The 3rd and Final Presidential Debate! Lions and Tigers and Ayers? OH MY!

[LChinoz]

Yea I thought the title for the thread was creative. Let's see how McCain decides to bring up Obama's past associations, and how Obama responds...this could be good :D

[Mesa]

DING DING DING.


This one better be good.

[DarkArtist81]

Lets see how long I can stomach this thread before bailing out.... :lol

[Bannister]

This debate will probably suck like the others. I bet Obama will say "change" a lot, and McCain will refer to himself as a Maverick.

[RoboDad]

I've got other (better) things to do tonight, so I'll be missing this one. Not even going to bother recording it. No one is going to change their mind at this point.

So, I'll be staying out of this thread. Have fun, everyone! :D

[Bannister]

I've got other (better) things to do tonight, so I'll be missing this one. Not even going to bother recording it. No one is going to change their mind at this point.

So, I'll be staying out of this thread. Have fun, everyone! :D

:monkey2:monkey2:monkey2

[RoboDad]

This debate will probably suck like the others. I bet Obama will say "change" a lot, and McCain will refer to himself as a Maverick.

OK, I really am going to stay out of this :D, but I need to correct this mischaracterization of McCain. What he will do is say "My friends, I'm a maverick".

:wacky

[Bannister]

OK, I really am going to stay out of this :D, but I need to correct this mischaracterization of McCain. What he will do is say "My friends, I'm a maverick".

:wacky
:rotfl:rotfl:rotfl

[bumblebee]

This debate will probably suck like the others. I bet Obama will say "change" a lot, and McCain will refer to himself as a Maverick.




Hey mak eit interesting every time Obama says change take a shot, every time mcCain says maverick take a shot....it makes the debate much better.

[LChinoz]

DING DING DING.


This one better be good.

It has to be, it's the last one! Hopefully the gloves come all off!

[LChinoz]

Hey mak eit interesting every time Obama says change take a shot, every time mcCain says maverick take a shot....it makes the debate much better.

I agree, but if you really want to get hammered, make it when Obama says "George Bush" and when McCain says "My Friends." Or better yet, when either of them say "FUNDAMENTAL." You'd be surprised how often they say "fundamental"!

[jbinny]

This debate will probably suck like the others. I bet Obama will say "change" a lot, and McCain will refer to himself as a Maverick.


don't forget that obama will be in the background shaking his head and mumbling, "that's not true, that's not true."

[CelticPredator]

They should just mud wrestle and get it over with......



;)

[DarkArtist81]

They should just mud wrestle and get it over with......



;)


http://i89.photobucket.com/albums/k203/DarkArtist81/rocky_final.jpg

http://www.virginmedia.com/microsites/movies/slideshow/best-fight-scenes/img_2.jpg

[darkknight]

This should be a better one...I hope, since its the final round.

[IrishJedi]

This debate will probably suck like the others. I bet Obama will say "change" a lot, and McCain will refer to himself as a Maverick.

:lecture :lecture :lecture :lecture

Also, Obama will say "What America really wants..." and McCain will start everything with, "My friends..."

[barbelith]

Just drink any time either of them says anything, since they'll both be lying through their teeth!

[woodsy]

Hey mak eit interesting every time Obama says change take a shot, every time mcCain says maverick take a shot....it makes the debate much better.

You'll be so hammered about 10 minutes in, you won't even remember the rest of the debate.

[IrishJedi]

Just drink any time either of them says anything, since they'll both be lying through their teeth!

:lecture

Now we're talkin'! :duff

[pjam]

:lecture

Now we're talkin'! :duff

These debates have sucked, mostly because the Moderators aren't asking more pointed questions from both Candidates. And the Candidates spew prepared rhetoric so nothing really worthwhile happens. They end up circling each other around the ring instead of trading blows.

I'd rather see that Plumber Guy from Ohio debate at this point.

[Malice]

in before the lock!

[bumblebee]

You'll be so hammered about 10 minutes in, you won't even remember the rest of the debate.



If its anything like the other 2 debates I wont be missing much.

[vader70450]

================================================== ================================================

[Vader AL]

i can already tell it's more of the same...same catch phrases and lines. :sleep

i want to see a fist fight.

[LChinoz]

it's getting better.

[Vader AL]

it's getting better.

yeah you're right, i think the questions are forcing them too plus they are both stepping up their game a little. of course i'm listening as i kill monsters in Dead Space though.

[Agent23]

McCain looks like a gremlin. :lol

[LChinoz]

McCain seriously needs to drop healthcare and stick to foreign policy...his plan doesn't come off well.

Here comes Roe v. Wade.........

[Vader AL]

McCain seriously needs to drop healthcare and stick to foreign policy...his plan doesn't come off well.

Here comes Roe v. Wade.........

i disagree...he made the point about obama's plan is a step towards the government taking over healthcare.

[LChinoz]

i disagree...he made the point about obama's plan is a step towards the government taking over healthcare.

I knew this would be his position. It's just I have heard Obama state his plan twice and McCain got it wrong twice...

[Vader AL]

i thought the moderator did a great job.

[LChinoz]

i thought the moderator did a great job.

Yea, the questions were the best of any debate I saw this year.

[Mike1065]

i thought the moderator did a great job.

Oh yeah, he gets the award for best moderator hands down. He kept control, and the candidates got real questions.

[Malice]

i think this was the best debate out all of them.

[IrishJedi]

Well, McCain finally won a debate... but likely too little, too late for him and his supporters.

[Starkiller]

McCain was on the offensive (because he is backed into a corner obviously) but Obama kept his cool and his overall temperament was better.

I feel that the Obama lead will retain, and he will win the election if we are only so lucky.

Obama was calm, cool, and collected because he knows he's ahead and doesn't want to blow it. McCain went in knowing he had to throw the punches to catch up.

[pjam]

Well, McCain finally won a debate... but likely too little, too late for him and his supporters.

McCain hit a double... a double won't do it. His wife has 100 Million, I doubt he cares all that much anyway.

I would rather see Joe the Plumber debate Obama. :lol

[Vader AL]

if poll number counted Al Gore and John Carrey would have been president. it's all about who heard things they like and in turn who they will vote for...we won't know anything until election night.

[IrishJedi]

McCain hit a double... a double won't do it. His wife has 100 Million, I doubt he cares all that much anyway.

He should care. After 4-8 years of Carter II... err, Obama... that $100 million will probably dwindle to the point where McCain will be going to Joe Plumber for a job. :lol

[Agent23]

Obama won this debate. McCain came across as a desperate old Gremlin with his glassy eyes. Doing anything he could in his last desperate hours...

:lol

[Starkiller]

Obama won this debate. McCain came across as a desperate old Gremlin with his glassy eyes. Doing anything he could in his last desperate hours...

:lol

Exactly. Obama won due to his demeanor. McCain threw everything he could at him including the kitchen sink and Obama didn't flinch. He dealt well with every blow that McCain tried to throw and turned McCains "jabs" into "sissy slaps"

[Giant Chicken]

I would disagree... Hands Down McCain won this debate. Like most have already said though... probably too late.

This debate was by far the best. The questions were great and the responses were good. I only wish we would have got more in depth answers in the first two debates.

...And how cool would it be to be Joe! Well, not if Obama keeps him from buying his company, but his name was dropped like 10 times. :D

[plasmid303]

I really hated that ^^^^-eating sneer McCain had on his face whenever Obama spoke. He wore his contempt on his sleeve.

[Jen]

Wow - I felt the opposite. I liked how calm and collected Obama was - McCain seemed so angry and condescending to me. He kept interrupting, kept rolling his eyes. He seemed uncomfortable and nervous - a little too over eager that to me smelled of desperation.

[Starkiller]

Wow - I felt the opposite. I liked how calm and collected Obama was - McCain seemed so angry and condescending to me. He kept interrupting, kept rolling his eyes. He seemed uncomfortable and nervous - a little too over eager that to me smelled of desperation.


Exactly. And exactly the kind of man we don't need in the oval office. I'm tired of our president being the butt of all jokes the last 8 years. He should be well respected and admired. If McCain gets in the same jokes would ensue about his mannerisms, speeches, and his age of course.

I feel Obama has this air about him, charisma, energy, integrity, and confidence, that McCain oh so lacks. McCain just seems like an all too content smug little rat, smirking with comtempt in the corner with those yellow teeth and beady eyes.

[CelticPredator]

Oh look. Reps think McCain won, Dems think Obama won.


What a twist.

http://upload.moldova.org/movie/directors/m_night_shyamalan/thumbnails/tn2_m_night_shyamalan_3.jpg

[Starkiller]

LOL, nice one. But your leaving out that the majority of undecided and independents also think Obama won...for what it's worth.

[CelticPredator]

Well, no one ever really WINS these debates....so...

[Jen]

Oh look. Reps think McCain won, Dems think Obama won.


What a twist.

http://upload.moldova.org/movie/directors/m_night_shyamalan/thumbnails/tn2_m_night_shyamalan_3.jpg

Actually even Fox news admitted that Obama won - that says a lot right there. :lol :lol

[CelticPredator]

I thought they said McCain won?

[Jen]

I thought they said McCain won?

That's not what I heard.....I heard they were saying that Obama won but wouldn't say by how many points.....but maybe I'm wrong. I think I heard it on NBC when they were talking to different political reporters.

[minivader]

I am tired of these debates, attacks, analysis and what not, nov 4th couldn't come soon enough and we can finally put this long running campaign to rest. Unless, of course, McCain demands a recount of every vote.

EDIT: Oh wow, just realized this was my 1000th post, can't believe I wasted on a politic thread. DAMN YOU OBAMA AND McCAIN!

[Mesa]

If someone get's a copy of the new Sarah Palin porno, can someone get me a copy?

I'm so glad the liberal left woman's rights groups aren't coming to her rescue, I got some spanking to do. :naughty

[Shai]

you know the black dude's gonna win...How can some of you vote for the old fart...I've Watch the debate yesterday from my great Canadian home....I wouldnt want to be represented by that old ****.

[Shropt]

Anyone else think McCain looked horrid last night? Looked like he was about to cry for most of it.

And replying to Shai, I really hope Obama's supporters don't pull the wrong switch at the polls over race. So scared...

[devilof76]

Obama has it. Anyone want to bet and make me rich?

For those who don't want either of them (and maybe some McCain supporters who don't know how to deal with Obama's looming victory) the best course of action is to not vote.

The fewer people that vote, the less of a mandate the elected will have.

[Agent23]

Wow - I felt the opposite. I liked how calm and collected Obama was - McCain seemed so angry and condescending to me. He kept interrupting, kept rolling his eyes. He seemed uncomfortable and nervous - a little too over eager that to me smelled of desperation.

:lecture

Exactly how I felt. You could tell he was agitated and uncomfortable.

I wish I could vote for "Joe the Plumber"

:lol

[Shropt]

Wow - I felt the opposite. I liked how calm and collected Obama was - McCain seemed so angry and condescending to me. He kept interrupting, kept rolling his eyes. He seemed uncomfortable and nervous - a little too over eager that to me smelled of desperation.

That's the way it should have been. At this point Obama just needs to not screw anything up. McCain has nothing to lose so he should go on the offensive all the way.

[dunedain]

We in Europe also watch in tense who the next US president will be. I have my hopes for Obama. I think we need a guy like him right now. :cool: Not McCain with 4 more years of bush administration behind him. :banghead

[KitFisto]

wait wait wait.....you mean Democrats think Obama won and Republicans think McCain won? This is flat out shocking.

Why do people even argue politics? Most people are SO partisan that they will never agree with or even listen to someone else full thought before already forming an argument response.

[woodsy]

Exactly. And exactly the kind of man we don't need in the oval office. I'm tired of our president being the butt of all jokes the last 8 years. He should be well respected and admired. If McCain gets in the same jokes would ensue about his mannerisms, speeches, and his age of course.

I feel Obama has this air about him, charisma, energy, integrity, and confidence, that McCain oh so lacks. McCain just seems like an all too content smug little rat, smirking with comtempt in the corner with those yellow teeth and beady eyes.

Are we talking about Bush or Clinton?

[woodsy]

you know the black dude's gonna win...How can some of you vote for the old fart...I've Watch the debate yesterday from my great Canadian home....I wouldnt want to be represented by that old ****.

Yeah, 13 years of "Johnny Crouton" was so much better....:lol

[Shai]

Yeah, 13 years of "Johnny Crouton" was so much better....:lol


loll..you're right but I've never vote For Jean....
:monkey4

[Shai]

Separated at Birth ???

http://blog.kir.com/archives/images/mccain.jpghttp://www.airenet.com/TheLazyK/TMECIntro_files/image014.jpg

[The Chaver]

Separated at Birth ???

http://blog.kir.com/archives/images/mccain.jpghttp://www.airenet.com/TheLazyK/TMECIntro_files/image014.jpg

Is there any explanation as to why McCain looks like he's going to rip someone a new assholio in that pic?

[The Chaver]

Actually even Fox news admitted that Obama won - that says a lot right there. :lol :lol

It sure as hell does.:lol

Fox taking sides with the left,classic.:rolleyes:

[Bodie The Cursed]

Obama won.. McCain looked uncomfortable and on edge.

[woodsy]

Separated at Birth ???

http://blog.kir.com/archives/images/mccain.jpghttp://www.airenet.com/TheLazyK/TMECIntro_files/image014.jpg

You might be onto something. :rotfl

[LChinoz]

Obama has, in my eyes, and the eyes of almost all the polling, swept the presidential debates 3-0. Now, with that said, this was not his best. At times he fumbled. At times he came off as arrogant, but his calm and cool attitude made him look favorable to McCain's old, tired, and mean attitude. I don't think McCain can neccessarily avoid looking angry, but it affects voter opinion nonetheless. Obama handled topics such as Ayers, healthcare, and even ACORN very well, while McCain stumbled on Roe v. Wade and Palin. McCain needed to have a blow-out win, but instead he lost a 4-3 game.

One thing is for sure, Obama's debating skills have improved exponentially over the course of the year. This debate could have just clinched it for Obama...

[darkknight]

Exactly. And exactly the kind of man we don't need in the oval office. I'm tired of our president being the butt of all jokes the last 8 years. He should be well respected and admired. If McCain gets in the same jokes would ensue about his mannerisms, speeches, and his age of course.

I feel Obama has this air about him, charisma, energy, integrity, and confidence, that McCain oh so lacks. McCain just seems like an all too content smug little rat, smirking with comtempt in the corner with those yellow teeth and beady eyes.

I agree on the words I bolded, but behind all that he is very shady. He does have that image of a president that america wants to see, but I don't believe he got what it takes to be one. You can say all the BS to america but his history does not show what he stands for. For example if I don't know crap about cars and Obama was trying to sell me a Kia and McCain was trying to sell me a Lexus and cash does not matter. I would hands down pick up the Kia because I believe Obama would have a better sales pitch. But after buying it I would be pissed. I should of done my homework before commiting the purchase. Just my $0.02

[LChinoz]

The moment I sort of scratched my head over was when McCain suggested that those who served in the military should be able to become teachers without any neccessary exams. I love and respect our soldiers, but are all of them qualified to teach? I am sure a lot of them are. I am all for making the number of hoops they must jump through fewer, but to eliminate any sort of test for any group of people in society is a bad idea I think. Any thoughts?

[DarkArtist81]

It was a good debate for once, McCain and Obama got to duke it out a bit... which was nice. I do think that McCain seemed a bit too angry and acted out a bit too much, but Obama was also vague on a few things and could have said more than he did. I think he is playing it safe at this point...

One thing I don't like about McCain's spending freeze... It begs the question of what would happen to aid programs across the US? Medicaid? Welfare? Food Stamps? GI Bill? Grants for students...etc.

If it does include those things, that's going to screw a lot of people over... If it includes it, anyway...

[DarkArtist81]

The moment I sort of scratched my head over was when McCain suggested that those who served in the military should be able to become teachers without any neccessary exams. I love and respect our soldiers, but are all of them qualified to teach? I am all for making the number of hoops they must jump through fewer, but to eliminate any sort of test is a bad idea I think. Any thoughts?

Troops to teachers is a program that helps any E5 who has served over 4 years the ability to take a few free courses and get right into teaching. It's a decent program, but with the way it's set up... you would have to have served two contracted terms.

Which means that you have learned to teach and command young people under your tutelage, in some way or another. I know in the Navy that most E5 and above have been shop supervisors or something of that nature. Hell, I was an E4 and was shift supervisor for a year and a half.

I wanted to do Troops to Teachers, but didn't qualify.

I don't think that ALL who serve deserve to be teachers, but for those who have and wish to be... if you can pass a test saying you have the knowledge, you should be able to teach. But SOME sort of test is needed.

Some of the guys I served with were flat out idiots, sad to say. :lol

[LChinoz]

Troops to teachers is a program that helps any E5 who has served over 4 years the ability to take a few free courses and get right into teaching. It's a decent program, but with the way it's set up... you would have to have served two contracted terms.

Which means that you have learned to teach and command young people under your tutelage, in some way or another. I know in the Navy that most E5 and above have been shop supervisors or something of that nature. Hell, I was an E4 and was shift supervisor for a year and a half.

I wanted to do Troops to Teachers, but didn't qualify.

I don't think that ALL who serve deserve to be teachers, but for those who have and wish to be... if you can pass a test saying you have the knowledge, you should be able to teach. But SOME sort of test is needed.

Some of the guys I served with were flat out idiots, sad to say. :lol

Yea I knew about Troops to Teachers. It seems like a good program because it focuses on helping troops get into the field of teaching when they come home. This is not the program I heard from McCain last night though. I agree, we need tests. Not having them will only make the entire process slower in the long run.

[DarkArtist81]

Yea I knew about Troops to Teachers. It seems like a good program because it focuses on helping troops get into the field of teaching when they come home. This is not the program I heard from McCain last night though.

Yeah, it seems like it was an empty promise... I don't think it can be said that ALL troops can be effective teachers. They have leadership skills and such, but tests are needed to prove that you have a working knowledge of what it is you will be teaching.

If we allowed anyone who wanted to teach to do so, it would lead to a nationwide epidemic of idiocy. :lol

[IrishJedi]

wait wait wait.....you mean Democrats think Obama won and Republicans think McCain won? This is flat out shocking.

Why do people even argue politics? Most people are SO partisan that they will never agree with or even listen to someone else full thought before already forming an argument response.

:lecture Been saying that for weeks on here.

[LChinoz]

Yeah, it seems like it was an empty promise... I don't think it can be said that ALL troops can be effective teachers. They have leadership skills and such, but tests are needed to prove that you have a working knowledge of what it is you will be teaching.

If we allowed anyone who wanted to teach to do so, it would lead to a nationwide epidemic of idiocy. :lol

Trust me, if McCain had not said "all" I wouldn't be discussing it. Our teachers, whomever they are, need to be tested for their abilities. And to clarify my point this has nothing to do with intelligence, as I have found the most intelligent people make the most horrible teachers.

:lol and you're right about letting ANYONE teach without any tests, it would definitely make the entire education process even slower as those unable would need to be weeded out and taught the neccessary skills.

[DarkArtist81]

Trust me, if McCain had not said "all" I wouldn't be discussing it. Our teachers, whomever they are, need to be tested for their abilities. And to clarify my point this has nothing to do with intelligence, as I have found the most intelligent people make the most horrible teachers.

Intelligence is certainly not the only prerequisite. One must be able to express their thoughts in such a way that the learning STICKS to those receiving it. It has to have a level of fun about it, or else they will just pass the class and move on.

[LChinoz]

Intelligence is certainly not the only prerequisite. One must be able to express their thoughts in such a way that the learning STICKS to those receiving it. It has to have a level of fun about it, or else they will just pass the class and move on.

Exactly. I really have a lot of respect for teachers, as I have been an English tutor for 8 years. Teaching, and I do not mean lecturing, but actually connecting with your students and importing knowledge, requires so many skills that I think people forget. This is why I think we must give those excellent teachers the pay raises they deserve.

[LChinoz]

I also want to point out that in no way are teachers ready to be soldiers, and vice versa. I read this on another forum: "Being a soldier prepares you for teaching, as much as teaching prepares you to be a soldier."

[bumblebee]

Good debate last night. I plan to vote for Obama but I think McCain was the better in last nights debate. The one problem I think McCain will have coming out of last nights debate was he admitted that he's gonna tax health care. I just dont see that going over well.

[NightCreeper]

Trust me, if McCain had not said "all" I wouldn't be discussing it. Our teachers, whomever they are, need to be tested for their abilities. And to clarify my point this has nothing to do with intelligence, as I have found the most intelligent people make the most horrible teachers.

:lol and you're right about letting ANYONE teach without any tests, it would definitely make the entire education process even slower as those unable would need to be weeded out and taught the neccessary skills.

A bit off topic, but....my music theory teacher is the worst teacher there is. The course has no direction and he does not tell you what and when assignments are due. He tells us they are on blackboard and yet when you go there to view the assignments they are unclear. Then you ask him about the assignments and his answer are also unclear no matter how many times you ask him. We go into class each week and he just talks about his life and shows random youtube videos of a possible castrato singing or people playing a piano.....these videos he shows are completely irrelevant and uneducational.
But unfortunately he is the head of the Music department, so it would be hard to do anything about him.

You don't only need knowledge to teach, you have to know how to teach and develop a proper outline for the course and the days of class...to some extent.

I also had a Western Civ. teacher who had no degree is History (he was a computer tech) and somehow he got the job...........And when he taught he skipped over the Egyptians because he said they were irrelevant to the development of our culture......regardless of what he thinks he did not follow the state curriculum.

[woodsy]

McCain was on the offensive (because he is backed into a corner obviously) but Obama kept his cool and his overall temperament was better.

I feel that the Obama lead will retain, and he will win the election if we are only so lucky.

Obama was calm, cool, and collected because he knows he's ahead and doesn't want to blow it. McCain went in knowing he had to throw the punches to catch up.

You're in good company. Fidel Castro and The Communist Party of the United States of America (CPUSA) share your sentiments......

[LChinoz]

A bit off topic, but....my music theory teacher is the worst teacher there is. The course has no direction and he does not tell you what and when assignments are due. He tells us they are on blackboard and yet when you go there to view the assignments they are unclear. Then you ask him about the assignments and his answer are also unclear no matter how many times you ask him. We go into class each week and he just talks about his life and shows random youtube videos of a possible castrato singing or people playing a piano.....these videos he shows are completely irrelevant and uneducational.
But unfortunately he is the head of the Music department, so it would be hard to do anything about him.

You don't only need knowledge to teach, you have to know how to teach and develop a proper outline for the course and the days of class...to some extent.

I also had a Western Civ. teacher who had no degree is History (he was a computer tech) and somehow he got the job...........And when he taught he skipped over the Egyptians because he said they were irrelevant to the development of our culture......regardless of what he thinks he did not follow the state curriculum.

I have had many of those types in college. Smarts does not a good teacher make.

[DarkArtist81]

So did I... and still do right this very moment... Several of my teachers are amazing and several are just DULL. And my grades reflect their teaching styles... sadly. Still A's and B's, but barely in those boring, tedious teacher's classes.

Funny pic a friend sent me from the debate... :lol

http://c4.ac-images.myspacecdn.com/images02/51/l_fbad109a2e0441e68d7ea6d2b339960b.jpg

[Bannister]

So did I... and still do right this very moment... Several of my teachers are amazing and several are just DULL. And my grades reflect their teaching styles... sadly. Still A's and B's, but barely in those boring, tedious teacher's classes.

Funny pic a friend sent me from the debate... :lol

http://c4.ac-images.myspacecdn.com/images02/51/l_fbad109a2e0441e68d7ea6d2b339960b.jpg

http://i37.tinypic.com/ibxmqu.jpg

[DarkArtist81]

:mwaha:mwaha:mwaha:mwaha:mwaha:mwaha

[darkknight]

You're in good company. Fidel Castro and The Communist Party of the United States of America (CPUSA) share your sentiments......

I believe Kim Jong II feels the same. It's going to be an Obamanation!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VrC9EWqZrhA

[Darklord Dave]

I believe Kim Jong II feels the same. It's going to be an Obamanation!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VrC9EWqZrhA

I guess we could respond with "and fuhrer Putin believes in McCain" but I really can't go so far afield as to make that comparison.

[Kuzeh]

You're in good company. Fidel Castro and The Communist Party of the United States of America (CPUSA) share your sentiments......

I believe Kim Jong II feels the same. It's going to be an Obamanation!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VrC9EWqZrhA

'cuz it's better to have a geriatric "Maverick" and a red-neck gun-toting Hockey Mom in charge of fixing Bush's crap...
http://www.yeeha.net/yeeha.shad89.gif

[woodsy]

I believe Kim Jong II feels the same. It's going to be an Obamanation!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VrC9EWqZrhA


That is one scary video.

You would think that an endorsement by the CPUSA of any political candidate would be enough to set off red flags [no pun intended] everywhere, but unfortunately not in present day America......

[IrishJedi]

http://i37.tinypic.com/ibxmqu.jpg

:lol :rotfl :lol

That is fantastic!

[RoboDad]

I guess we could respond with "and fuhrer Putin believes in McCain" but I really can't go so far afield as to make that comparison.
Do you have a source for this claim? I haven't seen anything. On the other hand, there have been numerous reports of the fact that both Castro and Kim Jong Il have expressed support (if not outright endorsement) for an Obama presidency.

[IrishJedi]

The latest Gallup Poll ("Traditional" is what they go with) is pretty surprising: Obama 49%, McCain 47% (within the Margin of Error and a statistical tie).

http://sas-origin.onstreammedia.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/e2u1vywun0g1afqhuuxiuq.gif

[darkknight]

'cuz it's better to have a geriatric "Maverick" and a red-neck gun-toting Hockey Mom in charge of fixing Bush's crap...
http://www.yeeha.net/yeeha.shad89.gif

And someone with a shady background has what it takes?:horror

[barbelith]

You would think that an endorsement by the CPUSA of any political candidate would be enough to set off red flags [no pun intended] everywhere, but unfortunately not in present day America......

I don't see why it would set off any more red flags than racists backing McCain. Every group attracts a fringe element. The sky is not falling.

[barbelith]

And someone with a shady background has what it takes?

Obama has been out there under the knife for 20 months. The only people who still cling to the "shady background" thing are probably wrapping their houses in tin foil for the End Times anyway.

[LordAzrael]

And someone with a shady background has what it takes?:horror

Yeah. The real scary part is that with his associations (Ayers, Rezco, Wright etc) he would FAIL a security clearance check - but he wants to be commander in chief.

[darkknight]

I don't see why it would set off any more red flags than racists backing McCain. Every group attracts a fringe element. The sky is not falling.

Or that Obama did not know about Rev. Wright expressions on america or his relationship with Ayers. No big deal.

[Kuzeh]

I see it way more dangerous to be associated with mass murdered Bush and war criminal Chaney than with a non-sense yelling reverend and a wannabe extremist who is a teacher now...

[darkknight]

Obama has been out there under the knife for 20 months. The only people who still cling to the "shady background" thing are probably wrapping their houses in tin foil for the End Times anyway.

It just shows how bad america is. With Obama knowing Ayers history, he strongly condems the violent actions. How would you feel if a terrorist is a professor in your childs school?

[darkknight]

I see it way more dangerous to be associated with mass murdered Bush and war criminal Chaney than with a non-sense yelling reverend and a wannabe extremist who is a teacher now...

Associated in Bush in what ways are we talking about?

[Shai]

reading your comments..some of you guys sound crazier than those candidates...

[Kuzeh]

It just shows how bad america is. With Obama knowing Ayers history, he strongly condems the violent actions. How would you feel if a terrorist is a professor in your childs school?
Obama was 8 years old when all the Ayers fiasco happened...
so that's just lame, and if he is a terrorist, why is he not in prison?
Please enlighten us...

Also, how do you feel about having a criminal as president?...
I say that's far worse than an alleged terrorist as teacher...
seriously...

Associated in Bush in what ways are we talking about?

You should know if you support McCain...
but just a quick reference:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/17/us/politics/17policy.html

[Mesa]

Oh jeez.... :rolleyes:

[IrishJedi]

:lol at citing the NY Times.

[darkknight]

Obama was 8 years old when all the Ayers fiasco happened...
so that's just lame, and if he is a terrorist, why is he not in prison?
Please enlighten us...

Also, how do you feel about having a criminal as president?...
I say that's far worse than an alleged terrorist as teacher...
seriously...



You should know if you support McCain...
but just a quick reference:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/17/us/politics/17policy.html

Yes Obama said he was 8 years old when it happened. But he did know Ayers history. I don't know why he is not in prison, that is how corrupt our government is. Same question is why don't rapist, murderer, sexual predators or even OJ stay in Prison.

Each candidate has it's pros and cons. I know McCain is not perfect, but IMO better than Obama.

[Mesa]

Obama was 8 years old when all the Ayers fiasco happened...
so that's just lame, and if he is a terrorist, why is he not in prison?
Please enlighten us...

Also, how do you feel about having a criminal as president?...
I say that's far worse than an alleged terrorist as teacher...
seriously...



You should know if you support McCain...
but just a quick reference:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/17/us/politics/17policy.html

speaking of murderers and criminals....

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,437502,00.html

[CelticPredator]

So.....you laugh at the NY times...yet you post Fux news? Good job.

[DarkArtist81]

It's Mesa.... It's just... Mesa. :lol

:peace

[IrishJedi]

So.....you laugh at the NY times...yet you post Fox news?

I personally laugh at both, because they're both biased.

[CelticPredator]

True that! Here here!

[LChinoz]

I always wondered why news organizations and newspapers like the NY Times, Washington Post, etc. even endorse candidates. Seems like a strange tradition for groups trying to seem unbiased, but I know it goes back a long way. I am surprised the TV News media doesn't (publicly) endorse either, although you can generally see which way they lean.

[Mesa]

So.....you laugh at the NY times...yet you post Fux news? Good job.

Who was laughing at a NYtimes reference? I don't recall doing that.

My "Oh Jeez" sarcastic smile response was when someone calling the United States elected president a criminal. Don't make me go get my other post to what times were like in Iraq before Bush put the smack down. I suppose he should have just let Saddam continue to rape and torture people.

Ignorance is bliss.

[CelticPredator]

Yes he should've. It wasnt our problem.

What about Africa? People are dying there, what about Burma? You've seen RAMBO....why IRAQ? Why there?

[Anzik]

“Look, John’s last-minute economic plan does nothing to tackle the number one job facing the middle class, and it happens to be, as Barack says, a three-letter word: jobs. J-O-B-S,” the Democratic veep nominee said at a morning rally in Athens.

[carbo-fation]

Who was laughing at a NYtimes reference? I don't recall doing that.

My "Oh Jeez" sarcastic smile response was when someone calling the United States elected president a criminal. Don't make me go get my other post to what times were like in Iraq before Bush put the smack down. I suppose he should have just let Saddam continue to rape and torture people.

Ignorance is bliss.

People are still getting "raped and tortured" in Iraq and probably in higher numbers than during Saddam's regime. Not to mention the number of terrorist and Al-Qaeda went from 0% to what we have now. :rolleyes:

[CelticPredator]

OBAMA just admitted he was the son of Jor El. So...he's awesome!

[CelticPredator]

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v310/CelticPredator/Zomcainbmam.jpg

[barbelith]

It just shows how bad america is. With Obama knowing Ayers history, he strongly condems the violent actions. How would you feel if a terrorist is a professor in your childs school?

Verbs have a past and present tense.

[barbelith]

My "Oh Jeez" sarcastic smile response was when someone calling the United States elected president a criminal.

Bush is literally a criminal, because he broke the law with his warrantless wiretap program. There's no way around that. Why should we assume an elected US president can't or won't commit a crime? Did we forget Nixon, Reagan and Clinton?

Don't make me go get my other post to what times were like in Iraq before Bush put the smack down.

Fewer people were dying each year. But putting that aside, what Iraq was like prior to the invasion has nothing to do with whether or not Bush is a criminal.

I suppose he should have just let Saddam continue to rape and torture people.

That's not why we went in and you know it.

[Mesa]

People are still getting "raped and tortured" in Iraq and probably in higher numbers than during Saddam's regime. Not to mention the number of terrorist and Al-Qaeda went from 0% to what we have now. :rolleyes:

I stopped reading at "probably" :rolleyes:

[Mesa]

People are still getting "raped and tortured" in Iraq and probably in higher numbers than during Saddam's regime. Not to mention the number of terrorist and Al-Qaeda went from 0% to what we have now. :rolleyes:

Oh yeah, by the way, Marines are now leaving a safer and freed Fallujah and handing it back to the Iraqi people. No thanks are necessary. Shoot, I guess this story isn't important enough to report on, because I've seen very little coverage in the media.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,439612,00.html

WASHINGTON — When Marine Maj. Gen. John Kelly deployed to Iraq in February, the violence had fallen so low in Anbar province that he began figuring out how to start closing bases and prepare to go home.

In the last 10 months the Marines in Fallujah have done what was unthinkable before the surge began — they have quietly transferred out of one of Anbar province's largest cities. FOX News has learned in an exclusive interview with Kelly from Fallujah that 80 percent of the move is complete. In February there were 8,000 Marines living at Fallujah base. Now there are about 3,000 left. By Nov. 14 there will be none.

"We will shut down the command function here and I will move; my staff has already started to move," Kelly, the commander of Multinational Force-West, told FOX News in an exclusive interview via satellite. "We will turn the lights off here."

They will hand the Fallujah base over to their Iraqi counterparts on Nov. 14, having relocated themselves and thousands of combat vehicles to the desert base of Al Asad to the west. Marines will no longer be seen in city centers such as Fallujah — a major step toward leaving Iraq, and one step closer to Iraq's goal of having U.S. troops out of its population centers by mid-2009 — one of the key points enshrined in the Status of Forces Agreement being reviewed on Capitol Hill today.

[hoodonit00]

Oh yeah, by the way, Marines are now leaving a safer and freed Fallujah and handing it back to the Iraqi people. No thanks are necessary. Shoot, I guess this story isn't important enough to report on, because I've seen very little coverage in the media.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,439612,00.html
I've said it in a prior post. The true success of the Iraq war will not be known for years. "IF" a stable govt. can keep the peace in Iraq and some stablility in the Middle East the war and George Bushs' presidency will be viewed as a success to future generations.

[Kuzeh]

It's incredible how some people still think the Iraq invasion was "right"...
and also think the U.S. helped the world by doing so ...
:rotfl:rotfl

[Mesa]

It's incredible how some people still think the Iraq invasion was "right"...
and also think the U.S. helped the world by doing so ...
:rotfl:rotfl

It's also funny how ignorant some people are

:rotfl:rotfl:rotfl

[Kuzeh]

It's also funny how ignorant some people are

:rotfl:rotfl:rotfl

Exactly!! :rolleyes:

[Mesa]

Exactly!! :rolleyes:

So you wont even acknowledge the fact the US leaving a safer Falluja and handing it back to the Iraqi people is a good thing?

[Kuzeh]

So you wont even acknowledge the fact the US leaving a safer Falluja and handing it back to the Iraqi people is a good thing?

You know, for a while I thought you were messing with people here with your extremist right-wing views, but seems like you really do believe in the stuff you write... that's pretty scary... when:
4,200 coalition soldiers
7,400 iraqi soldiers
and about 90,000 civilians
are death

And you still think this is right, you're a twisted sad person ...
sorry, I can't talk with you anymore ...
so good luck and I hope someday you find light in your path ...

[Mesa]

You know, for a while I thought you were messing with people here with your extremist right-wing views, but seems like you really do believe in the stuff you write... that's pretty scary... when:
4,200 coalition soldiers
7,400 iraqi soldiers
and about 90,000 civilians
are death

And you still think this is right, you're a twisted sad person ...
sorry, I can't talk with you anymore ...
so good luck and I hope someday you find light in your path ...

So, we should have just let Saddam continue to commit mass murders? I suppose you think the U.S. taking on and defeating Nazi Germany during WWII was a bad idea too?

[bwills]

Bush is literally a criminal, because he broke the law with his warrantless wiretap program. There's no way around that.

Umm, sorry, this just isn't the case no matter how much you wish it were. Forget any legal defense of the NSA program. All you need to know that confirms it's perfectly legal is the fact that the Democrats, who have owned Congress for the last 2 years, have not started any sort of proceedings. All we've gotten from them on the matter is hot air. Believe me, if they thought they had any legal leg to stand on, they would've already had Bush under oath.

But aside from that, there are plenty of National Law scholars who say the NSA stands up to any legal challenge.

[bwills]

Kuzeh - all those numbers you cite are fairly accurate except for the civilian numbers. The numbers are all over the board here. The AP says it's 34,832. Iraq Coalition Casualty Count puts it at 43,099. Brookings says it's 133,616. But regardless, those numbers pail to Saddam's body count. He killed 100,000 Kurds alone between 1987-1989. If you count the Iran/Iraq war, which Saddam started, you can tack on an additional 1.1 million. He was a bloody, murdererous tyrant by any logical definition.

[LChinoz]

Where were those WMDs?

[Kuzeh]

So, we should have just let Saddam continue to commit mass murders? I suppose you think the U.S. taking on and defeating Nazi Germany during WWII was a bad idea too?

http://www.ratemyeverything.net/image/6134/0/Epic_Fail.ashx

Kuzeh - all those numbers you cite are fairly accurate except for the civilian numbers. The numbers are all over the board here. The AP says it's 34,832. Iraq Coalition Casualty Count puts it at 43,099. Brookings says it's 133,616. But regardless, those numbers pail to Saddam's body count. He killed 100,000 Kurds alone between 1987-1989. If you count the Iran/Iraq war, which Saddam started, you can tack on an additional 1.1 million. He was a bloody, murdererous tyrant by any logical definition.
We all know the reason Iraq was invaded wasn't because of Saddam being a murderer ... believing that is just naive. And I agree he was a sick tyrant, but, so is W. I can't believe some people don't see it.


Where were those WMDs?
:lol
Probably here:

http://www.moneybb.com/mt/archives/IslandOfLostSocks.gif

[LChinoz]

Iraq was linked to 911 how again?

[bwills]

Kuzeh - and believing the absolute worst about Pres. Bush and why he chose to invade Iraq is equally naive in my opinion. Here are the indesputable facts:

1) We were attacked primarily by Saudi nationals from Iraq's backyard.
2) Almost 3000 Americans are killed by the largest attack on U.S. soil
3) Both domestic and foreign intelligence stated that Saddam had WMDs.
4) The UN believed he had WMDs and had passed 16 resolutions for Iraqi compliance with disarmament before resolution 1441, which was the final resolution promising "serious consequences."
5) High ranking Senators from both parties believed he had WMDs. They all saw the same intelligence President Bush saw, they sat on the same intelligence committees, and were intimately involved with the situation. They all drew the EXACT SAME CONCLUSION and authorized the use of force. Bill Clinton believed this as well.

You have a president who has just suffered the largest foreign attack on U.S. soil in the history of the country and all the intellignce cis confirming that Iraq has WMDs. It is my belief that President Bush was not willing to take any chances that Iraq might cooperate with the enemies of the U.S. and get these weapons into the hands of terrorists who had already demonstrated an ability to hit us from the inside. It was a risk/reward decision and he errored on the side of caution.

Did he did a poor job of managing expecations? Sure. Were mistakes made? Absolutely. But for the Pres. to be villified the way he has been for the past 8 years is what's criminal in my mind. I do not believe for a second that the Pres. had any other motive for invading Iriq other than the preservation of this country.

[Mesa]

Kuzeh - and believing the absolute worst about Pres. Bush and why he chose to invade Iraq is equally naive in my opinion. Here are the indesputable facts:

1) We were attacked primarily by Saudi nationals from Iraq's backyard.
2) Almost 3000 Americans are killed by the largest attack on U.S. soil
3) Both domestic and foreign intelligence stated that Saddam had WMDs.
4) The UN believed he had WMDs and had passed 16 resolutions for Iraqi compliance with disarmament before resolution 1441, which was the final resolution promising "serious consequences."
5) High ranking Senators from both parties believed he had WMDs. They all saw the same intelligence President Bush saw, they sat on the same intelligence committees, and were intimately involved with the situation. They all drew the EXACT SAME CONCLUSION and authorized the use of force. Bill Clinton believed this as well.

You have a president who has just suffered the largest foreign attack on U.S. soil in the history of the country and all the intellignce cis confirming that Iraq has WMDs. It is my belief that President Bush was not willing to take any chances that Iraq might cooperate with the enemies of the U.S. and get these weapons into the hands of terrorists who had already demonstrated an ability to hit us from the inside. It was a risk/reward decision and he errored on the side of caution.

Did he did a poor job of managing expecations? Sure. Were mistakes made? Absolutely. But for the Pres. to be villified the way he has been for the past 8 years is what's criminal in my mind. I do not believe for a second that the Pres. had any other motive for invading Iriq other than the preservation of this country.


Facts? What good are those for? Most people don't want to look at facts.

BTW: :clap :clap :clap on your post

[bwills]

Iraq was linked to 911 how again?

Simple. They weren't. But your premise is false.

All the intelligence, both foreign and domestic, stated that Iraq had WMDs. Bill Clinton believed it. John Kerry believed it. Hillary Clinton believed it. Congress believed it. The U.N. believed it, etc, etc.

After 911 where terrorists demonstrated the ability to hit us from within, Pres. Bush made the decision that he was unwilling to live with the risk that Saddam might cooperate with these people, who were right in his backyard by the way, and get these weapons into their hands.

That's the primary reason we invaded Iraq.

[LChinoz]

Simple. They weren't. But your premise is false.

All the intelligence, both foreign and domestic, stated that Iraq had WMDs. Bill Clinton believed it. John Kerry believed it. Hillary Clinton believed it. Congress believed it. The U.N. believed it, etc, etc.

After 911 where terrorists demonstrated the ability to hit us from within, Pres. Bush made the decision that he was unwilling to live with the risk that Saddam might cooperate with these people, who were right in his backyard by the way, and get these weapons into their hands.

That's the primary reason we invaded Iraq.

Let's see...so, according to you, after the largest attack on US soil, we immediately decided to NOT go after those responsible, but rather were worried about the possibility of another dictator in another country who had nothing to do with it cooperating with our enemies by providing WMDs he ended up not having?

This is why 8 years later we have not gotten those responsible...

[hoodonit00]

Where were those WMDs?
They're in Syria.

[bwills]

Let's see...so, according to you, after the largest attack on US soil, we immediately decided to NOT go after those responsible,


Are you forgetting that we went into Afghanistan BEFORE Iraq?

but rather were worried about the possibility of another dictator in another country who had nothing to do with it cooperating with our enemies with WMDs he ended up not having?


Well, it's easy to dismiss the threat of WMDs with the clarity of 20/20 hindsight, but to answer your question, yes. Whether or not he had anything to do with 911 was immaterial. It was the threat he posed and the common enemy he had with al Qaida.

[LChinoz]

Are you forgetting that we went into Afghanistan BEFORE Iraq?

True, but as I said before, after it happened, we did NOT go after them. We devoted most of our troops to Iraq, hence, we got sidetracked.

[RoboDad]

Let's see...so, according to you, after the largest attack on US soil, we immediately decided to NOT go after those responsible, but rather were worried about the possibility of another dictator in another country who had nothing to do with it cooperating with our enemies by providing WMDs he ended up not having?

This is why 8 years later we have not gotten those responsible...
Huh? I have come to expect better than this from you. You aren't usually given to such revisionist history. Breaking your post down:

1) We didn't go into Iraq immediately after 9/11. We went into Afghanistan (in October 2001, and we are still there). We didn't go into Iraq until March of 2003, 18 months later.

2) Iraq could have easily prevented the war by offering full compliance with the UN demands for open inspections. Yet they didn't. That led many (not just Bush) to conclude that they must be hiding something, and there was intel that supported that conclusion, even though it was later proven inaccurate.

3) It has been 7 years since 9/11, not 8. But the hatred of Bush is now so deep-seated (and therefore, irrational) in many peoples' minds that they associated his entire presidency with Iraq, which is now viewed as a failed "immediate" response to 9/11.

If you want to discuss the failings of the Iraq war, then that's fine. But please don't start resorting to this kind of hyperbole.

[hoodonit00]

Facts? What good are those for? Most people don't want to look at facts.

BTW: :clap :clap :clap on your post+2. I was going to state something familiar, but seeing as he went to the trouble I don't have to.

What's funny is that some of the biggest names in the Govt. agreed that Saddam had WMD's, both Clintons said he had WMD's, ALL of the allied governments thought he had WMD's, his own troops thought he had WMD's, but because none were found, Bush lied.

Even if he didn't have WMD's, as soon as the sanctions were lifted he would have pursued them again anyway. He still had the scientist to make them.

What do some of you anti-Iraq war people think about Darfur I wonder?

[LChinoz]

And yes, many people thought there were WMDs there, but that doesn't change the fact that they were all wrong. Trust me, I give them the benefit of the doubt, with the intelligence they recieved, and the attitudes of America at the time, but again, we were wrong. No argument there.

Ever watch Maury? All the information could tell you that a man who had frequent affairs and one night stands and multiple kids is the father, but in the end if he isn't, the accuser is wrong, and is all embarrassed and stuff. Even after being vindicated, the man is still not a good person, not by a long shot, and should still be punished for his wrongdoings of the past. But he was not guilty of fathering the child.

Terrible analogy? Yes, but that's what I'm here for :D

[bwills]

kuzeh says: "We all know the reason Iraq was invaded wasn't because of Saddam being a murderer ... believing that is just naive. And I agree he was a sick tyrant, but, so is W. I can't believe some people don't see it."

I don't agree with several of the President's policies. I've even questioned what we were doing in Iraq over the past few years. But I really can't understand where a comment like this comes from. Seriously. To call a sitting U.S. president a "tyrant" and compare him to a man who was responsible for well over 1,000,000 deaths is just an opinion that I cannot even comprehend.

[carbo-fation]

Oh yeah, by the way, Marines are now leaving a safer and freed Fallujah and handing it back to the Iraqi people. No thanks are necessary. Shoot, I guess this story isn't important enough to report on, because I've seen very little coverage in the media.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,439612,00.html

Fallujah was safe prior to the illegal invasion and it was because of us that it became a war zone. I am glad that it has gotten safer but the fact remains, there were no attacks in that city prior to the invasion. But thanks for citing a an article from FoxNews. Always love a good laugh.:D

Kuzeh - and believing the absolute worst about Pres. Bush and why he chose to invade Iraq is equally naive in my opinion. Here are the indesputable facts:

1) We were attacked primarily by Saudi nationals from Iraq's backyard.
2) Almost 3000 Americans are killed by the largest attack on U.S. soil
3) Both domestic and foreign intelligence stated that Saddam had WMDs.
4) The UN believed he had WMDs and had passed 16 resolutions for Iraqi compliance with disarmament before resolution 1441, which was the final resolution promising "serious consequences."
5) High ranking Senators from both parties believed he had WMDs. They all saw the same intelligence President Bush saw, they sat on the same intelligence committees, and were intimately involved with the situation. They all drew the EXACT SAME CONCLUSION and authorized the use of force. Bill Clinton believed this as well.



Please get your facts straight. The UN found no traces or any proof of WMDs in Iraq and no foreign intelligence agreed with our supposed findings except for Mossad.:rolleyes: And please provide some prove for the allegation that most of the attackers were from Iraq. Saddam could never stomach the Saudis or any Islamic terrorist groups, i.e Al-Qaeda because he was largely secular, a fact that most people seem to forget.

Facts? What good are those for? Most people don't want to look at facts.


Are you incapable of following your own advice?



Well, it's easy to dismiss the threat of WMDs with the clarity of 20/20 hindsight, but to answer your question, yes. Whether or not he had anything to do with 911 was immaterial. It was the threat he posed and the common enemy he had with al Qaida.


Saddam was benign. He hadn't done anything since the first Gulf War and he was no more of a threat to the US than Pres. Musharref or Castro. We went to Iraq for completely different reasons. Again, there was NO CONNECTION BETWEEN SADDAM AND AL-QAEDA!!!

[bwills]

And yes, many people thought there were WMDs there, but that doesn't change the fact that they were all wrong. Trust me, I give them the benefit of the doubt, with the intelligence they recieved, and the attitudes of America at the time, but again, we were wrong. No argument there.

Ever watch Maury? All the information could tell you that a man who had frequent affairs and one night stands and multiple kids is the father, but in the end if he isn't, the accuser is wrong, and is all embarrassed and stuff. Even after being vindicated, the man is still not a good person, not by a long shot, and should still be punished for his wrongdoings of the past. But he was not guilty of fathering the child.

Terrible analogy? Yes, but that's what I'm here for :D

You're right, that's a horrible analogy. But my question to you and kuzeh, why the single-minded focus on the President? That's what I don't understand. The rabid, irrational, blame-Bush-for-everything hatred is what I don't get.

[LChinoz]

Huh? I have come to expect better than this from you. You aren't usually given to such revisionist history. Breaking your post down:

1) We didn't go into Iraq immediately after 9/11. We went into Afghanistan (in October 2001, and we are still there). We didn't go into Iraq until March of 2003, 18 months later.

2) Iraq could have easily prevented the war by offering full compliance with the UN demands for open inspections. Yet they didn't. That led many (not just Bush) to conclude that they must be hiding something, and there was intel that supported that conclusion, even though it was later proven inaccurate.

3) It has been 7 years since 9/11, not 8. But the hatred of Bush is now so deep-seated (and therefore, irrational) in many peoples' minds that they associated his entire presidency with Iraq, which is now viewed as a failed "immediate" response to 9/11.

If you want to discuss the failings of the Iraq war, then that's fine. But please don't start resorting to this kind of hyperbole.

Sorry, as general as I was, I was trying to come to terms with what the previous post meant. Not stating what I believe. I believe that we took our resources out of Afghanistan to go to Iraq. My post was about being sidetracked. If I am guilty of falling into hyperbole along the way, I am ashamed :(

And I meant 7, not 8. Again, :o

[RoboDad]

And yes, many people thought there were WMDs there, but that doesn't change the fact that they were all wrong. Trust me, I give them the benefit of the doubt, with the intelligence they recieved, and the attitudes of America at the time, but again, we were wrong. No argument there.

Ever watch Maury? All the information could tell you that a man who had frequent affairs and one night stands and multiple kids is the father, but in the end if he isn't, the accuser is wrong, and is all embarrassed and stuff. Even after being vindicated, the man is still not a good person, not by a long shot, and should still be punished for his wrongdoings of the past. But he was not guilty of fathering the child.

Terrible analogy? Yes, but that's what I'm here for :D

I agree. But I am willing to look at the events in hindsight, and say, "we made some horrible mistakes, and we SHOULD NOT make those mistakes again, but in the end, the world is better off for having Saddam Hussein dead, so we did the right thing, but for the wrong reasons."

Here's a question for you. Would you have supported the war if the stated reason beforehand was that there is a mass-murdering, genocidal dictator that needs to be removed from power?

[LChinoz]

You're right, that's a horrible analogy. But my question to you and kuzeh, why the single-minded focus on the President? That's what I don't understand. The rabid, irrational, blame-Bush-for-everything hatred is what I don't get.

I blame Cheney :D

[RoboDad]

Sorry, as general as I was, I was trying to come to terms with what the previous post meant. Not stating what I believe. I believe that we took our resources out of Afghanistan to go to Iraq. My post was about being sidetracked. If I am guilty of falling into hyperbole along the way, I am ashamed :(

And I meant 7, not 8. Again, :o

No worries. It happens to the best of us (and in general, even though we don't always agree, I consider you one of the more level-headed people in these hot topic discussions). I know I make my share of hyperbolic comments, once in a GREAT while ;).

[LChinoz]

Here's a question for you. Would you have supported the war if the stated reason beforehand was that there is a mass-murdering, genocidal dictator that needs to be removed from power?

Probably not, since there are a lot of dictators in the world and I don't personally think war should be the first option. If however, it was stated as you have, then I would understand the need for war, and follow up with "What took so long?"

[bwills]

Carbo - read my post before commenting. If the UN passed 17 resolutions stating Iraq must disarm and open up for inspections, the Law of Contradiction says they MUST'VE believed something was going on inside Iraq in terms of WMDs.

Uh, I think you're forgetting the German intelligence just to name one.

"And please provide some prove for the allegation that most of the attackers were from Iraq."

I didn't say they were Iraqi. I said they were Saudi nationals in Iraq's geographical backyard.

"Saddam could never stomach the Saudis or any Islamic terrorist groups, i.e Al-Qaeda because he was largely secular, a fact that most people seem to forget."

So? It doesn't mean he wouldn't work with them to facilitate a common goal.

[LChinoz]

No worries. It happens to the best of us (and in general, even though we don't always agree, I consider you one of the more level-headed people in these hot topic discussions). I know I make my share of hyperbolic comments, once in a GREAT while ;).

:duff Cheers mate!

[CelticPredator]

So, we should have just let Saddam continue to commit mass murders? I suppose you think the U.S. taking on and defeating Nazi Germany during WWII was a bad idea too?

It was until Japan bombed us.

[Mesa]

Carbo - read my post before commenting. If the UN passed 17 resolutions stating Iraq must disarm and open up for inspections, the Law of Contradiction says they MUST'VE believed something was going on inside Iraq in terms of WMDs.

Uh, I think you're forgetting the German intelligence just to name one.

"And please provide some prove for the allegation that most of the attackers were from Iraq."

I didn't say they were Iraqi. I said they were Saudi nationals in Iraq's geographical backyard.

"Saddam could never stomach the Saudis or any Islamic terrorist groups, i.e Al-Qaeda because he was largely secular, a fact that most people seem to forget."

So? It doesn't mean he wouldn't work with them to facilitate a common goal.

bwillis, just use {quote} quoted phrase {/quote}. Replace {} with []

[RoboDad]

Probably not, since there are a lot of dictators in the world and I don't personally think war should be the first option. If however, it was stated as you have, then I would understand the need for war, and follow up with "What took so long?"

Fair enough. The reason I asked is because I have heard some Obama supporters talking about how we need to get the troops out of Iraq so that we can go after some of the other genocidal dictators out there. On some level, those people strike me as very hypocritical since that is, essentially, what we did in Iraq.

[RoboDad]

It was until Japan bombed us.

Sorry, but how did Japan bombing us make it OK to go after Hitler? He hadn't attacked any US-held lands. In fact, he never did.

[CelticPredator]

Theres a connection thing....I dont know. I forgot, but us getting bombed brought us into the war, ^^^^ happend, we saw what Hitler was doing....and the rest is histoy.

[bwills]

Theres a connection thing....I dont know. I forgot, but us getting bombed brought us into the war, ^^^^ happend, we saw what Hitler was doing....and the rest is histoy.


Japan was our reason for entering. Churchill had been pleading for us to help them out, but FDR wanted to maintain an appearance of neutrality. Pearl Harbor gave us the go-ahead to jump in.

[CelticPredator]

Yeah....thats it. We didnt want to interven.

[Kuzeh]

Funny thing is that you guys are blinded by that "liberators" fantasy...
The U.S. armed Iraq in the first place in the 80's, because it was a good BUSINESS move... when it stopped being good business, then, let's use the WMD smokescreen and invade the country to have new business in Iraq...
this is all about greed, money, oil and control, it has never been about freedom and justice, if you really believe that, you're zombified by the government's mediatic campaign...
The U.S. wanted in, they were just waiting for a good reason, they had plenty of intelligence info that Pearl Harbor was the next target, but they had to allow the attack to justify the response, just like 9/11



I don't agree with several of the President's policies. I've even questioned what we were doing in Iraq over the past few years. But I really can't understand where a comment like this comes from. Seriously. To call a sitting U.S. president a "tyrant" and compare him to a man who was responsible for well over 1,000,000 deaths is just an opinion that I cannot even comprehend.

Of course not, apparently you can't see the reality of all the death Bush is responsible for... no matter how you put it, he has been responsible for the murders of over 300k people between Iraq and Afghanistan...
So in my book he's no better than Saddam or Hitler...

[CelticPredator]

I wont go as far to say THAT...but I will say he was wrong, and the Iraq war wasnt needed.

[hoodonit00]

Theres a connection thing....I dont know. I forgot, but us getting bombed brought us into the war, ^^^^ happend, we saw what Hitler was doing....and the rest is histoy.
Well gee by your words then. Saddam invading Kuwait first brought us to Iraq. We seen what Saddam and his sons were doing...and the rest is history.

[Spartan Rex]

Theres a connection thing....I dont know. I forgot, but us getting bombed brought us into the war, ^^^^ happend, we saw what Hitler was doing....and the rest is histoy.

Ugh, I weep for our education system.
I like how Hitler suddenly became evil and bomb worthy after Japan attacks us in your detail-less chronology.

On December 11th, 1941...Hitler made the announcement that stunned not only us, but his own closest advisors.
He declared war on the USA. His biggest mistake of the war. Had he not done that, we wouldn’t have been able to declare war on him for years if at all.

Up to this point we had a significant isolationist movement in the U.S. led in part by the famous Charles Lindbergh.
We were helping Britain unofficially in its war against Germany by shipping aid and supplies via the merchant marine which Germany was attacking with its U boat fleet.

[Mesa]

Funny thing is that you guys are blinded by that "liberators" fantasy...
The U.S. armed Iraq in the first place in the 80's, because it was a good BUSINESS move... when it stopped being good business, then, let's use the WMD smokescreen and invade the country to have new business in Iraq...
this is all about greed, money, oil and control, it has never been about freedom and justice, if you really believe that, you're zombified by the government's mediatic campaign...
The U.S. wanted in, they were just waiting for a good reason, they had plenty of intelligence info that Pearl Harbor was the next target, but they had to allow the attack to justify the response, just like 9/11




Of course not, apparently you can't see the reality of all the death Bush is responsible for... no matter how you put it, he has been responsible for the murders of over 300k people between Iraq and Afghanistan...
So in my book he's no better than Saddam or Hitler...


Please, please, please, for the love of God, and the entire human population, don't ever breed or have any children, especially with Barblillith

[hoodonit00]

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
--Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
--Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by:
-- Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
-Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
-- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by:
-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), and others, Dec 5, 2001

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them."
-- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
-- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do"
-- Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
-- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

[Kuzeh]

Please, please, please, for the love of God, and the entire human population, don't ever breed or have any children, especially with Barblillith

This coming from an Inbred??...
:rotfl:rotfl
Sorry dude... I couldn't resist...
my bad...

[Spartan Rex]

Of course not, apparently you can't see the reality of all the death Bush is responsible for... no matter how you put it, he has been responsible for the murders of over 300k people between Iraq and Afghanistan...
So in my book he's no better than Saddam or Hitler...


...said the guy who thinks Michael Jackson is the best thing since sliced bread.
Id say "Wave to your credibility as it flies out the window" with the the above post but then I remembered you really had none to begin with.:rolleyes:

[Mesa]

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
--Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
--Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by:
-- Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
-Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
-- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by:
-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), and others, Dec 5, 2001

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them."
-- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
-- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do"
-- Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
-- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

absolutely perfect

[Mesa]

This coming from an Inbred??...
:rotfl:rotfl
Sorry dude... I couldn't resist...
my bad...

Are you even a US citizen? Or did you jump over the border too? Because It's a real shame if a US citizen is relating Bush to Hitler. A real shame.

[LChinoz]

Well this thread went "there" fast...

Civility people, please.

[Darklord Dave]

Closing time - thanks guys!