ICE Posted November 4, 2004 Share Posted November 4, 2004 GW in the first faceoff with JK says "I will spend whatever money it takes to end terrorism" Uh huh Well It doesn't take much to figure out no one will ever stop terrorism. NEVER. Not gonna happen. So GW is going to keep throwing billions after Billions after Billions of our money into something that can't be stopped? over 1.4 million MORE are out of work since he was elected? Again How is this a good thing? Sorry folks I just don't understand how anyone who actually works for a living can be happy with this. Sure terrorism is a bad deal. I agree 100% it is a priority...not THE Priority. To me I say bring our people home. Start defending OUR borders. Increase homeland security. Be tougher on immagration laws, and screening. Then put those billions back into finding ways to get our people off of welfare, encouraging Buisness to hire more people, increase minimum wage etc..... My greatest concern is not the next 4 years, but the economic mess this administration is going to leave behind. Billions after Billions after Billions overseas to stop something that can never be stopped? Sometime folks that Bill is going to come due...and we are all going to pay greatly. Oh wait! Not "all" of us. The Multimillionares / Billionares like GW Bush will be just fine. :I starred in Brokeback Mountain: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OnTheRocks Posted November 4, 2004 Share Posted November 4, 2004 who left the barn door open? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MichFan Posted November 4, 2004 Share Posted November 4, 2004 Sorry folks I just don't understand how anyone who actually works for a living can be happy with this. Sure terrorism is a bad deal. I agree 100% it is a priority...not THE Priority. To me I say bring our people home. Start defending OUR borders. Thank God your man lost. This is exactly the kind of thinking that empowered terrorists in the Middle East throughout the 90's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KRC Posted November 4, 2004 Share Posted November 4, 2004 Sorry folks I just don't understand how anyone who actually works for a living can be happy with this. Sure terrorism is a bad deal. I agree 100% it is a priority...not THE Priority. To me I say bring our people home. Start defending OUR borders. Increase homeland security. Be tougher on immagration laws, and screening. Then put those billions back into finding ways to get our people off of welfare, encouraging Buisness to hire more people, increase minimum wage etc.....My greatest concern is not the next 4 years, but the economic mess this administration is going to leave behind. Billions after Billions after Billions overseas to stop something that can never be stopped? Sometime folks that Bill is going to come due...and we are all going to pay greatly. Oh wait! Not "all" of us. The Multimillionares / Billionares like GW Bush will be just fine. :I starred in Brokeback Mountain: 100972[/snapback] So, terrorism is not THE priority, but when you list the things that are priorities, the first FOUR things you mention are terrorism related (secure our borders, increase homeland security, tougher immigration laws, tougher screening). You don't get to things NOT related to terrorism until you start talking about welfare (fifth item on the list). Nice way to contradict yourself in the same post. Usually people wait a post or two before contradicting themselves. My hat is off to you for being able to do it in the same post. Well done. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VABills Posted November 4, 2004 Share Posted November 4, 2004 So, terrorism is not THE priority, but when you list the things that are priorities, the first FOUR things you mention are terrorism related (secure our borders, increase homeland security, tougher immigration laws, tougher screening). You don't get to things NOT related to terrorism until you start talking about welfare (fifth item on the list). Nice way to contradict yourself in the same post. Usually people wait a post or two before contradicting themselves. My hat is off to you for being able to do it in the same post. Well done. 100991[/snapback] I believe he has been going to the bitchy witch of seattes school of hypocrisy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted November 4, 2004 Share Posted November 4, 2004 So, terrorism is not THE priority, but when you list the things that are priorities, the first FOUR things you mention are terrorism related (secure our borders, increase homeland security, tougher immigration laws, tougher screening). You don't get to things NOT related to terrorism until you start talking about welfare (fifth item on the list). Nice way to contradict yourself in the same post. Usually people wait a post or two before contradicting themselves. My hat is off to you for being able to do it in the same post. Well done. 100991[/snapback] I am not sticking up for the overall substance or tone of his post whatsoever, but when he listed those other priorities he wasn't saying those were the most important priorities in order from top to bottom, he meant use those in place of the war on terror, which wasn't the biggest priority. Again, that is not necessarily my view at all, but I believe he was starting with all the stuff we could use that money for as bigger priorities and he didn't contradict himself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KRC Posted November 4, 2004 Share Posted November 4, 2004 I am not sticking up for the overall substance or tone of his post whatsoever, but when he listed those other priorities he wasn't saying those were the most important priorities in order from top to bottom, he meant use those in place of the war on terror, which wasn't the biggest priority. Again, that is not necessarily my view at all, but I believe he was starting with all the stuff we could use that money for as bigger priorities and he didn't contradict himself. 