quote Originally posted by Toddster: Obama and Edwards are both dreamers who don't understand that Americans expect a little thing called EXPERIENCE in leadership before you cast your hat into the Presidential ring.

Thats exactly what this country needs, someone who doesen't have they're hand so far up some political or special intrest groups arse that they might actually bring a new idea to the table without being told by someone else to do it. Break the mold cause we need something new and different.

Dan

quote Originally posted by Finally_Mine_86_GT: Rudy will NOT take ny... alot of people here hate his guts. the only thing he has done while in office here was fatten his walet and everybody here knows that. he has never done anything "good" for NY. anybody who says otherwise should live here for a little while.

My father's entire family is from Brooklyn. I've yet to hear one of them say anything other than Rudy was teh best thing to ever happen to the city. What part of the state do you live it?

And Uaana, I have to disagree. Yes, Hillary has been playing the middle for a few years but she is no dummy. She knows that without the left she can't win the primary. To do that she will lean far left in the months leading up to the primary. Look at 2004, NOBODY gave Kerry a chance in Hell of winning the primary. He did because he appealed more to the left wing of the party that runs the primary process. But he could not appeal to average Americans and those that DID vote for him did so while holding their noses. Hillary will leanleft and then do the mother of all flip-flops after the primary. I guarnatee it.

While I don't agree with or appreciate Toddster's rhetoric, I believe on the issue of Hillary he is correct. She has been getting all her ducks lined up in a row to prepare for this particular run. She was smart enough to know that had she run LAST election cycle, she'd have been severely beaten. There was no way that the US Population would have elected a Democratic female senator (junior senator at that) to the Presidency in wartime. The Democrats picked really their only possible hope in John Kerry to run agains GWB and he almost pulled it off.

Now two years later, we have the beginnings of war weariness, something that was inevitable, and the results last November reflected that. In another two years, we WILL be reducing our presence in Iraq although there will be troops there for at least another decade, probably permanently. BUT the climate will have changed to one of wartime to one of reconstruction and perceived peace, and that's going to be her best shot at the White House. And she knows it.

The Clinton political machine in the Democratic party is the only real force to be reckoned with. Barak Obama is running in the hopes of making a deal as a VP candidate.

Now one can take this however they want, but a lot of Republicans just opted out of this last election. Many were tired of business as usual and felt (rightly so) betrayed by their Republican elected officials. I can absolutely guarantee you that if Hillary IS the candidate, you will have record Republican/conservative turnout to vote against her due to her polarizing stature in the political scene and a lot of Democrats don't like her either, and many of those LIKED Bill Clinton. Fairly or not, she's seen as a #$%$# (female dog) by a lot of people in both parties.

As a Republican/conservative myself, her running is the best news we could have to retain the White House. We don't have a strong pool to choose from on the Republican side. John McCain and Rudy Guiliani are about it. I don't think Rudy will make it through the primaries, myself, because he's just too much of a social liberal, but if he DID, and it came to a choice between Rudy and Hillary? Goodbye Hillary. I honestly think that McCain has a good chance against Hillary as well, with the right running mate. I don't particularly like him because of his views on illegal immigration. Sam Brownback? Give me a break..........and he's my Senator. His qualifications for getting to the senate was he was Secretary of State for KS. Whoop de doo. It's a clerical job and little more. He has all the personality and charisma of Al Gore. The only charismatic possiblity on the Republican side is Jeb Bush, and I just don't see the country going for another Bush this quickly. Maybe in a few years, but not now. (and before you say Jeb could NEVER get in, remember that George Bush the elder left office with record low approvals and tons of baggage as well).

It's going to be interesting.

John Stricker

quote Originally posted by Euterpe: i have to say that your consistent frothing at the mouth and absolute villification of anything even remotely "leftist" is becoming less of an irritant to me, and more of a comfort. i know that on just about any relevant issue, i can count on you to thoroughly marginalize yourself. you just keep it up... we'll toss meat into your cage once in while while we try to actually deal with reality.

quote Originally posted by jstricker: I can absolutely guarantee you that if Hillary IS the candidate, you will have record Republican/conservative turnout to vote against her due to her polarizing stature in the political scene and a lot of Democrats don't like her either, and many of those LIKED Bill Clinton. Fairly or not, she's seen as a #$%$# (female dog) by a lot of people in both parties.

completely agreed. justifiably or not, she is absolutely the most divisive possible major-party candidate in this coming cycle.

it is indeed going to be an interesting couple of years.

you don't see gingrich as likely? (off the cuff, i think it'll probably be mccain.)

[This message has been edited by Euterpe (edited 01-21-2007).]

I don't see Newt doing anything, no. He's just as divisive and polarizing from the other direction. Love him or hate him, he is like Hillary in that he's really a very smart guy, but I don't think he's as ambitious and I really don't think he has the "lust" (for want of a better word) to be in the White House.

I do agree with you that I think McCain is the most likely front runner at this time, and I think his coat tails would be very long if he was elected, bringing control back to the Republicans in both congressional houses, at least in the Senate.

FWIW, my ideal would be a split congress with an independent or Libertarian President, then they couldn't screw with us nearly as easily.

John Stricker

quote Originally posted by Euterpe: completely agreed. justifiably or not, she is absolutely the most divisive possible major-party candidate in this coming cycle. it is indeed going to be an interesting couple of years. you don't see gingrich as likely? (off the cuff, i think it'll probably be mccain.)

quote Originally posted by Toddster: Really? Prior to his Presidency he [Bush] ran an oil company, a baseball team, and was governor for two terms of one of the countries largest states. That is called a resume. Edwards was a lawyer and a one term Senator who never wrote a single piece of legislation. Obama still wears diapers. Any questions?? hmm, I'm going to have to change up the act a bit.

Bush was a FAILURE at running the oil company. The Saudis bailed him out to gain some much needed capital with 41. (Bush I)
He was a FAILURE at running the Rangers. They lost money.
The Texas governor is not the same as most governors, like California, for example.
The governor of Texas' power is very limited.
In other words, other people ran the government.
Just like now!

What an (un) impressive resume'
The pity is, you thought you were the only one who knew these facts.

Edwards, on the other hand, was very successful as an attorney.
His good looks, charisma, and speaking ability will make him an outstannding choice for a vice presidential candadate. He will gain much needed experience in the number two spot, and eventually, perhaps, make good president.

[This message has been edited by NEPTUNE (edited 01-21-2007).]

Padres?

John Stricker

quote Originally posted by NEPTUNE: Bush was a FAILURE at running the oil company. The Saudis bailed him out to gain some much needed capital with 41. (Bush I) He was a FAILURE at running the Padres. They lost money. The Texas governor is not the same as most governors, like California, for example. The governor of Texas' power is very limited. In other words, other people ran the government. Just like now! What an (un) impressive resume' The pity is, you thought you were the only one who knew these facts.

quote Originally posted by jstricker: Padres? John Stricker

Shame on me. I KNEW it was the Rangers.
Its fixed, now.
Forgive me, Padre, for I have sinned.

[This message has been edited by NEPTUNE (edited 01-21-2007).]

I'm from dutchess county ny but alot of my friends are from the city. While they were going to school down there rudy decided it best to take needed money from the schools and give it to his "needed raise". He single handedly short handed schools, built a million dollar empire for himself, and was only seen in the media when he was doing something right for ny. just because the only things you see are him doing good things doesn't mean he was great. Prosecuting attorneys are never lovable, but Rudy Giuliani was despicable. He did everything under the sun that he could legaly get away with to turn a buck and hid everything he did against ny so he could look good. He even tried to snub the constitution of New York state just so he could stay in power. if people only knew. ask you family if they like paying higher taxes so the mayors office can have more money in thier pockets. ask them if they like paying higher taxes only to have programs and necessities taken out of the schools so they have to pay even more out of thier own pocket to have them. i would hope they would say no i don't like these things. Then again he did do some good things for the city while taking these things from other counties in ny. Nobody wants to see that and when the ny times tried to report what was really going on they fired the guy who wrote the article and almost got shut down by NY state. yeah great... that's just who i want as a pres... if it's between him and a goat... i'm voting for the goat. At least that way i'll know my sons future will look a lot better. sorry if i seem bitter to what that ba$tard did to ny, but i have every right to be considering what he really has done to the place where i grew up. I'm just sorry the towers didn't get him and only him. the towers going down hurt and killed alot of people here in ny... the only person to make a mint off the tragedy was him when he escaped the fallout he started to look like a hero for merely surviving. screw rudy! if somebody started a chain of events to destroy where you grew up only to make himself look better, would you like him?

So, we can't count on you for that donation then? Or are you still thining about it?

I'm sure he's not perfect, after all, he's a politician, how clean can he be? I don't even know that much about him one way or the other, but if everything you say is true, why wasn't he removed from office, indicted, or tried? You need to get some perspective.

John Stricker

quote Originally posted by Finally_Mine_86_GT: I'm from dutchess county ny but alot of my friends are from the city. While they were going to school down there rudy decided it best to take needed money from the schools and give it to his "needed raise". He single handedly short handed schools, built a million dollar empire for himself, and was only seen in the media when he was doing something right for ny. just because the only things you see are him doing good things doesn't mean he was great. Prosecuting attorneys are never lovable, but Rudy Giuliani was despicable. He did everything under the sun that he could legaly get away with to turn a buck and hid everything he did against ny so he could look good. He even tried to snub the constitution of New York state just so he could stay in power. if people only knew. ask you family if they like paying higher taxes so the mayors office can have more money in thier pockets. ask them if they like paying higher taxes only to have programs and necessities taken out of the schools so they have to pay even more out of thier own pocket to have them. i would hope they would say no i don't like these things. Then again he did do some good things for the city while taking these things from other counties in ny. Nobody wants to see that and when the ny times tried to report what was really going on they fired the guy who wrote the article and almost got shut down by NY state. yeah great... that's just who i want as a pres... if it's between him and a goat... i'm voting for the goat. At least that way i'll know my sons future will look a lot better. sorry if i seem bitter to what that ba$tard did to ny, but i have every right to be considering what he really has done to the place where i grew up. I'm just sorry the towers didn't get him and only him. the towers going down hurt and killed alot of people here in ny... the only person to make a mint off the tragedy was him when he escaped the fallout he started to look like a hero for merely surviving. screw rudy! if somebody started a chain of events to destroy where you grew up only to make himself look better, would you like him?

quote Originally posted by jstricker: I do agree with you that I think McCain is the most likely front runner at this time, and I think his coat tails would be very long if he was elected, bringing control back to the Republicans in both congressional houses, at least in the Senate. John Stricker

Unfortunately if McCain is the Rep. canidate I'll be looking elsewhere on the ballot for someone to vote for.

If Edwards is on the Dem. ticket in either position I won't vote that way either. Look out Libertarians

quote Originally posted by Toddster: Prior to his Presidency he ran an oil company

old news. harken unto Time!
"Bush dumped $848,000 worth of Harken stock two months before the company announced a $23.2 million loss; he was 34 weeks late in filing a form the Securities and Exchange Commission required to record the sale."
why was he entrusted with that much money? skill? smarts?
'Harken founder Phil Kendrick explained it this way: "His name was George Bush," he told Time. "That was worth the money they paid him."'
"The SEC reeled in the deal in the fall of 1990 and forced the company to restate its earnings early the next year. The $3.3 million loss became a $12.6 million loss. White House officials say Bush was clueless about the tricky accounting."
either responsible for insider deals, cooking the books and driving Arbusto and Harken into the ground, or clueless. your choice.

[This message has been edited by lurker (edited 01-21-2007).]

quote Originally posted by lurker: old news. harken unto Time! "Bush dumped $848,000 worth of Harken stock two months before the company announced a $23.2 million loss; he was 34 weeks late in filing a form the Securities and Exchange Commission required to record the sale." why was he entrusted with that much money? skill? smarts? 'Harken founder Phil Kendrick explained it this way: "His name was George Bush," he told Time. "That was worth the money they paid him."' "The SEC reeled in the deal in the fall of 1990 and forced the company to restate its earnings early the next year. The $3.3 million loss became a $12.6 million loss. White House officials say Bush was clueless about the tricky accounting." either responsible for insider deals, cooking the books and driving Arbusto and Harken into the ground, or clueless. your choice.

-sigh- they admitted they only did it because of his name. its like if my name was bill gates, would that make me infused with the knowledge of how to run a multi-billion dollar business? no. no one is arguing that bush is a smart cookie. if anyone should get the blame for the oil company doing poorly it should be the guys who entrusted bush with the company for his name only. i can get a pet rat and name it abraham lincoln, got any executive positions for him? i'll even get him a silly top hat

quote Originally posted by Jermz238: no one is arguing that bush is a smart cookie.

that's one for "clueless". any takers for "responsible"? this is, after all, the president of the united states we're talking about. you know, commander in chief, red phones, chief executive, all that stuff.

[This message has been edited by lurker (edited 01-21-2007).]

quote Originally posted by lurker: that's one for "clueless". any takers for "responsible"? this is, after all, the president of the united states we're talking about. you know, commander in chief, red phones, chief executive, all that stuff.

the beauty of our system of government is you can have idiots be the president, as long as they are open to suggestion from the cabinet. slick willy wasnt too bright, all he wanted to do was have some fun (cue cyndi lauper....now!). jimmy carter? need i list more presidents that lack functional mental capacity? i think the real smart people know enough to not want to be president haha

I can't believe anyone can still drive around with the dinky black Ws on their windows without being embarrassed.
Here is the result of his leadership for just Saturday.

20-Jan-2007 25 | US: 25 | UK: 0 | Other: 0
US NAME NOT RELEASED YET Al Anbar Province Hostile - hostile fire
US NAME NOT RELEASED YET Al Anbar Province Hostile - hostile fire
US NAME NOT RELEASED YET Al Anbar Province Hostile - hostile fire
US NAME NOT RELEASED YET Al Anbar Province Hostile - hostile fire
US NAME NOT RELEASED YET Al Anbar Province Hostile - hostile fire
US NAME NOT RELEASED YET Baghdad (north of) Hostile - hostile fire - IED attack
US NAME NOT RELEASED YET Ninewah Province - Ninawa Hostile - hostile fire - IED attack
US NAME NOT RELEASED YET Karbala Hostile - hostile fire - small arms fire, grenades
US NAME NOT RELEASED YET Karbala Hostile - hostile fire - small arms fire, grenades
US NAME NOT RELEASED YET Karbala Hostile - hostile fire - small arms fire, grenades
US NAME NOT RELEASED YET Karbala Hostile - hostile fire - small arms fire, grenades
US NAME NOT RELEASED YET Karbala Hostile - hostile fire - small arms fire, grenades
US NAME NOT RELEASED YET Baghdad (north of) Hostile - helicopter crash
US NAME NOT RELEASED YET Baghdad (north of) Hostile - helicopter crash
US NAME NOT RELEASED YET Baghdad (north of) Hostile - helicopter crash
US NAME NOT RELEASED YET Baghdad (north of) Hostile - helicopter crash
US NAME NOT RELEASED YET Baghdad (north of) Hostile - helicopter crash
US NAME NOT RELEASED YET Baghdad (north of) Hostile - helicopter crash
US NAME NOT RELEASED YET Baghdad (north of) Hostile - helicopter crash
US NAME NOT RELEASED YET Baghdad (north of) Hostile - helicopter crash
US NAME NOT RELEASED YET Baghdad (north of) Hostile - helicopter crash
US NAME NOT RELEASED YET Baghdad (north of) Hostile - helicopter crash
US NAME NOT RELEASED YET Baghdad (north of) Hostile - helicopter crash
US NAME NOT RELEASED YET Baghdad (north of) Hostile - helicopter crash
US NAME NOT RELEASED YET Baghdad (northern part) Hostile - hostile fire - IED attack

One can only hope Hillary resigns her senate seat to focus on her presidential run, then Spitzer could appoint some real NY democrat to represent the people of NY.

Nah, that will never happen!

quote Originally posted by Wolfhound: I can't believe anyone can still drive around with the dinky black Ws on their windows without being embarrassed. Here is the result of his leadership for just Saturday. 20-Jan-2007 25 | US: 25 | UK: 0 | Other: 0 US NAME NOT RELEASED YET Al Anbar Province Hostile - hostile fire US NAME NOT RELEASED YET Al Anbar Province Hostile - hostile fire US NAME NOT RELEASED YET Al Anbar Province Hostile - hostile fire US NAME NOT RELEASED YET Al Anbar Province Hostile - hostile fire US NAME NOT RELEASED YET Al Anbar Province Hostile - hostile fire US NAME NOT RELEASED YET Baghdad (north of) Hostile - hostile fire - IED attack US NAME NOT RELEASED YET Ninewah Province - Ninawa Hostile - hostile fire - IED attack US NAME NOT RELEASED YET Karbala Hostile - hostile fire - small arms fire, grenades US NAME NOT RELEASED YET Karbala Hostile - hostile fire - small arms fire, grenades US NAME NOT RELEASED YET Karbala Hostile - hostile fire - small arms fire, grenades US NAME NOT RELEASED YET Karbala Hostile - hostile fire - small arms fire, grenades US NAME NOT RELEASED YET Karbala Hostile - hostile fire - small arms fire, grenades US NAME NOT RELEASED YET Baghdad (north of) Hostile - helicopter crash US NAME NOT RELEASED YET Baghdad (north of) Hostile - helicopter crash US NAME NOT RELEASED YET Baghdad (north of) Hostile - helicopter crash US NAME NOT RELEASED YET Baghdad (north of) Hostile - helicopter crash US NAME NOT RELEASED YET Baghdad (north of) Hostile - helicopter crash US NAME NOT RELEASED YET Baghdad (north of) Hostile - helicopter crash US NAME NOT RELEASED YET Baghdad (north of) Hostile - helicopter crash US NAME NOT RELEASED YET Baghdad (north of) Hostile - helicopter crash US NAME NOT RELEASED YET Baghdad (north of) Hostile - helicopter crash US NAME NOT RELEASED YET Baghdad (north of) Hostile - helicopter crash US NAME NOT RELEASED YET Baghdad (north of) Hostile - helicopter crash US NAME NOT RELEASED YET Baghdad (north of) Hostile - helicopter crash US NAME NOT RELEASED YET Baghdad (northern part) Hostile - hostile fire - IED attack

lol gtfo. if you're directly placing blame on solely the presidents shoulders, you're a moron. dont you have a protest or a march or a pride parade or something to go to?

quote Originally posted by Jermz238: lol gtfo. if you're directly placing blame on solely the presidents shoulders, you're a moron. dont you have a protest or a march or a pride parade or something to go to?

wolfhound may feel differently about this, but there's always the vice president and secretary of defense. but then we have to ask, who's really in charge?

enjoy.

quote Originally posted by lurker: wolfhound may feel differently about this, but there's always the vice president and secretary of defense. but then we have to ask, who's really in charge? enjoy.

neither of which can do anything without congressional approval. to lay blame on one, two, or even three people is foolish. do i like that american blood is being shed for some piece of worthless desert? no, not at all. our casualties would be FAR lower if we let the soldiers do what needs to be done, which is get in there and take care of business, but in the interest of trying to be popular (a losing battle if ever there was one) we are effectively taking the guns out of our troops hands and painting bullseyes on them. reasons for the war aside what is costing us more lives than anything else is the ****ing UN and the united states' bass ackwards foreign policy.

The Moron claims he's the Decider. Is he telling the truth or is he lying.
He ultimately made the decision to start this clusterf--k.
If you make the decision, you bear the responsibility, Which is something bush doesn't grasp.

[This message has been edited by Wolfhound (edited 01-21-2007).]

quote Originally posted by Wolfhound: The Moron clames he's the Decider. Is he telling the truth or is he lying. He ultimately made the decision to start this clusterf--k. If you make the decision, you bear the responsibility, Which is something bush doesn't grasp.

As I'm sure you know (and are just ignoring for the sake of partisanship), the President doesn't have the authority to go to war on his own. CONGRESS made the decision. And whether its a clusterf*** or not is really opinion. I will agree with you that "If you make the decision, you bear the responsibility" which is something Clinton, Kerry, and alot of other people who voted for the war when it made them look patriotic and now won't own up to their own decisions don't seem do grasp either.

[This message has been edited by OKflyboy (edited 01-21-2007).]

quote Originally posted by Wolfhound: The Moron clames he's the Decider. Is he telling the truth or is he lying. He ultimately made the decision to start this clusterf--k. If you make the decision, you bear the responsibility, Which is something bush doesn't grasp.

true enough, but its not solely his responsibility. are the couple hundred members of congress, as well as the presidents cabinet, as well as the many many people who supported the war absolved of responsibility? after all this could not have been done by the president alone. they (we, as i too was in support of the war) must take their share of the responsibility for what has happened and is happening. granted us normal folk get a substantially smaller portion of the blame since we could not have stopped it if we wanted to. for my part i have no regrets.

The problem with bush is he had some of the best people around to give him good advice, but he was more concerned with loyalty than ability. If the advice didn't jibe with what he wanted to hear they were fired.

The result of this mess was obvious from the start.

quote Originally posted by Wolfhound: The result of this mess was obvious from the start.

a prophet walks in our midst, ladies and gents.

tying it back into the topic-
surely you must prefer the clinton way of dealing with dissent? having them disappear like that Foster fellow? personally i'd rather be fired than dead =/

No need to be a prophet. A little knowledge of history works just fine.
This is not Vietnam geographical, but otherwise it's exactly like it.

But the sad part was it was totally unnecessary.

Last time I looked, GW Bush was not going to be on the ballot next time. You're going to have to find someone/something else to claim you're not them. This post has nothing to do with the topic of the thread.

But then, that doesn't really matter to you, does it? Just whatever little random bash Bush thought pops into your mind belongs in any thread, right?

John Stricker

quote Originally posted by Wolfhound: I can't believe anyone can still drive around with the dinky black Ws on their windows without being embarrassed. Here is the result of his leadership for just Saturday.

quote Originally posted by Wolfhound: No need to be a prophet. A little knowledge of history works just fine. This is not Vietnam geographical, but otherwise it's exactly like it. But the sad part was it was totally unnecessary.

well the vietnam parallel, while definitely popular, is not completely accurate. similar in some respects, but im not sure "exactly like it" would be a fair statement to make. we're better equipped, and this time its not a matter of our troops being outsmarted using the terrain (i.e. no pungi sticks, pit traps, other crazy traps), its more of a matter (like i stated before) of our troops being sent there but being told not to do their job, and just be target practice for the insurgents. thats the only thing i hate about this war is that the dumbshit politicians are not letting our boys do what they need to do, what they were trained to do.

quote Originally posted by jstricker: Last time I looked, GW Bush was not going to be on the ballot next time. You're going to have to find someone/something else to claim you're not them. This post has nothing to do with the topic of the thread. But then, that doesn't really matter to you, does it? Just whatever little random bash Bush thought pops into your mind belongs in any thread, right? John Stricker

I'd say it has a lot to do with the claim of "value of experience" for a candidate and how it qualified bush.
Boy that worked out good.
Love the term bash bush, I'm talking about what to 70% is obvious and 30% choose to ignore.

quote Originally posted by Jermz238: this time its not a matter of our troops being outsmarted using the terrain (i.e. no pungi sticks, pit traps, other crazy traps), its more of a matter (like i stated before) of our troops being sent there but being told not to do their job, and just be target practice for the insurgents.

Come again?

How is a "lunchbox IED" not anything like the traps of Vietnam? How is a sniper on the roof not like Vietnam? How is a concrete jungle different from a tree jungle?

And why would our troops be "told not to do their job?"

Back ON topic - did anyone hear how Hillary supposedly "outed" Obama's Islamic schooling? "The Machine" is ruthless! And as much attention as Obama is getting recently, I don't think he could win - even if he somehow slipped past the primary. He would make a good #2 though.

Now........ where's the Powell '08 camp?

As long as we're second guessing decisions - remember when we caved in to Saddam Hussein's fun and games and pulled the weapon inspectors out in favor of imposing economic sanctions. All that did was convince Saddam that we didn't have the resolve to deal with him and he could just wait us out. If we've have backed him into a corner right then and there we may not be where we're at today. Saddam never missed a meal because of the sanctions and all the sanctions did was punish the common people of Iraq who had no power to do anything about it. And it wasn't Bush that master-minded sanction policy.

quote Originally posted by Jermz238: well the vietnam parallel, while definitely popular, is not completely accurate. similar in some respects, but im not sure "exactly like it" would be a fair statement to make. we're better equipped, and this time its not a matter of our troops being outsmarted using the terrain (i.e. no pungi sticks, pit traps, other crazy traps), its more of a matter (like i stated before) of our troops being sent there but being told not to do their job, and just be target practice for the insurgents. thats the only thing i hate about this war is that the dumbshit politicians are not letting our boys do what they need to do, what they were trained to do.

lets see, Civil war ,Ununiformed enemy that blends with and is supported by the people. Booby traps IED,s Snipers. Clearing areas and not securing it. main areas of military inside wire of base camps. For starts.

Explain to me this "Our soldier have their hands tied behind them" business. What new ideas do you have to free them up. I think that is a myth.

Who ever runs and wins can't be as disappointing as the current..... But GOP or DEM it's not about us the people, country or freedom (slipping away).... It's about them selfs.

I was hoping you named your car Hillary, and just got it running. Damn I guess I set myself up for dissappointment.

Does anybody think a two year campaign is nuts?

quote Originally posted by jstricker: So, we can't count on you for that donation then? Or are you still thining about it? I'm sure he's not perfect, after all, he's a politician, how clean can he be? I don't even know that much about him one way or the other, but if everything you say is true, why wasn't he removed from office, indicted, or tried? You need to get some perspective. John Stricker

nope... no donation from me... not for him anyway. indicted or tried? yeah right... did they ever indict or try gwb when he killed somebody while he was coked out of his head? nope... it's called above the law. if nobody in a higher social status ever complains it won't happen. but it should have! you'll find where his "wife did it" here http://www.bushwatch.com/midland.htm but notice it said a "newly released accident report" that of course is illegible. that's what whiteout and a copy machine will do to an origional report. hmmm seems odd that she didn't even get charged. it's all about power and $.

quote Originally posted by Wolfhound: lets see, Civil war ,Ununiformed enemy that blends with and is supported by the people. Booby traps IED,s Snipers. Clearing areas and not securing it. main areas of military inside wire of base camps. For starts. Explain to me this "Our soldier have their hands tied behind them" business. What new ideas do you have to free them up. I think that is a myth.

since both you and ryan.hess had the same question i can answer you both in a single post.

its different because we're worried about the opinions of other countries that already hate our guts. our troops are told not to shoot unless shot at, the enemy shoots from mosques, schools, and hospitals, things that they know we're too chickenshit to risk shooting into. little kids with guns or detonators, troops walk up and give them some candy, turn around and BOOM dead. these "people" are crafty in that they know our country likes to bow to public opinion and relishes the thought of bending over and taking it in the rear again and again, so its more of a information war than anything else, and that is the main reason we are losing. they kill us and americans get upset. we kill them, they say we killed civilians and we apologize and promise not to do it again. its bullshit, and most likely, much like ww2 japan, there arent really any civilians. if we're gonna win this war we need to fight like its a war, and get our hands dirty. this half-assed police action business is what is getting our troops killed.

i believe i even agreed that its similar to vietnam, i was arguing that its not exactly the same, which is what you stated. there are plenty of differences. you can draw parallels between a war and any other war easily enough, but you libs choose vietnam why? because its the most sensitive and emotional and recent, i guess.

quote Originally posted by Jermz238: since both you and ryan.hess had the same question i can answer you both in a single post. its different because we're worried about the opinions of other countries that already hate our guts. our troops are told not to shoot unless shot at, the enemy shoots from mosques, schools, and hospitals, things that they know we're too chickenshit to risk shooting into. little kids with guns or detonators, troops walk up and give them some candy, turn around and BOOM dead. these "people" are crafty in that they know our country likes to bow to public opinion and relishes the thought of bending over and taking it in the rear again and again, so its more of a information war than anything else, and that is the main reason we are losing. they kill us and americans get upset. we kill them, they say we killed civilians and we apologize and promise not to do it again. its bullshit, and most likely, much like ww2 japan, there arent really any civilians. if we're gonna win this war we need to fight like its a war, and get our hands dirty. this half-assed police action business is what is getting our troops killed. i believe i even agreed that its similar to vietnam, i was arguing that its not exactly the same, which is what you stated. there are plenty of differences. you can draw parallels between a war and any other war easily enough, but you libs choose vietnam why? because its the most sensitive and emotional and recent, i guess.

Are you on crack? Or have you just not read any history outside of a far right-wing blog? I'd try to correct all the crazy things you've said in this thread, but I have neither the time nor the patience. Just stop talking.