+- Madison Motorsports (https://forum.mmsports.org)
+-- Forum: Madison Motorsports (https://forum.mmsports.org/forumdisplay.php?fid=3)
+--- Forum: Lounge (https://forum.mmsports.org/forumdisplay.php?fid=6)
+--- Thread: VPILF! (/showthread.php?tid=7592)
- stevegula - 09-03-2008
G.Irish Wrote:Seriously? You want to use Al Sharpton for your argument? You want to use a guy who's claim to fame is falsely accusing police officers of rape and assault? And then not paying what he was fined from the resulting slander case?Evan Wrote:If he was'nt black he wouldnt even be in the race.
White guilt, political correctness, and the media love affair with him is the only reason a first term senator with a questionable background is anywhere close to becoming president.
That is ridiculous. I suppose Abraham Lincoln who only had 8 years in the Illinois legislature and 1 term as a Representative wasn't qualified and only got the position because he was white? Or maybe because he had a beard? Or because he was skinny? Or maybe because he gave a few good speeches?
If being black was such a big advantage why hasn't Al Sharpton won the presidency (he ran in 2004)? Why is there only 1 black Senator and 8 black representatives when blacks make up 12% of the population? It's a conspiracy! Those black people are only there because of whitey guilt and affirmation action! As a matter of fact, maybe the only reason I was president of MM is because I was black!
Obama's race works for and against him. There are people who are only voting for him because he's black, there are people who aren't voting for him because he's black, and there are people who won't vote for him because they think he's Muslim. But to say he's only where he is because of his race is absurd.
Maybe you should use Jesse Jackson? I mean, he's not known for extorting companies or illegitimate children or anything.
- G.Irish - 09-03-2008
Quote:Special Forces are still in Afganistan. Human intelegance is going to be limited in that area since the other side uses the threat of death to you and your family.That is a significant challenge but the way you get around that is by taking out those Taliban fighters and gaining the trust of the community. If they can reasonably believe that you can eliminate the threat, they'll help you. Some of the Army people in Iraq have noted that they've been able to achieve this.
But again, that's why the focus should have been on Afghanistan.
Quote:"Undermine support for their cause in the communities they live in. The common people don't want to be blown up either so you make sure the common people are on your side by attacking terrorists/insurgents but keeping collateral damage low. Help their communities and they're more likely to help you. Use locals to help you take out terrorists."Well what the military leadership is starting to do on the ground is work with the leaders of tribes to help them oust foreign fighters from the region. Again, common Iraqis don't want to get blown up either so if you approach from a standpoint of increasing their stability and security you will have a lot more success than viewing everyone as an enemy and dropping bombs on non-hostiles.
that is basically impossible to due in that part of the world... especially by the US. The common people wanted to be free, but they want to take no risk... just incase the freedom doesnt last long. Its historical... the same shit happened in that area for hundreds of years.
You're correct that there's no way we are going to solve any of the long standing tribal or religious on our own, but that really isn't the point or the goal. The goal is to get rid of the radicals by helping the majority of people in those countries who simply want to live in peace.
Quote:The issue with Israel started in WW1. When the allies broke up the young turkish republic and created the hostile region. welcome to shit we shouldnt have done decades ago. we are kind of stuck with it now. and we cant really go back on it or we lose ALL footholds in the region.We don't have to abandon Israel or anything but we need to show even-handedness and fairness with regards to their actions in the region.
Quote:Unfortunately, even our special forces have their hands tied due to "morality." We wanted to be straight forward and upright and took a stance of not assasinating people. we still dont do that today... or Sadam would have had his hole filled with concrete or something.We're not fighting heads of state, we're fighting terrorists. We have assassinated terrorist leaders and we should continue to kill them when possible. Assassinating heads of state is a totally different ball game and causes a lot more problems than it solves.
Quote:"6. Use our human intelligence to infiltrate and disrupt terrorist cells. That is what the CIA is for. Human intelligence also means we need more linguists on the ground so that deployed units can gather and act on intel better. "Maybe so, we need to fix that from here on out.
you can thank the Clintons for destroying the funding our intelligence community needed to keep this up. its not cheap and not easy. there are suggestions that if they didnt cut the budgets in the places they did, we could have known exact dates, times, and flight numbers for 9-11.
Quote:"7. Clean up the criminal intelligence failures in our stateside organizations. There were whistleblowers about several red flags we had before 9/11 in the FBI that might have averted the attack had the agency done their job. "There was a translators who were not giving the FBI the correct information and when someone in the FBI blew the whistle she got fired. Then there's the fact that the FBI had arrested Moussaoui before 9/11, knew he had flight training, knew he was affiliated with radical terrorism, and had confirmation from other intelligence agencies. But they didn't search his laptop because the FBI leadership didn't think there was probable cause to get a warrant.
the biggest issue was they didnt know specifics. thats not going to magically be created by communication between offices... it happens by putting more agents in the field and not having to pull agents from their current duties because working covertly costs too much!
There was plenty of warning and plenty of it got ignored. There's no getting around that.
- G.Irish - 09-03-2008
stevegula Wrote:You missed the point. The point is, if being black is such a big advantage, then any ol' black person should be able to take advantage of 'YT guilt' and 'the media' to win elections.G.Irish Wrote:Seriously? You want to use Al Sharpton for your argument? You want to use a guy who's claim to fame is falsely accusing police officers of rape and assault? And then not paying what he was fined from the resulting slander case?Evan Wrote:If he was'nt black he wouldnt even be in the race.
White guilt, political correctness, and the media love affair with him is the only reason a first term senator with a questionable background is anywhere close to becoming president.
That is ridiculous. I suppose Abraham Lincoln who only had 8 years in the Illinois legislature and 1 term as a Representative wasn't qualified and only got the position because he was white? Or maybe because he had a beard? Or because he was skinny? Or maybe because he gave a few good speeches?
If being black was such a big advantage why hasn't Al Sharpton won the presidency (he ran in 2004)? Why is there only 1 black Senator and 8 black representatives when blacks make up 12% of the population? It's a conspiracy! Those black people are only there because of whitey guilt and affirmation action! As a matter of fact, maybe the only reason I was president of MM is because I was black!
Obama's race works for and against him. There are people who are only voting for him because he's black, there are people who aren't voting for him because he's black, and there are people who won't vote for him because they think he's Muslim. But to say he's only where he is because of his race is absurd.
Maybe you should use Jesse Jackson? I mean, he's not known for extorting companies or illegitimate children or anything.
But hey if you want better examples, how about Carol Moseley Braun. She ran for president too and she didn't get too far. Guess that whole being black thing doesn't work for everybody.
- WRXtranceformed - 09-03-2008
We should redirect the topic of this thread back to the hot MILF of a potential VP we might have and her slut preggers daughter.
- Apoc - 09-03-2008
G.Irish Wrote:But hey if you want better examples, how about Carol Moseley Braun. She ran for president too and she didn't get too far. Guess that whole being black thing doesn't work for everybody.
Dude, she's TWO minorities. We can't very well feel sorry for both groups now can we? I mean being black and a woman? That's just selfish.
P.S. - The preggers is way better looking than the mom. Yeah, I said it. You were all thinking it anyway.
- WRXtranceformed - 09-03-2008
Apoc Wrote:P.S. - The preggers is way better looking than the mom. Yeah, I said it. You were all thinking it anyway.
Any pics of her in this shitfest of a thread?!?
- Apoc - 09-03-2008
She's uhhh... underage.... slippery slope.
- G.Irish - 09-03-2008
Apoc Wrote:Wouldn't that be a multiplier? Shouldn't she get super-extra-double-bonus votes because she's also a woman?G.Irish Wrote:But hey if you want better examples, how about Carol Moseley Braun. She ran for president too and she didn't get too far. Guess that whole being black thing doesn't work for everybody.
Dude, she's TWO minorities. We can't very well feel sorry for both groups now can we? I mean being black and a woman? That's just selfish.
- .RJ - 09-03-2008
G.Irish Wrote:Shouldn't she get super-extra-double-bonus votes because she's also a woman?
Only if she was an underage porn star.
- WRXtranceformed - 09-03-2008
This thread has a serious lack of underage preggers slutbag pics!!
- Apoc - 09-03-2008
G.Irish Wrote:Apoc Wrote:Wouldn't that be a multiplier? Shouldn't she get super-extra-double-bonus votes because she's also a woman?G.Irish Wrote:But hey if you want better examples, how about Carol Moseley Braun. She ran for president too and she didn't get too far. Guess that whole being black thing doesn't work for everybody.
Dude, she's TWO minorities. We can't very well feel sorry for both groups now can we? I mean being black and a woman? That's just selfish.
See: donor fatigue
- Kaan - 09-03-2008
"There was a translators who were not giving the FBI the correct information and when someone in the FBI blew the whistle she got fired. Then there's the fact that the FBI had arrested Moussaoui before 9/11, knew he had flight training, knew he was affiliated with radical terrorism, and had confirmation from other intelligence agencies. But they didn't search his laptop because the FBI leadership didn't think there was probable cause to get a warrant.
There was plenty of warning and plenty of it got ignored. There's no getting around that."
at that time we were playing by rules... the american judicial system. when you realize that mistake and start playing by international rules... we have Git-mo... which people complain about.
Its all complicated by the fact there are different rules for terrorists taken on US soil, terriorists that are handed over to us, and terrorists taken on other soil during times of war.
- G.Irish - 09-03-2008
Kaan Wrote:"There was a translators who were not giving the FBI the correct information and when someone in the FBI blew the whistle she got fired. Then there's the fact that the FBI had arrested Moussaoui before 9/11, knew he had flight training, knew he was affiliated with radical terrorism, and had confirmation from other intelligence agencies. But they didn't search his laptop because the FBI leadership didn't think there was probable cause to get a warrant.Nope that is not it at all. There were FBI agents who had reasonable cause, corroborating intelligence from the French, and the suspect in custody but the FBI head honchos didn't think there was enough evidence to even try to get a warrant. If they had at least sought the warrant and got turned down you could say that the judicial system foiled them but they didn't even go to the judicial system.
There was plenty of warning and plenty of it got ignored. There's no getting around that."
at that time we were playing by rules... the american judicial system. when you realize that mistake and start playing by international rules... we have Git-mo... which people complain about.
The international rules have nothing to do with the FBI, Git-mo is irrelevant.
And that's not even getting to the documents that the FBI had in their possession that they failed to translate through gross negligence. Look up Sibel Edmonds.
- stevegula - 09-03-2008
![[Image: us1.jpg]](http://www.drudgereport.com/us1.jpg)
![[Image: usnewscover.jpg]](http://markhalperin.files.wordpress.com/2008/09/usnewscover.jpg)
I hope Obama loses just so I can point at the media and go "Hah, not so powerful now are you?"
That's really my whole gripe with this election: The media coverage. It's so f'n ridiculous I'm about to cast my vote for Bush shutting down the elections and making himself dictator just to piss everyone off.
(note I did not vote for Bush and I will not be voting for McCain or Obama)
- Apoc - 09-03-2008
US Weekly hardly counts as "media"... right? Someone please say yes.
- .RJ - 09-03-2008
Apoc Wrote:US Weekly hardly counts as "media"... right?
The masses read it and other garbage, and allow it to influence their opinion.
Obama is the media darling, and they are trying really hard to get him elected.
- stevegula - 09-03-2008
Apoc Wrote:US Weekly hardly counts as "media"... right? Someone please say yes.If they're a magazine advertised at the checkout lane of a grocery store I think it counts as 'media'. They also push out near 2 million mags a week so that sounds like 'media' to me.
- Kaan - 09-03-2008
International rules to apply to all law enforcement agencies. Our current system is much "nicer" than the international law we agreed to.
The fact is we dont know what they had. Only the people with much more law enforcement experience knew if they could get a warrent... they didnt think it was possible with that they had. Who are we to say they did? I've only been schooled in it, i've never actually saught a warrent... but i do know a lot depends on the judges interpritation and if they didnt think they could pull it they were just wasting if they tried. we can play monday morning quarterback on that situation all day. the fact is the proffesionals involved didnt feel the warrent could be obtained.
- Apoc - 09-03-2008
stevegula Wrote:Apoc Wrote:US Weekly hardly counts as "media"... right? Someone please say yes.If they're a magazine advertised at the checkout lane of a grocery store I think it counts as 'media'. They also push out near 2 million mags a week so that sounds like 'media' to me.
By those standards, National Enquirer, Maxim and Cosmo are media too.
I guess I just think of "Media" as news outlets, not entertainment. I realize the line has really been blurred in recent years but there's gotta be some sort of imaginary line in the sand.
- CaptainHenreh - 09-03-2008
Kaan Wrote:The issue with Israel started in WW1. When the allies broke up the young turkish republic and created the hostile region. welcome to shit we shouldnt have done decades ago. we are kind of stuck with it now. and we cant really go back on it or we lose ALL footholds in the region.
Kaan, seriously?
Israel wasn't created until 1948, and the allies didn't break up any young Turkish republics. They *did* partition the old ottoman empire, especially after the Arab revolt left all of Palestine and the Sinai out of Ottoman control, nevermind the unrest and pending revolt in that area prior to WWI (The Balkans and Lybia being prime examples). In the end, we should have stayed out of it from the start, but we shouldn't be in the nation building business at all, ever. But if you really want to blame somebody for starting all this mess, blame France and Great Britain, not the United States...blame the US for having idiotic policies afterwards.