101012[/snapback] I disagree. He mentioned that terrorism is "not THE priority." He then goes on to list items related to terrorism as things we should be focused on with the "billions and billions and billions." If he just talked about welfare reform, job creation, etc then I would agree with you. He did not do that. I am sorry, but I cannot agree with you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ICE Posted November 4, 2004 Author Share Posted November 4, 2004 Actually I am a Republican, so it saddens me to see an assclown with a giant "R" Stamped to him, running the white house. Now I know this board is pure one sided no matter what. It has become painfully obvious that you are blind to what is going on, but I will continue to hope some of you wake the hell up. Now as to my post.... GW said, this is again for the stupid, "I will spend whatever money it takes to END Terrorism". Ok now tell me how "Ending" Terrorism and "Defending against" Terrorism is the same? It isn't. Try to spin that stevestojan any way you want...you still can't defend his position. Spend the money IN AMERICA. Bring our folks home. Shore up our borders FIRST. I read where that type of thinking is what made us vulnerable in the first place. bull stevestojan. What made us vulnerable is EGO and ARROGANCE! "Hell no one will step foot on American soil and pull that stevestojan with us" Really? I guess that thinking bit us in the ass huh? KRC, I see you are still on the campain trail thinking wise (BTW...a sincere thanks for even being out there. ) But you take my priorities out of context. You want my priorities....Ok here ya go.... 1) Fix the economy. More jobs, Less layoffs, Less closings, Less moving jobs overseas. Less tax breaks for the rich (When is enough, enough damn money already?). 2) Medical Reform. The current medical system sucks ass. 3. and 3a) Shore up LOCAL AMERICAN Security, and bring our troops home. GW's own daddy in his book says don't go into IRAQ. There was no realistic way out. It's right there in print. I noticed Binladen put out another tape? But hey....we got old sadam! Point being (now stay focused here....dont twist and stray off course....) GW said he would spend whatever it takes to END Terrorism. IT WILL NEVER HAPPEN. Not in the Mid east, China, Russia, South America, or even in America. not going to happen. No one can read minds. THAT is the only way you can stop terrorism. If you can read the mind of everyone in the world 24/7 you got a good shot at it. Otherwise, take care of your own house first. Our economy SUCKS, but we are pumping Billions into something we can never stop. Not good sence Buisness or other wise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ICE Posted November 4, 2004 Author Share Posted November 4, 2004 I am not sticking up for the overall substance or tone of his post whatsoever, but when he listed those other priorities he wasn't saying those were the most important priorities in order from top to bottom, he meant use those in place of the war on terror, which wasn't the biggest priority. Again, that is not necessarily my view at all, but I believe he was starting with all the stuff we could use that money for as bigger priorities and he didn't contradict himself. 101012[/snapback] So you are saying the war on terrorism is more important than our own economy? Terrorism is NOT the #1 priority at all. We got punched in the mouth with 911. While it sucks it is not reason to make terrorism the #1 priority for THIS country. Housing, Feeding and taking care medically of OUR OWN is #1 and should always be. Defend against terrorism fine....Take care of America's needs first Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickey Posted November 4, 2004 Share Posted November 4, 2004 GW in the first faceoff with JK says "I will spend whatever money it takes to end terrorism"Uh huh Well It doesn't take much to figure out no one will ever stop terrorism. NEVER. Not gonna happen. So GW is going to keep throwing billions after Billions after Billions of our money into something that can't be stopped? over 1.4 million MORE are out of work since he was elected? Again How is this a good thing? Sorry folks I just don't understand how anyone who actually works for a living can be happy with this. Sure terrorism is a bad deal. I agree 100% it is a priority...not THE Priority. To me I say bring our people home. Start defending OUR borders. Increase homeland security. Be tougher on immagration laws, and screening. Then put those billions back into finding ways to get our people off of welfare, encouraging Buisness to hire more people, increase minimum wage etc..... My greatest concern is not the next 4 years, but the economic mess this administration is going to leave behind. Billions after Billions after Billions overseas to stop something that can never be stopped? Sometime folks that Bill is going to come due...and we are all going to pay greatly. Oh wait! Not "all" of us. The Multimillionares / Billionares like GW Bush will be just fine. :I starred in Brokeback Mountain: 100972[/snapback] \ The problem ICE is that white middle class voters hard hit economically vote Republican because of social issues. Gay baiting, abortion and prayer in schools is more important to them than having a job. I have seen that over and over right here on the board. Peolpe who have lost their jobs, even ones who have lost more than one job during the Bush years, still support him. They don't blame him for the job situation and love him for his anti-gay, anti-abortion anti-separation between church and state positions. They also have a pretty wide martial streak so the flight suit, tough guy thing sells pretty well with them as well. They vote on "moral issues" not based on their economic issues and as such, really can't be reached by the democratic party. On the other end, wealthy and not so wealthy moderate republicans vote their pocket book, not social issues. I know a guy who makes well over 200k/yr for a living. Socially, his views read like a resume for the democratic party. He has no problem with gay marriage, no problem with abortion being safe, legal and rare and he also strongly dislikes mixing religion and politics. Despite these view points, he votes his pocket book because in his bracket, taxes will certainly go up if Kerry were elected. On the one hand, social moderates vote their wallets so democrats can't get their votes and white, economically marginal voters do not vote their wallets but instead vote on social issues so the democrats have a hard time getting their votes as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gavin in Va Beach Posted November 4, 2004 Share Posted November 4, 2004 Actually I am a Republican, so it saddens me to see an assclown with a giant "R" Stamped to him, running the white house. Now I know this board is pure one sided no matter what. It has become painfully obvious that you are blind to what is going on, but I will continue to hope some of you wake the hell up. Now as to my post.... GW said, this is again for the stupid, "I will spend whatever money it takes to END Terrorism". Ok now tell me how "Ending" Terrorism and "Defending against" Terrorism is the same? It isn't. Try to spin that stevestojan any way you want...you still can't defend his position. Spend the money IN AMERICA. Bring our folks home. Shore up our borders FIRST. I read where that type of thinking is what made us vulnerable in the first place. bull stevestojan. What made us vulnerable is EGO and ARROGANCE! "Hell no one will step foot on American soil and pull that stevestojan with us" Really? I guess that thinking bit us in the ass huh? KRC, I see you are still on the campain trail thinking wise (BTW...a sincere thanks for even being out there. ) But you take my priorities out of context. You want my priorities....Ok here ya go.... 1) Fix the economy. More jobs, Less layoffs, Less closings, Less moving jobs overseas. Less tax breaks for the rich (When is enough, enough damn money already?). 2) Medical Reform. The current medical system sucks ass. 3. and 3a) Shore up LOCAL AMERICAN Security, and bring our troops home. GW's own daddy in his book says don't go into IRAQ. There was no realistic way out. It's right there in print. I noticed Binladen put out another tape? But hey....we got old sadam! Point being (now stay focused here....dont twist and stray off course....) GW said he would spend whatever it takes to END Terrorism. IT WILL NEVER HAPPEN. Not in the Mid east, China, Russia, South America, or even in America. not going to happen. No one can read minds. THAT is the only way you can stop terrorism. If you can read the mind of everyone in the world 24/7 you got a good shot at it. Otherwise, take care of your own house first. Our economy SUCKS, but we are pumping Billions into something we can never stop. Not good sence Buisness or other wise. 101031[/snapback] All sound ideas, if somewhat simply stated, but classis short term thinking. Fighting terrorism is a long term plan and probably the most important one we have every undertaken. You don't just wake up one day and say terrorism is now at acceptable level, let's not worry about it anymore. As for local security or illegal immigration, politicians of both parties have proven to be woefully negligent on the issue. That's because they get supported by farmers and farm corporations to kinda look the other way so that they can get their cheap labor. Like in Arizona, the fight against illegal immigration will be done by the people passing referendums. Besides, as big as the 'Government' has become you'd think it could do many things at once. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted November 4, 2004 Share Posted November 4, 2004 So you are saying the war on terrorism is more important than our own economy? Terrorism is NOT the #1 priority at all. We got punched in the mouth with 911. While it sucks it is not reason to make terrorism the #1 priority for THIS country. Housing, Feeding and taking care medically of OUR OWN is #1 and should always be. Defend against terrorism fine....Take care of America's needs first 101036[/snapback] I would say they are like our two starting running backs, 1 and 1A. I believe that you don't have to disregard one for the other, or make one more important than the other. I don't think we can take our troops home right now with Iraq being this big of a mess. I do agree with the homeland security stuff you listed, for the most part. And I think Bush has led us way astray, as evidenced by my sig line. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KRC Posted November 4, 2004 Share Posted November 4, 2004 KRC, I see you are still on the campain trail thinking wise (BTW...a sincere thanks for even being out there. ) But you take my priorities out of context. You want my priorities....Ok here ya go.... 1) Fix the economy. More jobs, Less layoffs, Less closings, Less moving jobs overseas. Less tax breaks for the rich (When is enough, enough damn money already?). 