KRC Posted April 13, 2006 Share Posted April 13, 2006 Ok, first, let me admit that the post you are responding to is inebriated tps. Damn! I spent 4 hours at Coles, then got on the computer--I need a breathalizer control on this thing. So, yes, I was a little over the top on the response you responded to. That said, you're over the top a bit on the Bush bad thing. I don't say bush is bad, rather, it's his administration and advisors. Also, many of my posts are about his economic policies which are based upon "reagonics." On the other hand, yes, I believe this administration is one of the worst on record. It's hard to find something good about them. HELL, what is it that the right posts? Democrats are idiots or have no policy. IN fact the most common responses are "Bush bad" "halliburton" etc. You guys don't even try to respond most of the time, all you do is change the subject because these guys are so bad. I was not a Clinton supporter either. i post negative things about bush because I hope to try and convince the right that the the right is just as bad as the left. I think most of us here probably agree on many things, and want to see an administration that responds to the average American. I only wish we--the right and the left--could come together and get rid of the one party system that rules this country... Ok, yes, I've been drinking tonight too...so if my post is contradictory...I have an excuse...... 660591[/snapback] Trust me. I am no fan of Bush. Hell, I ran a presidential campaign to get him out of office. The spending by the Republicans in control of Congress right now is appalling and the President does not have the guts to veto anything. The Medicare "Reform" was a joke. He gave up on the Social Security debate. He had the Dems where he wanted them (forcing them to solve the problem, instead of letting them keep status quo in order to have election issues), but let them off the hook. I give the President a pass on No Child Left Behind. When he first got into office, he sent out an olive branch to the Dems. He called in Teddy Kennedy, knowing that education is one of Teddy's main concerns. He said that if Kennedy wrote the bill and got it through Congress, he would sign it. That is exactly what happened. THe fact that Congress refused to fund the plan that they created is not the fault of the President. He does not control funding. I also like the way he is handling the North Korea situation. He is playing it pretty much the way you need to play it. Condi caused a few setbacks, but Bush was able to overcome them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TPS Posted April 13, 2006 Author Share Posted April 13, 2006 Give it up. I stay drunk and no one lets me use that one. 660784[/snapback] No wonder you seem so lucid to me... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Lamb Posted April 14, 2006 Share Posted April 14, 2006 Give it up. I stay drunk and no one lets me use that one. 660784[/snapback] Staying drunk eliminates the hangover Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TPS Posted April 14, 2006 Author Share Posted April 14, 2006 Staying drunk eliminates the hangover 661628[/snapback] Bob, how's life in SD? Any regrets leaving Bflo? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Lamb Posted April 14, 2006 Share Posted April 14, 2006 Bob, how's life in SD? Any regrets leaving Bflo? 661639[/snapback] Every freakin' "Left Coast" day The things we do for domestic "bliss" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YellowLinesandArmadillos Posted April 14, 2006 Share Posted April 14, 2006 Every freakin' "Left Coast" day The things we do for domestic "bliss" 661669[/snapback] I feel you Bob, start driving back to the promised land on Monday, couldn't happen soon enough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Lamb Posted April 14, 2006 Share Posted April 14, 2006 I feel you Bob, start driving back to the promised land on Monday, couldn't happen soon enough. 661678[/snapback] Safe trip - I hope to make Buffalo for July 4th No one speaks spanish in your neighborhood - eh ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YellowLinesandArmadillos Posted April 14, 2006 Share Posted April 14, 2006 Safe trip - I hope to make Buffalo for July 4th No one speaks spanish in your neighborhood - eh ? 661682[/snapback] Only those taking a class at the Universities or colleges and the local Puerto Ricans, which I am told are still in the Black Rock area back home. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of BiB Posted April 14, 2006 Share Posted April 14, 2006 No wonder you seem so lucid to me... 660976[/snapback] (slurp...chug...) I'm sorry, did you say something? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cromagnum Posted April 15, 2006 Share Posted April 15, 2006 Man, gas is closing in on $3.00 a gallon, before hurricane season....Illegal immigration is rapidly, ruining american blue collar workers....Is another $200.00 check from the the goverment on the way....Bush might not be insane,he is useless in curbing domestic problems... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TPS Posted April 15, 2006 Author Share Posted April 15, 2006 Safe trip - I hope to make Buffalo for July 4th No one speaks spanish in your neighborhood - eh ? 661682[/snapback] I'm heading out to CA on the 4th for a 50th wedding anniversary party in the Bay area. It's been a great spring in WNY (and winter wasn't bad either). Actually played golf in March. gotta love that global warming stuff.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fan in Chicago Posted April 18, 2006 Share Posted April 18, 2006 To get this thread back on topic. The threat of using nuclear weapons is okay if it is only a threat (deterrent). But the administration has a penchant for following through with its threats (Iraq). First of all, I do not subscribe to the theory that if you think differently than me, you are wrong and I am going to punish you for that. What makes Iran's thinking irrational ? Just because we think so ? If I see someone walking on the street with his hands in his pockets, should I shoot him because he may have a gun and he may point it at me and then use it ? This is a plainly ridiculous way to interpret pre-emption. Secondly, if we use nuclear weapons, how stupid would we be to point the finger at someone else and say they are not ratonal enough to not push the nuclear button ? We would be the ultimate irresponsible party for using nuclear power to enforce what we believe is right. Lastly, right now would be the perfect time for Iran to attack the US, using our administration's logic. Think about it, we invaded Iraq because we believed they had WMDs and though they would use them against us. Aren't we the equivalent of Iraq and Iran is the US ? This entire situation makes me mad to the point of pulling my own hair out. When will this ultra-conservative agenda stop ? Anger only breeds further anger. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HereComesTheReignAgain Posted April 18, 2006 Share Posted April 18, 2006 To get this thread back on topic.The threat of using nuclear weapons is okay if it is only a threat (deterrent). But the administration has a penchant for following through with its threats (Iraq). First of all, I do not subscribe to the theory that if you think differently than me, you are wrong and I am going to punish you for that. What makes Iran's thinking irrational ? Just because we think so ? If I see someone walking on the street with his hands in his pockets, should I shoot him because he may have a gun and he may point it at me and then use it ? This is a plainly ridiculous way to interpret pre-emption. Secondly, if we use nuclear weapons, how stupid would we be to point the finger at someone else and say they are not ratonal enough to not push the nuclear button ? We would be the ultimate irresponsible party for using nuclear power to enforce what we believe is right. Lastly, right now would be the perfect time for Iran to attack the US, using our administration's logic. Think about it, we invaded Iraq because we believed they had WMDs and though they would use them against us. Aren't we the equivalent of Iraq and Iran is the US ? This entire situation makes me mad to the point of pulling my own hair out. When will this ultra-conservative agenda stop ? Anger only breeds further anger. 664437[/snapback] The only way a threat is effective is if the person thinks you may follow through. That is why nobody fears the democrat threats of force. If you see someone with his hands in his pockets you could not shoot him because Liberals in Chicage have pre-emptively banned handguns for fear someone might shoot an innocent person. I guess when Liberals pre-emptively ban gun ownership by law abiding US citizens it is OK, but when Conservatives try to ban Mulsim extremists from owning nukes it is wrong? Anyone who says the US is the equivalent of Iraq has some serious problems. And trust me, if Iran thought any time was the "perfect time to attack the US", it would not hesitate. Iran does not attack us because they know they would be destroyed...nothing else prevents a country like Iran from attacking us infidels! If you really feel that the poor oppressed Iranians have such good points in this argument, why don't you take a trip over there and see how well you are treated as an American. When you don't make it out alive we can write an article about how they had the right to kill you because of their beliefs and we should not be judging them for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fan in Chicago Posted April 18, 2006 Share Posted April 18, 2006 The only way a threat is effective is if the person thinks you may follow through. That is why nobody fears the democrat threats of force. If you see someone with his hands in his pockets you could not shoot him because Liberals in Chicage have pre-emptively banned handguns for