4 more years, what the heck..

Dan Nickname Beshers said:
I think Mike was referencing when Rudolph Giuliani made a statement on Good Morning America that there were no domestic terror attacks against America under Bush's administration.
Click to expand...

No, I was referring to 9/11 in general. You have to take the good with the bad. You can't take credit for all the good things that happened during your administration and then shift blame away for the bad things. I'm sure that if 9/11 had happened on the Democrat's watch, the Republicans would be blaming the Democrats completely for it, just like they're doing about the Underwear Bomber (and that didn't even happen in America!).

Could Bush have prevented it? Probably not. While Condaleeza Rice admitted under oath that they had been warned by the outgoing Clinton administration in a report titled "Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside the United States" and did nothing about it, even if they had tried, it probably would have happened anyway.

My point was just "Why would anyone long for those 8 years under Bush?" In eight years we went from budget surplus to deficit; from peace to war; from strong economy to near depression. I can understand not liking Obama and wanting a Republican in office instead, but Bush? Seriously? There are plenty of competent Republicans out there you could want -- why Bush?

Still, Scott's point is right about how sad and terrible it is that everyone has become so alienated -- that nothing is getting done in Washington because politicians would rather attack each other to make political points with their radical followers than actually do something to help the country.

The best recent example is when a group of Republicans proposed a bill to establish a commission to cut the deficit. Obama said "Good idea" and encouraged everyone to vote for it. And then the bill was defeated -- all the Republicans voted against it, including the ones who had written it in the first place! I mean, when they vote against their own bill because they feel like they have to say "no" to everything Obama wants, it tells you something about how sad our country's politics has become.
 
anything is better than obama. :eek:

sack.gif
 
Pearl Harbor was an attack against a military base and the surrounding civilian centers were not actively bombed. While a shady sneak attack, the Japanese made an effort to confine the attack to a strategic military target.
 
Understand 9/11 attack had nothing to do with who was in office..... It took years of planning... it was planned before Bush was even elected. Blaming him is just liberal B*LLshit.

As for the war, regardless what info started it. It was needed and necessary, Gods Praise Bush for moving forward with it.. (specially after Clinton left it in shambles and the people who sided with the First Bush (first Gulf War). Imagine a people so suppressed and living with such fear.. Then United Nations come along and make promises to help, gain the confidence and trust of these people who have been tortured, beaten and deprived for decades. Then on the drop of a hat pull out of their country (tis what Clinton did), leaving them to fend for themselfs against the tyrant (Saddam) they basically betrayed, by vocalizing their support for the first war and over throw of such Govn't. And yeah yeah Kuwait had something to do with it, that was just the final straw.... Good For W for finishing what his Father promised years ago.

**My accounts and views from the wars with middle east come from journals and accounts from my Brother, who was kind and docile to his neighbor, but who was educated and new that sometime War is needed. "Sometime you need to do a little "evil" for a lot of good". I cannot talk about his rank, class or position. Or I will not speak here of the things he witness or saw... Only that he served in both wars, and gave his life in the 2nd one. However by his own words, he died doing what he loved and believed in, in his heart. What he witnessed first hand, Not for oil, or if their was or wasnt weapons of mass destruction. The govn't or saddam and high regime per say were the weapons of mass destruction, as powerful and hateful as Hitler himself. And capable and responsible of the same humanitarian destruction.

As for Obama: I didn't like him at first, but I think now he has interest in following through with what he started. I'll take one personal example... The hole HAMP program. Housing Affordable Mortgage Program.
He now see's he made a mistake giving these banks the money up front. Take GMAC, givin 3.8 billion dollars on Dec 38th 2008. To help people modify their loans. A person in a 30 year loan lets say at 6%. Will pay a total amount of interest of $300,000 coarse of the loan. Well with the HAMP program, people who have a loss of income or whatever can lower there terms. SO lets say a 40 year loan and pay 2% interest. Now the bank will only make $120,000 in interest in the coarse of a loan. Well the 3.8 billion is there to compensate the bank. This prevents foreclosures and yaddy yaddy yah.... Well GMAC has the lowest "approval" rate for home modifications. See they have the money in hand from the Govt already. So they figure its easier to foreclose on a house, and yeah they may lose 40k-70k on a house since its gone down in value. But they can re-sell the house and put other people in that house that will pay that 5% interest rate...

I personally am fighting GMAC head on right now. They denied me a Modification for no reason, I meet all the stipulations and all the guidelines. But GMAC already has their money from the Govnt. So why bother helping me out. Now thankfully I am not the only person not getting a modification and I am not the only person who wrote a letter to my Senators or Media stations. OBAMA is now said to be cracking down on the banks and really putting the heat on them, so lets see if he follows through with all these words and vows hes been speaking last few years.

***Somebody did a report and it was along the lines of this.. With all the bail out billions that have been passed around. It was enough money to pay every USA 2007 tax payer $75,000. Every person who filed taxes in 2007 would get $75,000. Aint that something....

As for public health care.. REAL EASY. I think it's sweden that does something like this... But call it the "OBAMA PLAN". A % of your annual pay goes to the Govt. SO lets say 38% of your pay goes to the Govnt. , regardless what you make or what donations you make, or how much property you have...At the end of the year you do not have any write offs or exemptions. You pay 38% of your annual pay and thats it. But this 38% pays your taxes to your country, provides you with free public transportation, provides you with free health care, PROVIDES YOU WITH 2 years of college, and provides you with free public wellness centers (yoga place, gyms, pools).
If you are the person who makes $200,000 a year and cries because you will have to pay "more" then a guy who makes $40k a year, then your a selfish prick anyway and go get your own insurance and go to your own gyms. Cause frankly I wouldn't want to be around you anyway.... So it's your choice if you want to be on this "Govt wellness plan" or not.

I am all for stopping handouts. People getting welfare or Disability that have not held a job for 10years, or claim stupid medical stress or depression crap. Yet they drive a Mercedes they put in their moms name...

But the biggest problem with this country besides the banking, auto, and insurance companies. Is people need to stop worrying about what other people have or don't have. And the states that grant disability, unemployment, food stamps, welfare. Should really have a task force to repeatedly inspect and investigate people getting such aid.

IF you are willing to help yourself, you should be fortunate enough to get help when you need it. If your a lazy and refuse to help yourself your should get nothing

-Toddy
 
Toddo said:
Pearl Harbor was an attack against a military base and the surrounding civilian centers were not actively bombed. While a shady sneak attack, the Japanese made an effort to confine the attack to a strategic military target.
Click to expand...
I don't know that the gravity of attacks on American soil should be defined by which targets where hit... I find it hard to suggest that military personnel dying is less serious than civilians. Not every enlisted man or woman is an in-the-trenches gi-grunt with a hard-on for firearms and handheld explosives, you know? Surely you could be a member of the Axis of Evil without being evil yourself... like maybe you just pick up their dry-cleaning or something.

The numbers in persons are actually closer than I thought, though, tbh:
9/11 - 2973 casualties, no numbers on wounded, 2 major business/trade centers, 3 airline passenger jets, damage to the Pentagon.
Pearl Harbor - 2400ish casualties, 1200ish wounded, 8 battleships, 3 cruisers, 3 destroyers, 1 minelayer, 188 aircraft.

So, I dunno... maybe about the same?
 
Loss of life is loss of life, and I'm not valuing a soldier's life as worth more or less than a civilian's. If that is what you read into what I wrote I apologize, just as I'm sure I'm reading more into your implication that I feel that way than you likely intended.

To my mind what makes a sneak attack more or less heinous is almost completely about the target of the attack. While it's a douchebag move to launch an attack against an unsuspecting target without a formal declaration of war in any circumstances, you can compound the douchebaggery by orders of magnitude depending on what you choose to hit. In the Pearl Harbor attack a military base was attacked for a military reason (to cripple a fleet and reduce our ability to respond via naval action). The target of the attack advanced the aggressor's military goals and while the act was reprehensible it made more sense than if they had bombed downtown Honolulu.

If forced to rate sneak attacks on a scale from Most Heinous to Least Heinous, I would rate 9/11 more towards the Most Heinous end than Pearl Harbor, though both attacks would be close to the top of the scale. If Canada decided to start a war tomorrow by sending a Boffer Weapon Cavalry division to sack Portland Maine it would be on the lower end unless the lances were made of foam latex.
 
Toddo said:
I'm sure I'm reading more into your implication that I feel that way than you likely intended.
Click to expand...
Yep, that. :)

My original suggestion that Pearl Harbor was based on the reputation it has for the being the "date which shall live on in infamy". I'd probably put them on equal footing, looking at it in more detail. PH had the advantage of having clearly defined and located aggressors, and in an era where "enemies" was a more black-and-white perceived concept. I think particularly in modern times, with private paramilitary outfits, civilian contractors for military support operations, and the like, the idea of who gets to count as an enemy combatant and who doesn't gets significantly murkier.
 
For me, I find it funny that after 8 years with Bush at the wheel, Republicans are criticizing Obama for not having fixed everything before his first year was up.

Then again, I get all my news from "The Daily Show" so I suppose I'm a Democratic puppy.
 
jpariury said:
Toddo said:
I'm sure I'm reading more into your implication that I feel that way than you likely intended.
Click to expand...
Yep, that. :)

My original suggestion that Pearl Harbor was based on the reputation it has for the being the "date which shall live on in infamy". I'd probably put them on equal footing, looking at it in more detail. PH had the advantage of having clearly defined and located aggressors, and in an era where "enemies" was a more black-and-white perceived concept. I think particularly in modern times, with private paramilitary outfits, civilian contractors for military support operations, and the like, the idea of who gets to count as an enemy combatant and who doesn't gets significantly murkier.
Click to expand...

From a rather warped perspective, Pearl is actually worse. The Japanese were actively engaged in diplomatic talks with the US government to assure us of their desire for peace between us, both to stall for time and to actively cast doubt on any belief that they had already conceived of, planned and initiated an attack intended to cripple our ability to fight back. This is the equivalent of shaking someone's hand in order to distract them from your premeditated kick to the groin.

Bin Laden, if nothing else, had the courage(bravado?) to pretty much straight up say in 1998 that anyone who was Israeli or helped the Israelis was going down, and that he believed North America to be the easiest target. Further, he specifically invoked a Jihad, and issued a fatwa (religious interpretation) within Al-Qaeda explaining that killing innocents during time of Jihad was religiously fine, as Allah would see that any good Muslims in the mix would get their heavenly reward. He is an inveterate douche bag of mythological proportions, but he did say he was going to attack us, and our intelligence agencies already knew plenty about his M.O.

So essentially, the Japanese lied and told us they were our friends right up until the day they tried to kill hundreds of people who they had made certain would have no warning. Al-Qaeda declared that they were at war with America, and that all Americans were considered soldiers in their eyes.

Personally, whoa wow are we off-topic.

Billboard: No. I do not miss him. I refuse to believe that foreign policy benefits from ham-handed application of a broadsword when a taser and scalpel are sufficient.
 
Or if they nuked a couple cities. Oh wait, that was the US that committed that atrocity.
Click to expand...

....Vae Victis

That is the way in War... you bring a knife, they get a gun, when they bring a gun, you bring a bigger gun. Thats the WORLDS NATURE , whatever it takes... (As well as, self destruction and taking what is not yours).

Last 3000 years, Conquerors and the Strong (or desperate) Have done what it takes to win, and in most cases in modern day society it would be considered "Wrong" and "Atrocious". But in most cases, when the actions actually took place in their own time, they were celebrated.
 
Ithica said:
Or if they nuked a couple cities. Oh wait, that was the US that committed that atrocity.
Click to expand...

....Vae Victis

That is the way in War... you bring a knife, they get a gun, when they bring a gun, you bring a bigger gun. Thats the WORLDS NATURE , whatever it takes... (As well as, self destruction and taking what is not yours).

Last 3000 years, Conquerors and the Strong (or desperate) Have done what it takes to win, and in most cases in modern day society it would be considered "Wrong" and "Atrocious". But in most cases, when the actions actually took place in their own time, they were celebrated.
Click to expand...

That's the way of sick individuals who think they have the right to use force to control others. That is by no means what many of us feel is right or natural. I would never celebrate mass slaughtering of humans.
 
That's the way of sick individuals who think they have the right to use force to control others.
Click to expand...

And that is exactly what Japan was doing in WWII when they sided with Hitler...... And majority of their population stood behind them, they were celebrated in the streets. As they would march captured Allied forces up and down the streets, parade them like trophies and at will ride up on their horse's behind a bound soldier and Decapitate him with their Katana, as the crowd would cheer.....

The entire nation was against USA, because in their eyes "We were the way of sick individuals who think they have the right to use force to control others", they looked at the History of the Roman Empire, who then "influenced" Europe, who "influenced" the Crusades, who also "Influenced" the Americas, Who then kinda influenced a lot of other places along the way. Lets face it 2000 years of destruction and taking whats not yours cannot be hidden.

Now the Atom Bomb was a bit of an over kill, and weather USA did or did not know the exact extent of destruction it would do..Japan would of done the same had they had the technology. And had the powers that be not occupied Japan (also not allow them to build their own army) after WWII. We would of probably been at war with them again.

In Japans eyes at the time, We were the oppressors who did nothing but spread our influence and tear apart peoples traditions and histories. We were the inferior race in their eyes...

And cmon we were the cause of death of Kazimoto Musashi and Ujio, and then Claimed an American named Tom Cruise to be the last Samurai.... The mere site of Tom Cruise in samurai armor would encourage the world to hate us.

-Toddy
 
Duke Frost said:
The left wing is going to blame Bush for everything for the next decade. Heck, Mike's even blaming Bush for 9/11 now, because surely a left winger would have stopped that attack before it started...and by peaceful and loving means.

And the right wing is going to blame Obama for everything for the next ten years.

And they'll keep doing this while lining their pockets at the expense of the common taxpayer. Except for Clinton...he was just in it to get laid.

Scott
Click to expand...


I don't know about Mike's reasoning, but as far as I'm concerned about it one of the major lines the Bush people were using during his run in '04 was that "no further attacks had happened after 9/11 thanks to the actions of the Bush administration" which to my thinking means you also have to say "the worst terror attack in recent world history also happened on our watch". Otherwise, you have to chalk it up to the fact that all the safety protocols they've put in place since have been nothing but public actions to look like they are doing something in response to it because frankly it's impossible to defend against such a thing in the type of society we live in. If the terrorists were smart and REALLY wanted to take down the US through a terror attack they'd get two dozen guys in cars loaded with diesel fuel to crash into two dozen different major shopping mall entrances at 5am the morning before Thanksgiving, which would either force government officials to close all public shopping centers for the time being (and all major retailers would lose something like 9% of their yearly income even if it were just for that weekend) or would just scare consumers into not showing up at those places and doing all their shopping online. It would cripple our economy at the foundation and there is absolutely no way to defend against such a thing. Planes into buildings are incredibly sad and terrible things to witness and the loss of life was tragic, but as a weapon of actual lasting damage to the government or institution of the US itself, not very effective.
 
Gee-Perwin said:
Speak for yourself, please.
Click to expand...

i am. i believe it is human nature. i believe it is your nature. I am not speaking for you. i am speaking for me believing that it is your nature and that you are only suppressing that nature.
 
Robb Graves said:
Gee-Perwin said:
Speak for yourself, please.
Click to expand...

i am. i believe it is human nature. i believe it is your nature. I am not speaking for you. i am speaking for me believing that it is your nature and that you are only suppressing that nature.
Click to expand...

Many things are human nature, especially things that I won't mention on this board. The thing that seperates us from regular animals is our concious abilities to curb/control those natures to a point of non-existence so that we can operate within a society. But even our society uses force to control others. Just look at our judicial system or to even a lesser extent just plain old parenting. It is the shades of grey that come into play here and at what color do we consider it no longer acceptable.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top