Printable View
Im just chalenging him to actually addres my points after the wild shoutout, and do it in a far more civil manner then he ever addresed me at.
Point taken tough.
Stone would you kindly actually reply to the points I brought forward instead of trying to divert attention away?
I know I'm waayyyy too late for this thread, but have any of you guys turned CNN on? They're practically celebrating the war is a "victory."
:sonic:
hyper sonic is back?
ALL YOUR BASE ARE BELONG TO ME!Quote:
Originally Posted by frostwolf ex
Btw, what's with this new layout? It blows ass to find someone's post to read.
I need an avator.
And there's no democrat alive who wouldn't defend Clinton and remind us it was all just lying about sex ;). Anyway, it's not solely pointing the finger at him. You can't shield him from all criticism with that argument, just like you couldn't for N. Korea. It doesn't change the fact that democrats are attacking Bush for it, when their track record on "finding" him was terrible.Quote:
Originally Posted by Melf
OMG! You criticized Clinton! No way! We know he inherited the problem, like N. Korea. But, Bush did as well, along with 9-11. And, for them to be all like, "Well, Bush, you failed miserably in finding Bin Laden!" is a little over the top, no? I wasn't going that far back into it, I just think a little bit more class, less obnoxiousness, less hypocrisy could be exercised in presenting your "opposing point-of-view."Quote:
Originally Posted by Melf
OKAY, why not. Unfortunately, I've not seen this potential solution put forth by the opposition - I only see bitching and more bitching... Put up or shut up is my reaction to it. So, you really would support Bush if he did do it or is that just for the sake of the argument? "OMG! That Bush maniac is gonna go into a nuclear armed state!!!"Quote:
Originally Posted by Melf
Well, maybe you missed the part of what I believe will be a convenient downplaying if Bin Laden IS caught. You're downplaying Saddam now that he's caught. But yeah, exactly, we don't know if he's dead or alive. Frankly, Bush not talking about Laden publicly doesn't equal him being any less important. Would you feel less resentment if Bush just came out and said we simply CANNOT find the bastard? We may never find him... What then? And who says he's not important? Like, if Bush starts talking about him again, won't your next attack be, "Oh, what about education - our domestic problems? He's always talking about Laden; scaring us with the war on terrorism; focusing on external policies..." I distinctly remember that being the criticism mid-way into the hunt for Laden. But bottomline, for some, it's "Bush failed" not anyone else. The buck stops with him when it's failure, but when it's success, better make sure we don't attribute it all to him or devalue it which is what's being done here.
The reasons for putting failed in quotes is because if it was a success, we pretty much can assume the credit for success would go where it's due; the military, the CIA, etc... It wouldn't say, "Bush 'succeeded' in finding Bin Laden." See, I clearly remember the opposition stating if we don't find Saddam, the Iraq war was is in part a failure; Bush's policy is a failure; the Iraqi ppl need closure, and Americans need closure. Ok, so now he's found... The response is a snide 'woohoo.' Now, since "Bush 'failed' to find Saddam" is no longer valid, it's was just our great military men/women doing their job, despite Bush's misguided policy. That's all I was getting at... If any of the raids currently being conducted in Afganistan result in finding Laden's whereabouts, or Pakistan magically pulls him out of some rabbit hole, I'd put ALL my money on that being the reaction. Just keeping in mind the past tense usage of "failed" will invalidate itself if he's found at any point in time as it did for Saddam.Quote:
Originally Posted by Melf
Well, I had some fun there. No, it was a general attack on current liberal/democratic behavior derived from some of what you said. Basically implying/stating we got the wrong guy which is apart of the same mindset (Bush pulled the ole switcheroo and substituted Laden for Saddam when we really wanted Landen). And, I read some of your feelings on it before so I think some of it applies. If I'm off, I'm off - the source wasn't just your text in the post obviously. But, yeah, you didn't have to respond to anything that didn't directly apply to you - although it's my fault for merging several gripes I had.Quote:
Originally Posted by Melf
With this kind of polarized bickering? No, there isn't. I was referring to partisan fingers celebrating Bush's failure and not providing solutions after doing so. That was my point. And yeah, I'm defending, you're attacking the man in charge - duh, that's apparent. Simply, my take on it is, win/lose, Bush is failure to you - failure from day one. And, I'd say that's more to do with who he is, more than what he does.Quote:
Originally Posted by Melf
There's no question in my mind Bush wants him found - that's not fair, really. To me, you're indirectly attacking Bush's patriotism with that one ;). Only a traitorous president would intentionally let him get away as that line suggests. I think it was accepted at some point it wasn't gonna happen, at least not in a timeframe that you, me or anyone else wanted. It doesn't mean behind the scenes the government isn't working on the the al-qaeda threat. It is in our interest to liquidate or imprison every last walking, living, breathing al-qaeda member on the planet. It's obvious if we're attacked again, the recovering economy would go right back down in the toilet; the living in fear would return; so, who's gonna get blamed for not protecting the American ppl? "Did Bush's misadventure in Iraq give the green-light for al-qaeda to attack us again?"Quote:
Originally Posted by Melf
We'll wait and see what the next blame game will be then. I don't yet have the level of cynicism that you have, but I sure as hell am getting there with every post here that I absorb.
An aside, gotta love the seething anger Saddam's capture inspired here and all over the world... Merry fucking Christmas.
Truth be told Clinton didnt say We will get him dead or alive in a gung ho cowboy gunslinger kinda a way.
Bush did, go look back at the stuff Bush proclaimed and then look at him do a 180.
Why wouldnt his own words be fair game?
Sounds like you're comparing 9/11 to a fucking misplaced blowjob.Quote:
Originally Posted by NightWolve
What sort of government will ever be developed in Iraq? Do we seriously think we can get that country on its own two feet? It's a destroyed mess with no economy, no infrastructure, no military, and an entire mass of people who've only ever known one form of government that was about as different from democracy as they come. It'd take years and years and billions more dollars to get them even close. Look at the lovely state we left Afghanistan in, in many ways they were better off with the Taliban.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stone
That is complete BS. IT and technology jobs are heading over to India faster than you can say "IBM". The H1B Visa steals jobs from Americans right in front of them. The last company I worked for was over 50% employed by H1B immigrants (not US citizens) coming primarily from India. Just look at the most recent issue of Business Week for a nice article on the situation. Low wage, low skilled jobs my foot.Quote:
Better jobs are being created to replace the jobs being sent overseas. The idea that emigration of crappy jobs to lower skilled workers in China is some sort of massive problem or threat to Americans is a low-level myth that got blown out of proportion
And there are plenty of Americans that needs tholse low-wage, low-skilled jobs. Not every American has a BA.
I don't see how. But no, I wasn't. Now that I think about it, does remind me of a somewhat valid comparison between Clinton vs. Arnold. Suddenly, LA Times, democrats cared about sexual morality again and republicans let it slide... Another sign many things went upside after 9-11.Quote:
Originally Posted by burgundy
Is this to me? I was only addressing the democratic record in the quest for Bin Laden. It's hard for me to swallow their criticism of that quest currently, given the number of missed opportunities the previous administration had to get him. Especially if it's in the form of a, "Ha, you can't find Bin Laden... neener, neener, neener..." - Maybe it's just Al Sharpton that engrained that in me, though. But, if there's anything that should be bipartisan, it should be that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Almaci
As for Bush's gung-ho cowboy personality, I like it, personally. The "International law?? Wuh-oh, I better call my lawyer..." is the Bush I like ;). I want a bumper sticker of that one :p.