fear someone might shoot an innocent person. I guess when Liberals pre-emptively ban gun ownership by law abiding US citizens it is OK, but when Conservatives try to ban Mulsim extremists from owning nukes it is wrong? Anyone who says the US is the equivalent of Iraq has some serious problems. And trust me, if Iran thought any time was the "perfect time to attack the US", it would not hesitate. Iran does not attack us because they know they would be destroyed...nothing else prevents a country like Iran from attacking us infidels! If you really feel that the poor oppressed Iranians have such good points in this argument, why don't you take a trip over there and see how well you are treated as an American. When you don't make it out alive we can write an article about how they had the right to kill you because of their beliefs and we should not be judging them for it. 664543[/snapback] I think you read my logic differently from what I intended. I am neither on a liberal campaign, nor 'comparing' the US to Iraq or about their way of living. Let me try: - If you threaten and follow through with all of them, you are considered a bully and also thought to be open for a retaliation. However, if there is a credible threat and we respond, then we have political support (Afghanistan). This is not a credible threat ! - I question why do we feel the compelling need to ban others from pursuing a nuclear program. Nuclear program = nuclear weapons is conjecture first of all. Secondly, by engaging in a hawkish stand, we tend to provoke those interests that do own WMDs. What I am really trying to say is that we should push for UN-led oversight of their nuclear program. Also, our nuclear deterrent is so strong that even should weapons be developed, those countries well know we will annihilate them before they can do so. By attacking first, we lose a significant amount of support from the rest of the world. - I did not compare Iran & Iraq to the US but simply pointing out that there are two points of view. As of now, we are threatening them for what they believe is a legitimate program for their own good. I always like to think from the reverse viewpoint to make an opinion of right and wrong - Why do we care about the poor oppressed folks worldwide ? Don't we have enough of our own troubles ? Let countries and their leaders take care of their own problems, or not, as the case might be. What makes us want to impose our view of society, living and values on other countries ? - lastly, if I am not treated well as an American, it is the net sum of all actions we have taken in the past. I do realize we cannot be liked by everyone, but heck our haters outnumber our allies and that is entirely a failing of our foreign policy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wacka Posted April 18, 2006 Share Posted April 18, 2006 Because Iran has stated that Israel and all Jews should be erradicated. The only way they can do this is via nuclear weapons. If they don't do it themselves, they'll give it to the terrorists and then goodbye Chicago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted April 18, 2006 Share Posted April 18, 2006 Because Iran has stated that Israel and all Jews should be erradicated. The only way they can do this is via nuclear weapons. If they don't do it themselves, they'll give it to the terrorists and then goodbye Chicago. 664699[/snapback] Have they really said "all Jews"? I've only heard them say "Israel". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wacka Posted April 19, 2006 Share Posted April 19, 2006 Once they get Israel, their gonna say that the rest should be eliminated. Reminds me of someone about 75 years ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted April 19, 2006 Share Posted April 19, 2006 Once they get Israel, their gonna say that the rest should be eliminated. Reminds me of someone about 75 years ago. 664919[/snapback] In other words...they haven't, just like no one bitched about Israel 75 years ago either, and you're just putting words into their mouths. There's a reason no one here takes you seriously... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of BiB Posted April 19, 2006 Share Posted April 19, 2006 I think this is another subject with way too many moving pieces to really discuss well here. This is a lot more complicated than Iraq was. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam Posted April 19, 2006 Share Posted April 19, 2006 Certainly, it's a good thing if you accept the premise that an attack on Iran is a serious option. I do not accept that premise. 656556[/snapback] you know, you're right. If we have nuclear weapons, its only fair that they can have them too. Being fait is the most important thing, and thats the Government's job- to make sure that the world is fair and equitable to everybody. screw that- lets keep ourselves safe, and if thats unfair to someone else, thats just too bad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts