O/U: how many times

[kentuckyrosesinmay]

Originally Posted by The Indomitable DrugS

Invading Iraq for starters. And now, staying there.



You don't need to be a CIA agent to have a morsel of common sense. Osama bin Laden was never some sh!t eating angry Arab radical.

He had A LOT of money, he had A LOT of people who idolized him, he had a country to escape to where he was a beloved hero, he was a Mushahadeen legend, he is a tremendously intelligent, calm, soft spoken man, most importantly, he had an infrastructure and an easy time recruiting.

He publicly declared War on us - and had his declaration widely circulated before he started his War.

You really think there are others like him? He is not a dime a dozen person, rather he is a once in several lifetimes kind of figure.

You have to get rid of him ASAP - and stop pretending there are others like him. There aren't.



You brought up your Isolationisim label. Remember?



I know we have bases all over the world - not just in arab countries.

Why not just be honest, stop with the labels, and say you're in favor of giving away big handouts, aid, and favors to all governments who want to be our pals - but if a country doesn't want to play ball with us - you want there cage rattled.

But hey, I just hope I'm doing a good enough job to get KYRIM all moist.

From my POV, you're doing a good job arguing this and I agree with everything that you have said about politics so far. You know what you're talking about...I will give you that. I see no need to jump in. Unfortunately, it is not making me 'moist'. Carry on...

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by The Indomitable DrugS

If you read the full version of bin Laden's '96 Fatwa - which I believe was titled something like 'Declaration of War against the Americans for occupying the land of the two holy places' - it becomes painfully obvious that the entire basis for declaring war by bin Laden's network was because of the United States foreign policy. His case was built around that and only that.

The Fatwa was very widely circulated - in fact, it was something I had read long before 9/11. I was in high school at the time, and my sociology teacher (who had recently retired from the US Military) had something of a bin Laden obsession. He was convinced that the guy was no joke - and was something of a calculating political genius who was probably capable of low tech, high concept attacks, designed to bait or trap.

I remember on the old AOL horse board before 9/11 - I'd like to mix in a few Osama bin Laden references, jokes, and just drop his name into my posts - mostly because almost everyone there had no idea who the hell I was talking about. There are a few who post here now who remember those old gems of mine from way back in the day.

I don't blame Ron Paul at all for saying what almost made you fall out of your chair. Why, exactly, did we need our military stationed in other lands? Just because the governments there are friendly and the people are fanatical?

Our foreign policy has long been a joke - we ought to focus on our own peace and prosperity instead of trying to get involved in everyone elses business. Giving huge handouts and aid away to those governments who want to be our pals (even if said gov is evil or corrupt) - and rattling cages of all governments who don't want to be our pals.

I think Paul's point was that if we focused on just our own peace and prosperity - and not tried to be the policeman of the entire world, getting involved in everyones business - there would have been no 9/11, no Iraq war, and the Al Qadia network would have either been a non-entity or an entity who ultimately would have declared war against an Arab government. We are fighting everyone elses battles.

Al Qadea was originally formed back in the 1980s to get the Soviets out of Afghanistan. Once they reached their goal, they didn't disband and retire. These guys are terrorists. They are cold-blooded killers and that's what they will always be. Our behavior was not responsible for 9/11. They will kill anyone that they can't control. How do you explain them putting bombs in shopping malls in Iraq? Did the shoppers at the malls do something bad to Al Qadea? There is no justification for Al Qadea's behavior. To think that most of their terrorist behavior is rational and justified is crazy. Al Qadea wants to control people through intimidation. Let's just suppose that they got everything that they claim that they want. Let's say that we left the Middle East. Let's say that Al Qadea overthrew the government in both Saudi Arabia and Egypt. Do you think they would be satisfied at that point? Do you think that Bin Laden would retire and become a family man? Of course not. He would set his sights on something else. They would start killing all the Muslims who don't practice the same brand of Islam as Al Qadea. They are already doing this right now in Iraq. They would probably try to overthrow some of the European governments through acts of terror.

I think it is a huge mistake to think that Al Qadea is a totally rational group with limited goals. It is also a huge mistake to think that most of the victims that are murdered by Al Qadea, are partially responsible because of their behavior. The truth of the matter is that they will murder anyone that does not practice their brand of Islam. Just sitting back and minding your own business, will in no way mean that Al Qadea will leave you alone.

Being an isolationist country would by no means guarantee our safety. I think we learned that lesson in World War II. I'm not saying that we shouldn't reevaluate our foreing aid and foreign policy, but I think it would be naive and shortsighted to think that we would be safer and that the world would be a safer place if we simply became an isolationist country. Quite to the contary, I think there could be some devastating consequences.

If a country is an active player on the world stage, they are not going to make everybody happy. You will certanly make some enemies. You just have to live with that because the alternative of being an isolationist country is not a viable alternative.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

Isolationism is like this. You buy a house in a nice neighborhood. You spend all your time fixing it up and making improvements without regard for you neighbors. One day you look outside the window and the old "nice" neighborhood is gone, the old neighbors are gone and the area is turning into a ghetto. Well it's too late for you and your nice house to change things now. You are now on an island and pretty soon your nice house will be dragged down like the rest of the neighborhood. The world is now effectively a global economy and terrorism is not limited to distant shores. Many people forget that in the late 30's an overwhelming number of Americans did not want to participate in WW2 feeling that Hitler was Europe's problem. Blaming American foreign policy for terrorism is like blaming the rape victim for wearing suggestive clothing.

You are exactly right. I agree with you 100%.

Originally Posted by kentuckyrosesinmay

You argue in a respectable manner, so no offense is taken. Aren't you one of the ones that is a college professor or very educated in math/physics or something like that?

In no means would I ever suggest that Ron Paul is my ideal candidate. On the contrary, and I will explain. And you have nothing to worry about because he won't be elected. I do think you misunderstand him a little bit, and I probably misunderstand him on some issues as well.

READ THIS ENTIRE PARAGRAPH. You missed the point that Ron Paul was trying to make about the Civil War. He didn't state that slavery would have ended on its own to my knowledge, and if he did will you please post a link to a direct quote? From my knowledge and research on this topic, Ron Paul simply stated that Lincoln could have found a lot better way to free the slaves than to start a Civil War. In theory, he is right. None of the other countries went to wars over slaves. The government just simply bought all of the slaves. Why couldn't the United States have done the same thing? I can answer this...it is cited in several documents that Lincoln actually did try to free the slaves by buying them, but it did not work. Now, whether these documents are actually true or not, I do not know. So I believe that Ron Paul could possibly be misinformed about that. However, as for the North and South being split, I have no idea where that idea stems from. I don't think those are Paul's intentions at all. I have never heard the argument like that before, and I would like you to explain that stance in more detail so that I can understand.

I would say that our current administration is more along the lines of Adolf Hitler than I would ever compare those who want to give us back our civil liberties like Paul, Howard, Kuninch...etc. Have you read the recent bill that Ron Paul proposed? Here is a link to it....you might find it interesting. It is far from Hitler. What I find most interesting among many things is Section 8. Does this mean that the government really is censoring the media? Remember, Ron Paul is more informed on these issues than we are. Alot of things go on behind closed doors in the government than we are aware of...

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-...3835ih.txt.pdf

We are about to go into a recession! I truly believe that he is the only one besides possibly Clinton that can get us out. We have got to pull out of the war, and not go to anymore wars. We don't even have a democracy here in the U.S. anymore. The system of checks and balances is breaking/has broken down in our government. Yet, we are trying to establish democracy in other countries (of course, this is a lie...i.e. oil). The top economists in the country are backing Ron Paul. If McCain is the Republican nominee, I will be voting for the Dems because McCain is a crazy war-hungry idiot. He is worse than Bush! Yet, Americans are failing to realize this, and they must want Bush x 2 all over again. If he is president, we will go to war with Iran. We will stay in Iraq. And I can't understand the fact that some people will only vote for their party no matter what. Close-minded poor souls. Now I see why people from other countries call us stupid.

Even Clinton is better than McCain, and I can't stand the thought of socialized medicine. I would normally vote Republican, but their ideas are too far off. They're neocons, which is the combined worst ideals of the Repub and Dem parties IMO.

This isn't about Ron Paul in the end. It is about Americans being very unhappy with the government. It is about the fact that Bush should be impeached. Clinton gets his dick sucked and lies to the public about it, and gets impeached. Bush lies hundreds of times, kills American soldiers under false pretenses, and kills thousands of Iraqis. WE WERE LIED TO over and over and over again. The extent and end results of these lies are yet to fully be understood, and he hasn't been impeached. I see a HUGE problem with this. Our ethics and morals are messed up. More and more people are starting to become aware of this, and a movement is beginning. Paul, Howard, and Kuninch just lit the fire.

Just for the record, I do not believe in some of Ron Paul's ideas on being a strict Constitutionalist. For instance, he wants to leave it up to the states to make up abortion laws and drug laws. I think that hard drugs like cocaine should absolutely not be allowed. The federal government does need to regulate that. However, I think the states should be given the power to decide on whether or not the state's citizens are allowed to use marijuana. People who are terminally ill are going to jail for using medicinal marijuana. I don't think that is right. If you are dying, you should be able to legally use it. In fact, I think alcohol is just as bad as marijuana if not worse. Changing times call for changes in the Constitution. Like I said, it isn't about Ron Paul. It is about freedom, and of us having a say again. Our government needs to drastically change. Luckily, many Americans are starting to come out of the trance and wake up, including, just recently, myself.

Also, Ron Paul falls closest to my ideals than any other candidate. Note that I said closest, and they are still far from my ideals. I just think that we have some horrible candidates running for president, and he is by far the worst of the evils for me.

I heard the quote myself Sunday morning with Chris Matthews. I heard Paul say almost exactly what I wrote. Now maybe he needed more time to fully explain what he meant, but this is what I heard. I was stunned as I thought he would be wiser on National TV.

And I do understand the frustration of too much government intervention. Its just that Paul goes so far opposite as to be bizarre.

No I only teach at a Junior College off and on and teach Physics
on the High school level.
I am thought to be an imbecile by more than a few.
So there ya go.

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

Being an isolationist country would by no means guarantee our safety. I think we learned that lesson in World War II. I'm not saying that we shouldn't reevaluate our foreing aid and foreign policy, but I think it would be naive and shortsighted to think that we would be safer and that the world would be a safer place if we simply became an isolationist country. Quite to the contary, I think there could be some devastating consequences.

If a country is an active player on the world stage, they are not going to make everybody happy. You will certanly make some enemies. You just have to live with that because the alternative of being an isolationist country is not a viable alternative.

I wanted to type something very much like
the above concerning foreign affairs.

We also must remember the tremendous number
of groups in this country that go out purely for
humanitarian reasons with no poliltical agenda.

Doctors without borders, and a number of religious
groups that make it illegal to "spread the word of
God" while doing charity work abroad. There are so
many groups in this country with nothing but good
intentions for starving and disease ridden areas outside
our country. You just dont hear about them. But I know
some of these Doctors and others of good will that make
these journeys into very tough situations.

[pdrift1]

By DOUGLASS K. DANIEL – Jan 22, 2008

WASHINGTON (AP) — A study by two nonprofit journalism organizations found that President Bush and top administration officials issued hundreds of false statements about the national security threat from Iraq in the two years following the 2001 terrorist attacks.

The study concluded that the statements "were part of an orchestrated campaign that effectively galvanized public opinion and, in the process, led the nation to war under decidedly false pretenses."

The study was posted Tuesday on the Web site of the Center for Public Integrity, which worked with the Fund for Independence in Journalism.

White House spokesman Scott Stanzel did not comment on the merits of the study Tuesday night but reiterated the administration's position that the world community viewed Iraq's leader, Saddam Hussein, as a threat.

"The actions taken in 2003 were based on the collective judgment of intelligence agencies around the world," Stanzel said.

The study counted 935 false statements in the two-year period. It found that in speeches, briefings, interviews and other venues, Bush and administration officials stated unequivocally on at least 532 occasions that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction or was trying to produce or obtain them or had links to al-Qaida or both.

"It is now beyond dispute that Iraq did not possess any weapons of mass destruction or have meaningful ties to al-Qaida," according to Charles Lewis and Mark Reading-Smith of the Fund for Independence in Journalism staff members, writing an overview of the study. "In short, the Bush administration led the nation to war on the basis of erroneous information that it methodically propagated and that culminated in military action against Iraq on March 19, 2003."

Named in the study along with Bush were top officials of the administration during the period studied: Vice President Dick Cheney, national security adviser Condoleezza Rice, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, Secretary of State Colin Powell, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz and White House press secretaries Ari Fleischer and Scott McClellan.

Bush led with 259 false statements, 231 about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and 28 about Iraq's links to al-Qaida, the study found. That was second only to Powell's 244 false statements about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and 10 about Iraq and al-Qaida.

The center said the study was based on a database created with public statements over the two years beginning on Sept. 11, 2001, and information from more than 25 government reports, books, articles, speeches and interviews.

"The cumulative effect of these false statements — amplified by thousands of news stories and broadcasts — was massive, with the media coverage creating an almost impenetrable din for several critical months in the run-up to war," the study concluded.

"Some journalists — indeed, even some entire news organizations — have since acknowledged that their coverage during those prewar months was far too deferential and uncritical. These mea culpas notwithstanding, much of the wall-to-wall media coverage provided additional, 'independent' validation of the Bush administration's false statements about Iraq," it said

[kentuckyrosesinmay]

Isolationism and a non-intervention philosophy are different things. The US has not really ever been an isolationist country. ID is dead on in his/her assessment of Al-Qaeda. Someone has done their research well... There were devastating consequences because of our interventional foreign policy. There would be some without, but we would have a lot more money in the bank as a society, and wouldn't have to borrow from China. Does anyone realize how the rest of the world feels about us right now?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_...nterventionism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isolationism

On Al-Qaeda
http://www.meforum.org/article/999

[Mortimer]

Do you fucl< very much?

The fact that Americans still vote for this man in a time of an economic crisis simply baffles me. Americans really can't be that stupid, can they?


And it is baffling that Ron Paul got sent a penny by anyone.
He got millions over the internet by people in their 20's and 30's.

Pray hard.

[Cajungator26]

Originally Posted by pgardn

Ron Paul.
The guy who on National Television about
a month ago said that Abe Lincoln screwed up
the country with the Civil War. Stated that slavery
would have ended eventually on its own.

If Ron Paul had his way, the US would be split into
North and South, independent of each other. And
private companies would supply all law enforcement.
Dig a little deeper and you find the guy is a nut.
I have been following this guy's antics since the early
80's since my Gov. professor pointed him out as an example
of how anyone could gain political office if
enough people were dropped on their heads
right after they were born. A ref. to his profession.

But then again, Adolph Hitler moved an entire
group of people under the proper conditions.
Ron Paul scares the crud out of me.

I hope you only like the ideas on paper.
No offense meant.

I voted for him yesterday. Not like it was worth anything (he's got no shot at being elected), but if you prefer McCain over Ron Paul, I'd like to know what you're smoking.

[SCUDSBROTHER]

Originally Posted by Danzig

so....how many nascar races held in california now?

i just don't agree with people who make generalizations about whole groups of people. that would be like me saying all californians think they're smarter and better than the rest of the country based on reading your posts.

Too many.When you got this many millions of people,your gunna fill some seats.It's in an area called the Inland Empire.It's inland,but it's a lesser area.Smoking rate has to be huge out there.I don't particularly appreciate the fact that the necks out number you there,either.Fact is it's winner take all in the Presidential race,and that means you have no say.It's Hee Haw all the way,and until they change it,you're always be dominated by the HEE HAW social conservatives there.The only way to get reasonable people's votes to count is to add up every American's vote.The Hee Haw politicians will never vote for that change...........PGRDN,Texas gunna be a red state until Jesus comes back....Cannon,I got a dog smarter than GEEDUBBYA.She cries (as if in pain) if a person or another dog beats her to the top of the stairs.Bitch is still smarter than that fool.

[pdrift1]

my question is how much will the pres election be effected by non minority white males refuseing to vote for a black man or a woman come hell or high water?

[Cajungator26]

Originally Posted by pdrift1

my question is how much will the pres election be effected by non minority white males refuseing to vote for a black man or a woman come hell or high water?

My refusal to vote for Obama and Hillary has nothing to do with color or gender. My question is how many centuries will need to go by before the race issue quits being brought into EVERYTHING?

[Mortimer]

Brother.

Talk about your unfriendly types.

[pdrift1]

[quote=Cajungator26]My refusal to vote for Obama and Hillary has nothing to do with color or gender. My question is how many centuries will need to go by before the race issue quits being brought into EVERYTHING?[/QUOTE

cause if you don't believe it exists your kidding yourself

[Rupert Pupkin]

To clarify my last post, I should have used the term non-interventionism. That was what I meant. I did not mean isolationism.

[Cajungator26]

[quote=pdrift1]

Originally Posted by Cajungator26

My refusal to vote for Obama and Hillary has nothing to do with color or gender. My question is how many centuries will need to go by before the race issue quits being brought into EVERYTHING?[/QUOTE

cause if you don't believe it exists your kidding yourself

You don't think reverse racism exists? There are some that believe that Hillary will get shafted because the African American population will vote against her out of spite for Obama not being elected (if that happens.) Do you believe that will be the case? I don't care what color Obama is or what gender Hillary is... neither one is my ideal candidate and that is why I won't be voting for either one.

[Cajungator26]

Originally Posted by Mortimer

Brother.

Talk about your unfriendly types.

I got tired trying to solve my mobius strip. Sorry.

[kentuckyrosesinmay]

[quote=pdrift1]

Originally Posted by Cajungator26

My refusal to vote for Obama and Hillary has nothing to do with color or gender. My question is how many centuries will need to go by before the race issue quits being brought into EVERYTHING?[/QUOTE

cause if you don't believe it exists your kidding yourself

I agree completely. I wouldn't be voting for either one of them if we had a decent GOP candidate, and not based on their race or gender either. I am a white Caucasian female who dates someone of a different race to emphasize that point.

I will say that at my college, Obama is definitely in the lead. My college's demographics are mainly whites with very few minorities. As you all know, the younger generation is more open-minded than older white males throughout this country taken as a whole, not individually. We normally accept differences more readily.

I will be voting for Clinton or Obama if McCain gets the GOP nomination. Drastic times call for drastic measures because I don't like Clinton at all, yet I would take her over McCain at this point. McCain was someone I touted a few years ago. He has completely changed his stances from then.

[quote=kentuckyrosesinmay]

Originally Posted by pdrift1

I agree completely. I wouldn't be voting for either one of them if we had a decent GOP candidate, and not based on their race or gender either. I am a white Caucasian female who dates someone of a different race to emphasize that point.

I will say that at my college, Obama is definitely in the lead. My college's demographics are mainly whites with very few minorities. As you all know, the younger generation is more open-minded than older white males throughout this country taken as a whole, not individually. We normally accept differences more readily.

I will be voting for Clinton or Obama if McCain gets the GOP nomination. Drastic times call for drastic measures because I don't like Clinton at all, yet I would take her over McCain at this point. McCain was someone I touted a few years ago. He has completely changed his stances from then.

Wow.