2) Medical Reform. The current medical system sucks ass. 3. and 3a) Shore up LOCAL AMERICAN Security, and bring our troops home. GW's own daddy in his book says don't go into IRAQ. There was no realistic way out. It's right there in print. I noticed Binladen put out another tape? But hey....we got old sadam! Point being (now stay focused here....dont twist and stray off course....) GW said he would spend whatever it takes to END Terrorism. IT WILL NEVER HAPPEN. Not in the Mid east, China, Russia, South America, or even in America. not going to happen. No one can read minds. THAT is the only way you can stop terrorism. If you can read the mind of everyone in the world 24/7 you got a good shot at it. Otherwise, take care of your own house first. Our economy SUCKS, but we are pumping Billions into something we can never stop. Not good sence Buisness or other wise. 101031[/snapback] First, thanks for the compliments. Next, we live in a GLOBAL society. Isolationist policies will not work in a global society and that seems to be what you are advocating. Until you agree with this, there is no need to continue the conversation on how terrorism is a global threat, and what happens across the world will have an effect on our economy, jobs, etc. Sealing off our borders is a great concept, but you have to remember that what happens in xyz-stan also has an effect on us here in America. As I have said many times: short-sighted thinking yields short-term results. I am not a supporter of Bush, but at least it looks like his administration has an understanding of this concept. Implimentation is another issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ICE Posted November 4, 2004 Author Share Posted November 4, 2004 Guys, Please re read my posts. I dont' think I said Terrorism is "acceptable" period. DEFEND against it. Fine, I am all for it. But to be so KzooMike and say that he will spend whatever it takes to END it? The thing that scares me is he thinks it can be ended. 20 years from now and 100 trillion later...people will still be using terrorism as a tactic. you can not stop it. You CAN Better defend against it, and possibly reduce how much is going on. Until Russia, China etal start putting billions into this, we don't have a prayer of even slowing it down. When the Middle eastern countries start actively working together to stamp it out........BWAAAAAHAHAHAHAHA, sorry I had to at least try and say it THEN We have a chance. Until then, fix the economy, DEFEND against terrorism and lets get this country, THIS COUNTRY, back on track. And one thing to "On the Rocks" You have this in your sig line... "I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom I provide, then questions the manner in which I provide it. I'd prefer you just said thank you and went on your way." Well as a Veteran of the first war (and yes martha for those that missed the many conversations on the subject I was a 19K M1A1 armor Crewman in the first Gulf War) I have to say to you this....unless you stood a post in the war, yank the sig line and I will expect your THANK YOU promptly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ICE Posted November 4, 2004 Author Share Posted November 4, 2004 First, thanks for the compliments. No problem bud, thanks for working that trail. Next, we live in a GLOBAL society. Isolationist policies will not work in a global society and that seems to be what you are advocating. Until you agree with this, there is no need to continue the conversation on how terrorism is a global threat, and what happens across the world will have an effect on our economy, jobs, etc. Sealing off our borders is a great concept, but you have to remember that what happens in xyz-stan also has an effect on us here in America. As I have said many times: short-sighted thinking yields short-term results. I am not a supporter of Bush, but at least it looks like his administration has an understanding of this concept. Implimentation is another issue. 101066[/snapback] My whole position is this....Fix thy own house first. The US Economy is bad. And if anyone thinks it is going to get any better after plunging BILLIONS into trying to stop something that can't be stopped....that is wishful thinking. I have no problem DEFENDING Against terrorism. But China, Russia, the Mid east THEY need to step up as well. The time has come for the US to stop funding all of this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ICE Posted November 4, 2004 Author Share Posted November 4, 2004 Wow. Mikey you really nailed it. Those with money want all the breaks. Those without care more about "issues" than a job. Makes sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OnTheRocks Posted November 4, 2004 Share Posted November 4, 2004 i did not serve. and i will say thank you for your service. the sig line has been there since the Olympics when some Iraqi soccer player made negative comments about our troops and the work they were doing. i have more than a dozen family and and very close personal friends who served in WWII, Korea, Vietnam, the first Gulf War, and the current war in Iraq along with a few other conflicts. although i fully understand that i do not and will never no the experience of "standing post" in combat....i have a personal stake in what policies are in place. the sig line stays until i decide to change it to something else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VABills Posted November 4, 2004 Share Posted November 4, 2004 So there we have it. We have a group who wants government handouts, and higher taxes on everyone to pay for them, but don't care what happens to the economy if terrorists start attacking us daily. I guess big government funding everything except our safety is good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KRC Posted November 4, 2004 Share Posted November 4, 2004 My whole position is this....Fix thy own house first. 101077[/snapback] We will never agree on this. You need to work simultaneously on these issues. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MichFan Posted November 4, 2004 Share Posted November 4, 2004 GW said, this is again for the stupid, "I will spend whatever money it takes to END Terrorism". Ok now tell me how "Ending" Terrorism and "Defending against" Terrorism is the same? It isn't. Try to spin that stevestojan any way you want...you still can't defend his position. Spend the money IN AMERICA. Bring our folks home. Shore up our borders FIRST. I have no problem DEFENDING Against terrorism. Simply clueless Again, Thank God your man lost. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts