This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
So how many quarts of American blood is acceptable to you, how many blown off limbs will it take for you???I assume you have limits, just wondering what they are???When exactly will you know??? When it is someone from your family...
Are you a pacifist? If so, your argument here is perfectly justifiable. If you are not a pacifist, and if you believe, as I do, that it is acceptable to send an all volunteer military overseas to fight battles and wars, then your comments here seem crude, odd, and highly irrational.
What do YOU think he is doing on his bus trip, are you that deluded???Unlike you I at least take a side, which is something you "pretend" not to take...
I am anti-war and you know that... Yes we need to defend ourselves but again our presence in Afghanistan does our security absolutely no good. The cost in money and lives is a waste of time just like in Iraq...How about our meddling in Egypt and Libya, Sharia law on its way, are you and your wife down with that also???
I am taking a side on this issue. I think that we have to stay there for the time being, unfortunately. I support President Obama's actions as best I understand them. But even if I disagreed with him, I think that your statement above is idiotic and tasteless, sorry.
I didn't know that sorry. In that case, I respect your position (on this issue, not your other statements) but I simply disagree. As far as Egypt, I don't think anything we did had a real effect. Neo-conservatives wanted us to "meddle" on the side of Mubarik; we chose not to. I think this was probably the correct decision, though we'll see. In Libya, I support what Obama did, but not the way he went about it. It bothers me that he didn't go to Congress, as the law says he should. I have no evidence to believe that "Sharia Law" is on its way." My wife, like you, is largely pacifist and generally opposes most military actions unless we are directly attacked.
Obama has not ended any war yet and we are pretty much on the same time frame in Iraq as we would have been under Bush. I am pretty certain, Obama has even expanded the war in Afghan. Economy is stabilized because that is what happens, eventually we hit bottom and we have Bush's TARP to thank for the market rebound. I don't see any signs that our economy is reinvigorated despite the largest but ill-concieved stimulus package in the history. Portugal is nice and they do have hot women. I wish we were in Portugal.
Not let's talk about the real issues.....our huge deficits and unemployment problems. Something Obama has been an absolute zero on.
wat'jon_mx said:
Bubble bursts, we go into a panic, and we have a crash. Things settle down, it stabilizes, and we have a recovery. That is what happens. You watch the news much?
He is saying the President has nothing to do with the cyles of the economy but the current waning economy is Obama's fault.
Not exactly, but the impact of government intervention is limited. If you buy into that we were on the edge of a much larger crash, it was Bush's TARP which saved the day, and Obama is a ##### for claiming credit. Obama's stimulus did give us some temporary growth and helped save some jobs, but it did not do enough to emcourage private sector growth which would have provided long term growth. But yeah, let us not pretend there are no bubbles and business cycles which hurt Bush's record towards the end of his term and Bush was not the major cause. He wad a major cause of the deficit, but that did not cause the housing bubble to burst.
Don't think it's fair to blame Bush for housing bubble but conservative ideology of demeaing governemnt regualtion is fair game. Yes, I know Clinton started it but I don't agree with his decisions either and think we need more regualtions then what we've imposed post-meltdown.
Clinton did not just start it, the repeal of Glass-Steagall was the lynch pin. Any other deregulation you could point to does not hold a candle to the impact of that. It was something Clinton push for, but it was agreed to and passed in a GOP congress. So both parties have their fingerprints over this. Bush was the only person who actually tried to reverse it, but Barney Frank and others on the Finance committee ignored Bush's warnings.
Increasing regulations would act as a drag on the economy and the benefits are outweighed by that.
We don't necessarily need more regulations, we need more effective ones. Dodd-Frank is chock full of regulations, but they do very little to actually address the problems.
The time for grandstanding empty gestures for political gain is past. We need regulations that address the real issues, not more window dressing that changes nothing.
Obama's purpose is to teach the Millennial generation that liberal policies suck and that the mainstream press is liberal. He's doing his job very well. The Milennials are turning to the right. That's a big part of winning future elections.
Although its done by both parties, Obama seems to have really excelled at plowing government money back into the Dems/union pockets.
Most of the usual people who pretend to care about these things will turn a blind eye because he's a democrat. This story doesn't fit their narrative. So it will be muted. Republicans who care about this will get shouted down by democrats, and democrats will quickly turn it into attacks on republicans, ignoring Obama's action here. That's how the game is played. This issue is a political football.
That's part of the problem, but the other side is what is the alternative to holding terror suspects indefinitely? It's a no-win situation for the President, no matter what party he's from.
He's a blight for continuing Bush's policies? I bet you can't wait to get a Republican in there to continue Bush's policies.
The whole thing is a big mess because no-one has a spine. We're too spineless to declare wars, just military actions. We're too spineless to define what enemy combatant means. Its all a big grey area because people are afraid of offending other people more than they are stopping terrorism.There's a vacuum of leadership, and it begins at the top.
This was actually the last straw for me. I will not vote for this guy after this most recent in a series of bad decisions flying in the face of what he promised to do when running for office. I was already leaning heavily towards not voting for him again and this sealed the deal.
Why do people think "terrorism" is any different from any other crime we've always dealt with? It's simply murder. So if someone's committed the crime of planning to murder a lot of people, you try them for that crime. If you don't have proof they committed that crime then they go free. We want to have it both ways by holding someone we think is a threat without having actual proof they are a threat. That's wrong and a violation of basic human rights.
Did you have a point or did you just want to highlight that bit?
yes, thats exactly what he said
