years, have watched him tumble for Bush time and again, is the man for this job? If you think that his votes don't prove that, and we need a man who can't keep it stright who is killing our troops, and which country they're from, who thinks we can stay in Iraq for another hundred years, is the right person to lead this country? If you're ready to vote for a man who has backed every single policy of this failed, and worst administration, in history, but is the man to solve these critical issues, with his multi-millions dollar wife at his side? A man who wants to re-build Iraq, with our money, as our own infrastructure crumbles? If you think that a man with a reputation for being emotionally unstable, hot headed, elitist in his treatment of blue collar workers in the Senate Office building, who actually refuses to look up when a Senate Office worker says, "Mornin' Senator" and is invariably unreasonable, king-like, and even violent, once, rude and coarse many times, in his approaches with his peers, and is known for going off when things don't go his way, much like the Chimp, then all I can say it that I just find that an amazing ideology. We need a negotiator, an intelligent policy maker, with the greatest ability to use diplomacy to settle our problems, and deal with the rest of the world. McCain doesn't deal well with his own party members.

I think that to say that the Republicans have done enough damage to this country for a while, is a reasonable statement, and to say that McCain embraces the very policies which have brought this country to its present state of disaster, is absolutely correct. Others may wish to deny those facts, and paint me as a partisan nut, but the facts are on my side, and I cannot understand why in the world anyone would vote, at this particular time, for another Bushy, even more radical than the last one. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif

Bush has not done a single thing to lift this country up, he has put it into the dumpster, and the Republican party, save two or three brave, patriots, who had the courage to call a spade a spade, when none of the others did, has brought about the mess we're facing, bit by bit, vote by vote, block by block, veto by veto. It is time for a change of power, long past time. Anything would be better than another Republican!

Gayle in Md.

Gayle in MD
04-15-2008, 05:34 AM
Whatever you need to do to move your line around, Ed. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

Gayle in MD
04-15-2008, 05:36 AM
I wasn't dumb enough to vote for George Bush! /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/laugh.gif

Gayle in MD
04-15-2008, 05:45 AM
Ha ha ha...nice try, but we both know you'd slit your wrists before you'd vote Democratic.

I'm voting for a party because the Republican Party is solely responsible for the mess we're in, and sole responsible for blocking everything that could have solved the mess we're in right now. I wouldn't think of voting for a party that supports torture, while you, OTOH, supported torture, yourself. The result is that George Bush has tortured atleast dozens of innocent people, who never did anything to anyone. The difference between us is about human rights, an issue about which Republicans are full of rhetoric, but which they completely fail to stand up for, whether it is in the rights of a sovereign country to be free from the destruction of war, invasion and occupation, or whether it is about the rights of a sick child to get health care when they're ill, or the right to privacy, Republicans are the party which is destroying the Constitution Of The United States Of America, hence, I have valid reasons to vote against such a party, which lied its grieving citizens into an un-necessary, unwinnable, illegal war.

sack316
04-15-2008, 09:15 AM
Not to take away from many of the rest of your points in your well thought out post there Gayle, but when you said "Republicans will not be able to cloud pressing issues with rhetoric about gay marriage, abortion and other personal, private, family issues, issues which do not belong in a general election." all I could think about was the recent debate in which these issues were discussed (and it was known they would be discussed beforehand) and only Obama and Clinton accepted this debate, where the republican McCain declined to participate.

I also feel it is unfair to paint a republican, meaning ANYONE under the label of "republican" as being no different from any other. I swing to the right, but I liked what Edwards had to say and probably would have supported him had he not unfortunately been "status quo" for a candidate in a party that is attempting to show "change" via aesthetic differences. It seems to me much of the left is assuming McCain is another Bush, and claims there is evidence to support it, but I honestly haven't seen it. I haven't looked for it either, but surely in one post somewhere on this forum there would be a "here is my list of McCain votes showing his unwavering support of bad policy" followed by a tangible list of documentation, rather than just calline him a Bushite or whatever.

"with his multi-millions dollar wife at his side?" I find it very odd that you would use that considering. But I'll let it go.

As I said in another post a few moments ago, did you actually listen to his speech today? All the issues you claim he wouldn't deal with, or would just leave be were covered not only by acknowledging them, but also by giving a "how" he planned to cure these woes. The "how" is certainly missing from other candidates campaign speeches for the most part. I'll certainly grant that both Hillary and Obama have made some good sounding ideas for change, when they tell me exactly how they can do it I'll be more apt to give them some weight. Note: Calling an idea for reform a "plan" is not actually giving a plan, it's just giving it a name.

And finally, I hate us being in Iraq too. I also hate that if we are gonna survive and/or keep any relations with the middle East we will have to wind up in Iran too eventually (though I don't think any candidate will have the balls to say so). In fact, I now have a personal vested interest in us NOT being over there (**note the new future Mrs. Sack currently proudly serving in our "broken" US Army in Korea... I'll be sure to mention to her that her livelihood and source of pride for making a better life for herself is a broken instrument, according to leftist thinking)... but even I realistically don't think we can leave. Of course I feel it better if we were not there in the first place. But we can't just up a leave. I've seen it posted here so many times: "If the republicans would look at history and look at the facts". Well, the history that I do know recalls eventually pulling out of a similar war once upon a time. We came home and claimed victory. And anyone that knows anything about history knows what befell that country which we left next. Just leaving isn't a good answer, changing our process there and fixing our mess is the closest thing to an answer there may be (though there is no real answer per say). It's like going to a party at someone's house uninvited, and proceeding to throw up on their carpet. Yep, you made a mess and you're screwed, but you should clean up your vomit rather than just packing up and heading back to the house.

Sack

Gayle in MD
04-15-2008, 10:48 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Not to take away from many of the rest of your points in your well thought out post there Gayle, but when you said "Republicans will not be able to cloud pressing issues with rhetoric about gay marriage, abortion and other personal, private, family issues, issues which do not belong in a general election." all I could think about was the recent debate in which these issues were discussed (and it was known they would be discussed beforehand) and only Obama and Clinton accepted this debate, where the republican McCain declined to participate.

I also feel it is unfair to paint a republican, meaning ANYONE under the label of "republican" as being no different from any other. <span style="color: #000066">I'm sorry if it sounded like I was doing that. That wasn't my meaning when I wrote it. What I meant was this. I felt that Karl Rove muddied up the last two elections, using the Religious Coalition's issues during the campaign, to divide people. As you know, I don't think any of the mentioned subjects are federal issues. </span> I swing to the right, but I liked what Edwards had to say and probably would have supported him had he not unfortunately been "status quo" for a candidate in a party that is attempting to show "change" via aesthetic differences. <span style="color: #000066">I, too, liked a lot of what Edwards had to say, and I would much prefer it if we were deciding between Edwards and McCain, or Hillary and McCain, than Obama and McCain, that's for sure. </span> It seems to me much of the left is assuming McCain is another Bush, and claims there is evidence to support it, but I honestly haven't seen it. <span style="color: #000066">Well, I think that when people say that they are referring to his position on Iraq, and in that case, his voting record, and his statements about the war, prove to me that he intends to continue on the path which Bush has followed. His statements, regarding a safe harbor for al Qaeda, if we leave Iraq, for example, are not true, in any sense, since all Iraqis hate al Qaeda, and al Qaeda could never find safe haven in Iraq. It's true, that the Sunnis did accept al Qaeda for a while, because they were killing AMericans, now we're paying the same Sunni people not to kill us, in return for helping them run al Qaeda out of there, which they had already began doing before the start of the surge. </span> I haven't looked for it either, but surely in one post somewhere on this forum there would be a "here is my list of McCain votes showing his unwavering support of bad policy" followed by a tangible list of documentation, rather than just calline him a Bushite or whatever.

<span style="color: #000066">There is one good thing I can say about McCain in regard to Iraq, he did stand up against Rumsfeld's incompetence, and pushed for the Administration to remove Rumsfeld, however, I've never heard McCain speak out against the many lies we've been told about what is actually going on over there, and in fact, he repeats exactly Bush's statements, which of course, are not true, if one reads, or watches, testimony from those who are not involved with the Administration, and who have spent a great deal of tiem in Iraq, and even speak the language, and go out on missions with Iraqis. The Administration, AND McCain, both tout successes where there truly are none of any real substance, to brag about. Also, when I speak about Republicans, I'm talking about those who have the duty to vote on the policy, not every Republican in the country. The Republicans, in Congress, have blocked the efforts of the Democrats to hold the Iraqi Government to some sort of time-line, and to some responsibility for achieving political progress, while our soldiers are dying. McCain has supported that. That is not acceptable at all to me.</span>

"with his multi-millions dollar wife at his side?" I find it very odd that you would use that considering. But I'll let it go.
<span style="color: #000066">That is all we heard about Kerry, right? His billionaire wife? Just a bit of a payback for the Rovarian tactics... </span>
As I said in another post a few moments ago, did you actually listen to his speech today? <span style="color: #000066">Not yet, but I will catch it tonight. </span> All the issues you claim he wouldn't deal with, or would just leave be were covered not only by acknowledging them, but also by giving a "how" he planned to cure these woes. The "how" is certainly missing from other candidates campaign speeches for the most part. <span style="color: #000066">Well, I can't agree with you there. I believe that Hillary has given extended question and answer periods where she has explained exactly how she intends to accomplish much of what she intends to accomplish, and how. </span> I'll certainly grant that both Hillary and Obama have made some good sounding ideas for change, when they tell me exactly how they can do it I'll be more apt to give them some weight. Note: Calling an idea for reform a "plan" is not actually giving a plan, it's just giving it a name.

And finally, I hate us being in Iraq too. I also hate that if we are gonna survive and/or keep any relations with the middle East we will have to wind up in Iran too eventually (though I don't think any candidate will have the balls to say so). <span style="color: #000066">Well, I hope not, because we don't have any people to send to Iran, and in fact, we would have to re-institute the draft in order to prosecute a ground war with Iran. As I have said many times, I want a candidate who will truly exhaust diplomatic efforts, and not go into any war, anywhere, unless we are attacked by another country, or we have the soldiers of other countries in concert with our mission, fighting alongside our people. This policy of pre-emptive war, based on the possibility that another country just MIGHT, be a threat, at some future time, is not the American Way, IMO, and McCain seems to be saying that he won't back off Bush's policies whenever I hear him speak about the Middle East. </span> In fact, I now have a personal vested interest in us NOT being over there (**note the new future Mrs. Sack currently proudly serving in our "broken" US Army in Korea... I'll be sure to mention to her that her livelihood and source of pride for making a better life for herself is a broken instrument, according to leftist thinking)... <span style="color: #000066">Sack, it isn't the left, it is the Generals themselves, who have stated that our Army is broken, and the left has repeated it, but both many Generals who are presently serving, and others who are retired, in fact, the top General, of the Joint chiefs, made that statement, that our Army is broken. </span> but even I realistically don't think we can leave. Of course I feel it better if we were not there in the first place. But we can't just up a leave. I've seen it posted here so many times: "If the republicans would look at history and look at the facts". Well, the history that I do know recalls eventually pulling out of a similar war once upon a time. We came home and claimed victory. And anyone that knows anything about history knows what befell that country which we left next. Just leaving isn't a good answer, changing our process there and fixing our mess is the closest thing to an answer there may be (though there is no real answer per say). It's like going to a party at someone's house uninvited, and proceeding to throw up on their carpet. Yep, you made a mess and you're screwed, but you should clean up your vomit rather than just packing up and heading back to the house.

<span style="color: #000066">Sack, if you're talking about Vietnam, do you recall how we left? I'm sure you do. It was an emergency exit if ever there was one. Should we wait for that circumstance to leave? How long must we stay when we are loosing people in a multilayered civil war, in which we are financing both sides, and both sides are getting money from other countries on their borders, and arms, and the Government is corrupt, and the Iraqis themselves, want us to get out? That is the situation there. They are jerking us off over there. They have refused to take the lead in fighting for their own peace, for five years. Is ther any breaking point, in your mind, where we say, look here, we made a mess, but if you're not even going to do the right thing, and we have to pay you to stop killing us for trying to help you, then see ya! I've for leaving, now, before we have to air lift our troops and zig zag out of Iraq. WE are stuck in a no win situation, and what are we getting out of this? How long are we to stay in a militarily unwinnable war, losing young lives every day, for people who actually hate us? Iraqis have consistantly said, they want us OUT! And, just look at our own economic situation, we're going bankrupt fighting this war! It is totally unexceptable, in my mind, to continue throwing good money after bad, loosing more lives daily, and for what? Iraqs are the only ones who can solve their civil war. If you would read what General Odem said, and the other interviews I posted, you will see what I mean, and McCain, is repeating Bush's philosophy every time I hear him speak. Well, I will not vote for anyone who wants to continue the slaughter of our troops in Iraqa, for people who plan on turning around, again, and killing them again, after we have paid them money, andthey have taken it, dishonestly, while all the while, intending to resume their slaughter of our people, at the right time. No Way!

Please read the posts I have made about this, and I think you may come away with a different view of how long we should stay on this course. It is a loosing battle. No good will come of it, and it will change nothing, no matter how many more A,ericans die. And as for Iran, launching a war with Iran would be pure insanity!

Gayle in Md.</span>

Sack
</div></div>

wolfdancer
04-15-2008, 11:55 AM
This is probably unfair, but these were my immediate thoughts while watching the program.
I took a course in labor history, and one of the chapters was about
"Colorado Mine Massacre". Back in them days, when the workers went on strike, the company got an injunction to stop it, and federal troops to put down any opposition. In this case they met armed resistance, and killed many women and children.
But the History channel went into more detail..they sneaked up at night and set fire to the tents where the women and children were hiding in a pit below the tents....the troops may not have known they were there as many had already left.
I was thinking that the "Wal Mart...or big business has the right" folks here would decry the deaths, but believe the miners broke the law, and put the blame on them....they weren't striking for wages...just safer working conditions....
the end result was that with the bad publicity....the mine owners, the Rockefellers, did improve safety there.....

sack316
04-15-2008, 12:54 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> And as for Iran, launching a war with Iran would be pure insanity!

Gayle in Md. </div></div>

It would be pure political and public relations insanity for a candidate, yes. As far as any conflict at all with Iran, it's more inevitablity than insanity. Centrifuges and nuclear capabilities are at the very least, on the horizon for them. And I don't think Israel has the power to stop them, nor do I think any other countires will be chomping at the bit to pitch in either. As time goes on, there will be warfare with Iran... and when it happens we had better hope it's because we are initiating conflict there, because the alternative would spell trouble here. We say it over and over again here, look at the facts. The facts at this point are that Israel is practicing "worst case scenario" drills. Israel, Syria, Lebanon, and Iran are all preparing for war. If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck....

And anybody would be foolish to think that when (it's no longer if... and nobody really knows when "when" will be) it all goes down we will not be involved somehow. I understand that's gonna be quite an unpopular statement by myself there, but just file it under the "we'll see" part in your mind... because eventually, who knows when, we will either be there, or they will be here. And I honestly do hope that at some point you can laugh at me and tell me I was wrong. But given the current status of things in the middle east, both relating to and not relating to us, I don't see any other course to be written in history barring some miracle.

Sack

Gayle in MD
04-15-2008, 01:52 PM
War with Iran well could mean the destruction of the world, as we know it, in one afternoon.

There is only one hope for the world to survive, and that is for men, yes, MEN, to learn how to settle their differences like human beings, instead of like animals, with no intellectual awareness or appreciation for irreversible consequences.

America must stand for an end to nuclear weaponry, not presume to be in a position to dictate which countries may, and which may not, have nuclear weapons.

We have more nukes than any other country. Unless the leaders of our world learn how to settle the problems we face, our children have no future. That IS the reality. We are responsible for using the dreaded bombs on Japan. I have always thought that we should have found another way to settle that war. That to be the first country toobliterate a population of civilians in order to end a war, rather than demanding the nations of the world to setp into national dialog, and find a better way, was wrong. What are we to do? Continue on this ridiculous path to the nuclear destruction of our planet? This is insanity, and it is this kind of thinking that will surely bring the worst about.

We need a great leader, who can work successfully to rid the world of the nuclear threats which will destroy our planet. The proliferation of more nukes to other countries is exactly the reverse of what we should be doing, no, what we must do. Our present course has been to approve of certain countries to have the means and the knowledge to produce nuclear arms. This is pure insanity, IMO, and will only lead to an eventual end of life as we know it.

If you think it is inevitable that we will go to war with Iran, and if others, those with power, subscribe to that as the only possible eventuality, then they will surely create that very scenario. Our position should be to lead the world away from nuclear proliferation, not to promote it. It is long past time for the men who lead, to admit that no man can afford to lead his country into war. War, is no longer an option, given the likely irreversable consequences. This cat and mouse game that we play with the rest of the world, of getting nukes, controlling who can and can't have them, trying to decern which is friend, and which is foe, does not at all address the overall issue of what course this world must take, and what insane actions will surely come about unless mankind can resolve the nuclear threat which threatens our world.

A beginning to world peace is the choice that must be made by the most powerful of the powerful, to resolve to work together to settle issues without War. Leaders, of any country, who do not work together to solve such threats, and bring other nations into the fray to join together, to make and keep agreements, through treaties, and using diplomacy as a means to avoid war, are part of the problem, not the solution. We can no longer afford to have leaders who thumb their noses at the world, and do as they please, without regard for the worst case scenario. this country of ours cannot possibly sustain the present foreign policies of George Bush. Staying in Iraq, is the wrong thing to do. The very idea that this administration, AND Johm McCain, quote people like bin Laden as a means of convincing the American Public of their policy in Iraq, is insanity, particularly when they are exaggerating the likely results, by using threats about al Qaeda having a safe heven in Iraq. That is absolutely absurd, and to hear McCain state such an absurdity, over and over, is proof enough to me, that he is nothing but another George Bush. McCain, is far from convincing me that he has seen the light on this. When he acknowledges that invading Iraq was a mistake, and that Bush should not have taken such a hasty action without exhausting all inspections, and recieving sanctions for our actions from the other countries of the world, I will change my mind about him. When we fail to lead, we pay the price, and in the case of Iraq the price was far too high, and with Iran, the price would be an irreversible disaster, which no country can possibly approve. Bush has refused to use diplomatic means as a policy for peace. I see the consequences, and do not want more of the same. It is long past time for our country to get off its collective high horse, and face the facts of life. There can be no more wars. diplomacy must be the way, and countries like Iran, unreasonable as they may be, must be part of the global conversation for peace. That is the only way in which our planet can be saved, and the only future for our children, and grand children. Using wars of the past to justify wars of the future, is not the ideology for salvation.

Gayle in Md.

Gayle in MD
04-15-2008, 02:02 PM
Yeah, we Americans don't like to think about some of the things that our government has done, and some will disgrace anyone who second guess any kind of inhumanity committed by our country. Too bad. That ideology invites more inhumanity. Our Founders surely understood that.

Love,
Gayle

sack316
04-15-2008, 02:18 PM
excellent post there Gayle, and I agree whole heartedly. And if it could all be that way it would truly be a wonderful fairy tale ending. Unfortunately that's probably all it will ever be. I don't mean to be pessimistic about it, instead I just feel that is realistic. Us doing our part here, keeping our side of the street clean would be a great start. Unfortunately the majority of the world would not agree, and would prefer the demolishion of mankind over a peaceful existance with the evil United States. "Death to America" isn't just a fun little battle cry, but more of a real obsession and way of life for many people.

I surely do wish diplomacy would be the answer, and we all could enjoy our little piece of the pie on this planet. That would be awesome! But war has existed as long as man has existed. And I don't think this country can garner the trust of most of the world anywhere in my lifetime. Hell, we were founded on rebellion, corruption, greed, and theft from the very beginning. We've been the "bad guy" from the start!

I don't have much time for this post at the moment, but I would like to borrow quickly from a famous line... "I don't know with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones."

Sack

pooltchr
04-15-2008, 05:56 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> We are responsible for using the dreaded bombs on Japan. I have always thought that we should have found another way to settle that war.
Gayle in Md.

</div></div>

Just a couple of questions on this topic.
How long do you think the war would have continued, had we not dropped the bombs on Japan?
How many more US Military troops would have been killed?

The Japanese were willing to die to defeat the US. Their pilots were willing to fly planes into our warships, giving up their own life to destroy ours. (Wow, maybe that's where the terrorists got the idea on 9/11) They would not give up until we delivered a blow so devistating that they were forced to give up the fight.

Fast forward to today. We now have a culture that has vowed to destroy our country. They have the same mentality we saw in the early 1940's. The problem is that they have the same nuclear capability in the works, and would have no problem using it. Talking with them isn't going to work.

One last question.
Which party was in control of the White House when that decision was made in 1945?

Steve

Gayle in MD
04-16-2008, 06:27 AM
Dear friend,
While you make excellent points all around, none address the consequences of mankind failing to change the way international problems are settled. In all wars, there have been people willing to die, that's surely nothing new. History teaches us that leaders who rejected all out war, and aimed instead for settlements through diplomatic efforts, and intercourse between the nations involved in the controversary, often succeeded.
To lose hope in that course of action, insures the end of the world.

It might be worthwhile to study a bit, how many wars were prevented, by leaders who had high intention, and the will to prevent war, rather than those who romantisized it, and belittled the possible options for avoiding it.

Given the odds, the shortages of resources, and the opposing ideologies, based many times on religious differences, unfortunately, and the number of nukes, no other options are reasonable. To believe otherwise is to add to the likelihood of devastating future results. People create what they fear the most. War, must never be the chosen course. No one can ever say what might have been, had any of history's leaders aimed for solutions other than war, but it's fair to say that to do so may have saved many, many lives. And it's also fair to say that there are never wars where only one side is the loser.

Now, we live in a time when the whole world may be lost, unless there is hope that men, who opt for military solutions, begin to entertain other options.

Gayle in Md.

Deeman3
04-16-2008, 07:32 AM
Romanticising war is wrong but I feel believing you can negoiate with a group who's plural goals are to dominate or destroy you, your culture and your families is not a reasonable alternative to war. We have used sanctions, talked with clerics and put international pressure on Islamic leaders and countries and....they just don't care.

I wish there were always alternatives and if 1,000,000 additional American soldiers had died to take Japan, HST would have been roundly denounced by history when they learned we had that atomic solution.

While history has taught us diplomacy does work, it only works when you opponent feels they something earthly of value to lose.

It is a very difficult issue with these Muslims.

sack316
04-16-2008, 08:45 AM
"none address the consequences of mankind failing to change the way international problems are settled."

Actually my dear, I thought the "sticks and stones" quote addressed that quite well.

And of course war should not be romanticized, although it often times does seem to be. Indeed you are correct in that it is a worthwhile find to research and study cases where war was avoided through other means of problem soving. But for the same token it is also noteable that some cultures in the course of history have found themselves caught with their guard down and demolished via the same means.

Of course nobody here wants war if at all possible. Unfortunately the same cannot be said for the other side of the equation. And diplomacy must be a two way street.

Please don't misunderstand me Gayle, I do love your line of thinking on this issue and wish more people thought that same way, both here and abroad. Unfortunately many don't. And while dealing with someone you feel you can't discuss things rationally with on a message board can be solved easily simply by ignoring them, the same can't be done in the situation we are talking about. Diplomacy and talk are obviously the best course to take, but it's a course that has gone on for what I beleive has been my entire lifespan to this point. And in that time all that has been accomplished in Iran is that they have moved past being just another middle eastern country to being a dangerous threat to those surrounding them locally AND far away.

Indeed the consequences of action would be great... this I do know. My worry is the unknown... the consequences that lack of action could eventually bring.

Sack

Gayle in MD
04-17-2008, 08:36 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Romanticising war is wrong but I feel believing you can negoiate with a group who's plural goals are to dominate or destroy you, your culture and your families is not a reasonable alternative to war. We have used sanctions, talked with clerics and put international pressure on Islamic leaders and countries and....they just don't care.

<span style="color: #000066">Dear Deeman,
I'm afraid that you are addresing twocompletely different things. Depending on whom it is that you percieve as our most threatening enemy, as we must always separate al Qaeda, for example, from Iraq or Iran, as each requires a different course of action.
In the case of al Qaeda, the only option we have is to destroy them. They are fundamental fanatics, which we played a role in creating, or rather, Reagan did, and Bush I. In the case of Iran, however, we had the opportunity to enlist Iran as an ally after 9/11, and our failure to do so, along with Bush's pre-emptive war, degraded Iran's path, at that time, toward a more Western Styled Nation, and turned it back toward power being in the hands of the radicals in that country. This was a direct result of Bush's policies, and his decision to invade Iraq, as we now know, through our own NSIEstimates, increased the powers of not only Iran's radicals, but increased the power of Al Qaeda, and other radical elements in the region.

Imagine, for example, we had responded positively to Iran's offer to assist us in our efforts. What is more valuable than sharing a common goal? It can turn around long held grudges, almost instantly, and create a bond where none had ever existed before. A total focus on getting Al Qaeda, and bin Laden, rather than painting our own country as occupiers, invaders, torturers, would have gained us the support of the world, which was grieving, with us, for the most part, after 9/11, in getting al Qaeda, and bin Laden, and a shared global goal of addressing radical elements around the world, could have given us the opportunity to be the great leaders of peace, which we should always remain dedicated to being.

Bush missed the greatest opportunity that ever existed to include the rest of the world in our efforts, and campaign, to defeat radical Islam. No one can say for sure how differently things could have been, but, I think it is safe to say that continued diplomatic internation pressure against Saddam, would have surely provided results, given what we have learned about the state of that country insofar as the decline in it's infrastructure, and even in the oil infrastructure, it is my belief that Saddam was the least of our threats, and the damage we have suffered due to the illogical policies of Bush, have surely been great, not to mention that the WMD experts, who were there searching for WMD's, had begun telling Bush that they did not think Saddam had any WMD, which, unfortunately, for the Neocons, was reason enough to rush to war, or risk losing their trumped up case for the invasion. </span>

I wish there were always alternatives and if 1,000,000 additional American soldiers had died to take Japan, HST would have been roundly denounced by history when they learned we had that atomic solution. <span style="color: #000066">I don't think anyone can possibly imagine how different this world would have been over these last decades since The Bomb, had the United States, met with the Japanese, and laid out for them the hint of what we could, and would do, unless they surrendered. </span>

While history has taught us diplomacy does work, it only works when you opponent feels they something earthly of value to lose.

<span style="color: #000066">Exactly my own point, friend. </span>

It is a very difficult issue with these Muslims. <span style="color: #000066">I think that we must call them radical Muslims, which could have become the enemy of the Muslim World, after 9/11, and that just may have been possible, had Bush listened to the experts, who, BTW, pretty much predicted correctly, exactly the mess we face at this time, and also predicted that no WMD's would be found, and that even if Saddam had them, he was most assuredly not likely to ever use them against the United States. Wrong war, wrong place, wronng time, truer words were never spoken.

Love,
Gayle</span>
_________________________
DeeMan
http://Zazzle.com/Deeman* </div></div>

Deeman3
04-17-2008, 08:46 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> [/color]

I wish there were always alternatives and if 1,000,000 additional American soldiers had died to take Japan, HST would have been roundly denounced by history when they learned we had that atomic solution. <span style="color: #000066">I don't think anyone can possibly imagine how different this world would have been over these last decades since The Bomb, had the United States, met with the Japanese, and laid out for them the hint of what we could, and would do, unless they surrendered. </span>

</div></div>

In my early days in Japan, I talked with older people who were not so far from the actual bombings and, in my foolish youth, asked them about the bombings. I was less defensive fo the U.S. then, as I say I was younger. They defended the U.S. decision to use the bomb and explained how militant the Japanese, even these private citizens were. When I made your argument, roughly, they told me I would never understand the fervor of the Japanese people in those times, that they would have fought to the last child. The average citizen had no concept within which they thought Japan could or wound be defeated as the Emroper was divine, like Obama at MSNBC.

The German, I found, were different and just needed a butt kicking, The Japanese had to be shown total defeat and still, some dod not accpet it for many years. I think some of the Muslims share some of that misguided passion others just want their virgins. I say, send 'em Brittany.

Gayle in MD
04-17-2008, 09:19 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
Just a couple of questions on this topic.
How long do you think the war would have continued, had we not dropped the bombs on Japan? <span style="color: #000066">Who knows what showing the Emperor Of Japan the films of what these bombs could do, would have brought to the table? </span>
How many more US Military troops would have been killed? <span style="color: #000066">Maybe none. </span>

The Japanese were willing to die to defeat the US. Their pilots were willing to fly planes into our warships, giving up their own life to destroy ours. <span style="color: #000066">Nothing unprecedented about that, it's always the case in war, as it was in ivetnem, also. </span> (Wow, maybe that's where the terrorists got the idea on 9/11) <span style="color: #000066">AGain, nothing unique. </span> They would not give up until we delivered a blow so devistating that they were forced to give up the fight. <span style="color: #000066">There are alwsys more than one way to skin a cat, IMO. <span style="color: #000066"> </span> </span>

Fast forward to today. We now have a culture that has vowed to destroy our country. They have the same mentality we saw in the early 1940's. The problem is that they have the same nuclear capability in the works, and would have no problem using it. Talking with them isn't going to work. <span style="color: #000066">Spoken like a true neocon hawk. How long since we even attempted to talk with them? Talking with Nikita worked. </span>

One last question.
Which party was in control of the White House when that decision was made in 1945? <span style="color: #000066">Apparently, one for which you have great approval? </span>

Steve </div></div>

wolfdancer
04-17-2008, 11:20 AM
The Japanese were both a formidable and a ruthless enemy, and determined to die fighting for their country. It's useless now, to question any decisions made back then. We had been fighting for four years at a tremendous loss of American lives...and a war weary President, Congress, and Country wanted an end to the war

I read this a long time ago...and it may be hard to verify now...but:
the Germans and Japanese had a plan to occupy the US if they won the war....they would split the country at the Rockies, and decimate the population through slave labor and starvation rations.
The only question should be re: dropping the second bomb....

AND, our country was united back then, not partison ....
Trying to give one party credit for, or laying the blame on....is
unrealistic at best.
We also fire bombed some 67 (?) Japanese cities, with pretty devastating results on the civilian population. Looking at that now...it seems as cruel as the a-bombs...but we were at war, and "war is hell" to argue the morality of any decisions made then, at this date....is like arguing the ethics of our civil war.

They also tried to fire bomb the US by launching balloons:

Deeman3
04-17-2008, 12:14 PM
I know we were racist in our more ambitious attacks on Japan and cut a lot of slack for the Germanic people. However, the Japanese were fanatical in the same sense as the Islamic terrorists are today.

The Japanese did bomb us frist, tortured (really, not the modern day left branding of torture) everyone, raped all women they came across, likked entire towns and villages in China and Indonesia, flew planes into ships (both military and civilian) and thought they would overpower, enslave and kill all non-Japanese. After the first bomb, they did not surrender. The options were the Hillary/Obama make nice and talk with them or to send in a grouond invasion force. Even the most rational historian would not say the Japanese understood or would have considered less than total Japanese victory, even near the end as the Divine Wind was to swoop in and rescue them at the very last second. Of course, global warming interviened and it was not that windy.

Gayle in MD
04-21-2008, 09:59 AM
Deeman,
No one could question the horrors committed by the Japanese. However, I still believe that the massive loss of human life and sickness we created, could have been avoided, and we could still have been victorious.

One seldom reads about the fact that Truman, Secretary of State James F. Byrnes and Adm. William D. Leahy, the president's chief of staff, all reportedly agreed on Aug. 3, 1945 - three days before 140,000 civilians were killed in Hiroshima - that Japan was "looking for peace." Brynes advised Truman that Americans would not stand for a clarification of the terms of surrender that appeared to coddle Japan. The Senate Republican leadership was publicly Attacking Truman for prolonging the war by not giving the Japanese what the State Department knew they wanted: a guarantee of the continuation of the emperorship.

It has been demonstrated that the Japanese were essentially defeated before the atomic bombs fell. But the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki are always justified. I can never agree with that, as I believe that there could have been a settlement, given that many historians write that the use of the bombs were against an enemy that was, in the words of J. Robert Oppenheimer, "against an enemy that was essentially defeated."

Three years ago, the Japanese scholar, Tsuyoshi Hasegawa, who teaches at the University of California, Santa Barbara, published a widely praised book, Racing The emeny: Stalin, Truman and the surrender of Japan, revealing evidence from Japanese and Russian archives that it was the Soviet entry into the war - not the atomic bombings - that induced surrender.

Most believe an invasion of Japan, would have been insanity, but we seldom hear about what Truman's advisors were telling him.

War Secretary Henry Stimson, Assistant Secretary of War John J. McCloy, the State Department's Joseph Grew, General George Marshall, and many other advisers to the president, and also The Washington Post, urged Truman to clarify the terms of unconditional surrender by stipulating that the United States would allow Japan to retain its emperor as a constitutional monarch. There is good evidence, that this might have led to an earlier surrender.

When thousands of civilians lives might be saved, and the earth itself, saved from contamination, I want a president with a cool head, and one who seeks to avoid as much civilian loss of life, and distress to the planet as possible.

The land is still contaminated on the Pacific Islands where we dropped the biggest bombs, ever.

I believe there could have been another way, and that it should have been fully tested, before such an extreme action was taken.

Gayle in Md.

Deeman3
04-21-2008, 10:49 AM
Of course you do. I can't say you are not right but still beleive that hundreds of thousands of American lives were saved. I do not care as much about the country that instigated the war. I feel for them but do not put them above our soldiers lives.

Gayle in MD
04-21-2008, 11:20 AM
I don't think that saving innocent lives, when possible, is putting the enemy before our soldiers lives, Deeman.

There are a whole range of reasons, going far beyond the war, why it would have been much better for the whole world, had we been able to achieve victory, without the use of those bombs.

Gayle in Md.

Deeman3
04-21-2008, 12:35 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I don't think that saving innocent lives, when possible, is putting the enemy before our soldiers lives, Deeman.

It is when they are so entrenched and passionate about killing you that they do not reason, as with the present Islamics.

There are a whole range of reasons, going far beyond the war, why it would have been much better for the whole world, had we been able to achieve victory, without the use of those bombs.

No doubt we would have eventually achieved victory without the bombs but, again, I beleive a mass invasion would have been required and the loss of American soldier's lives would have been prohibitive. Of course, surrendering to them just after Pearl Harbor would have been easier. Thankfullly, Democrats were a more thoughtful bunch back then. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif



</div></div>

Gayle in MD
04-23-2008, 08:33 AM
I believe there were ample indications that surrender was at hand, and could have been achieved without any invasion.

Whenever I think of people, as innocent as you and I, and our children, being wiped out by another country, over circumstances overwhich we had no control, I am horrifed.

While I'm appalled that the Iraqi men have failed to step up to the plate to defend their own country, in my heart, I grieve for the many thousands of innocent men, women and children who have been wiped out, and never were anything but oppressed, and abused throughout their lives.

War is dumb. Period. It is actually passe' given the destruction to our planet due to nuclear proliferation.

Only a world of leaders who understand that, can really save this planet from complete obliteration.

The more of us who demand peace, and the exhausting of all methods to avoid war, the safer the world will be.

Going into Iraq like we did was stupid. The world is full of horrible dictators, and ignoring what purpose Saddam DID serve in our international affairs, was really dumb. Iran, bin Laden and al qaeda, the Talliban, are the winners. America and Iraq, the losers.

Nobody wins in a war. I don't hate men, I just think women would make better leaders. they lean much more toward settling issues without violence. That is precisely what we need right now. Leaders who can build and support human rights around the world, without war, and coordinate international efforts in that effort. The world is a big place, and organized pressure from an organization of Nations, when pressed properly, could achieve miracles, IMO. We dictators should be assassinated, and the civilians saved. War should not be an option.


Sounds impossible, right, but then we did go to the moon. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/wink.gif My Italian Grand Mother thought it was a miracle from Gos everytime one switched on a light bulb. I often wonder what she would think now if she were in the same room with a remote!

Gayle in Md., We create what we fear the most. That's a stupid set up!

Gayle in Md.

Gayle in MD
04-23-2008, 09:18 AM
LOL, you are a dreamer.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
"I am concerned about the [party still holding on to Iraq as an issue]," said Hagel. "If for no other reason than the political factors here are quite obvious. This country has made a decision on Iraq, and as you see now in any poll, even a minimum of 25 percent of the registered Republicans cannot support the president's policy in Iraq. You take that with the independents and Democrats and you have anywhere between 60 and 70 percent who want out. So you can't politically sustain this and any party that uses this as an issue when they are going in the face of where America is, is not going to do very well politically. That is just the facts of life."
</div></div>

Republicans could ressurect Ronald Reagan, and they'd still lose this election.

McCain doesn't have a snoball's chance in hell. Bush and McCain can stand up there till dooms day and lie to AMericans, telling them the "Surge id working" and the country isn't in a recession, but the gig is up. They can march out every medal laden General they can find to lie for them, but that gig is up too, we all know they are the same despots who are racking up dough in their bank accounts, while the kids of the poor and Middle Class are fighting this war of insanity.

80% of the country, includes both Democrats aaaaaand Republicans. Those Republicans that were charmed into the party by a good actor, have seen the third act, and they don't like it one bit.

It won't matter a bit how long Hillary campaigns, or how much BS the right wing press throws around on the air waves, these ridiculous Republican lies about this war, and the economy, are all the voters care about.

I'll send you a crying towel, and a good book on socialism. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/laugh.gif

pooltchr
04-23-2008, 05:35 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I'll send you a crying towel, and a good book on socialism. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/laugh.gif

</div></div>

If Hillary or Obama win in November, we won't need to read about socialism, we'll all be living in it.
Steve

Deeman3
04-24-2008, 07:27 AM
Breaking News....

Hillary just remembered it was not Scranton her Grandfather taught her to shoot in, it was rural Indiana! She is now an Indiana Gal and has been a lifelong Hoosier Fan!

/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

Gayle in MD
04-24-2008, 08:44 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Most believe an invasion of Japan, would have been insanity, but we seldom hear about what Truman's advisors were telling him.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">No doubt we would have eventually achieved victory without the bombs but, again, I beleive a mass invasion would have been required and the loss of American soldier's lives would have been prohibitive. Of course, surrendering to them just after Pearl Harbor would have been easier. Thankfullly, Democrats were a more thoughtful bunch back then.


</div></div>
War Secretary Henry Stimson, Assistant Secretary of War John J. McCloy, the State Department's Joseph Grew, General George Marshall, and many other advisers to the president, and also The Washington Post, urged Truman to clarify the terms of unconditional surrender by stipulating that the United States would allow Japan to retain its emperor as a constitutional monarch. There is good evidence, that this might have led to an earlier surrender.
</div></div>

I don't think so. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/wink.gif