+- 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: Dems: explain to me... (/showthread.php?tid=6180)
Dems: explain to me... - Evan - 07-12-2007
in the spirit of Jack's evolution thread...
JackoliciousLegs Wrote:The inside job stuff is a conspiracy theory among a tiny TINY minority of people.
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/22_believe_bush_knew_about_9_11_attacks_in_advance">http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_ ... in_advance</a><!-- m -->
Quote:on the question of whether George W. Bush knew about the 9/11 terrorist attacks in advance. Thirty-five percent (35%) of Democrats believe he did know
![[Image: 350495.jpg]](http://www.indymedia.org.uk/images/2006/09/350495.jpg)
![[Image: sep27-03-2218.jpg]](http://www.inminds.co.uk/sep27-03-2218.jpg)
Seriously, what the fuck is wrong with the democratic party? Amidst foiled attempts at terrorist attacks and intel agencies warnings of a likely serious attack, the dems are on a witchhunt to make sure nobody listened in on bad guy's phone conversations while trying to catch them, putting guys with corruption charges and $90k in their freezer in charge of the committee that is supposed to keep us safe from this, and trying to downplay the foiled attacks via manipulating language such as banning of the phrase 'global war on terror'. (we should all really be worried about global warming instead!)
Are the democrats really this far off the left side deep end, or am I just a stupid rightie who should go back to having tea with anne coulter?
Its a scary thought that many democrats think Hillary Clinton is too conservative
- Ryan T - 07-12-2007
![[Image: shitfan.jpg]](http://www.weblife.org/humanure/images/shitfan.jpg)
- Andy - 07-12-2007
Well. There's probably a few things going on here. I don't know if we can conflate all of these things together.
I think a distrusting minority is always a good sentinel for a democracy have, whether it be conspiracy theorists on the left or conspiracy theorists on the right such as Vince Foster was killed by the Clintons.
Global War on Terror isn't a lefty argument. Former generals and political theorists have argued that it's hard to define what the endgame for a war on terror would be. Narrowing down the target would make it easier for Americans to envision the goals.
Hillary Clinton is an odd bird. Her rhetoric is very much of a populist and she's a social liberal. However, she's also pro-business. If you doubt that, check out who her contributors are. Bill Clinton continued the free trade reforms of the Reagan/Bush administrations e.g. NAFTA and GATT while deregulating the utilities/phone companies as well as kill what was left of organized labor. We'd be kidding ourselves to think that the Clintons got to be where they were by being dope smoking liberal hippies.
*edit*How'd you find those sites that the pics are pulled from? That's way left of center and they're British lefties which are much more populist than traditional American lefties.
- .RJ - 07-12-2007
Hooray for boobies!
![[Image: drink.gif]](http://rr-ax.com/bbs/images/emoticons/drink.gif)
- Evan - 07-12-2007
Andy Wrote:such as Vince Foster was killed by the Clintons.... start another thread...
Id love to talk about The Clinton Death SquadÔäó :pQuote:Global War on Terror isn't a lefty argument. Former generals and political theorists have argued that it's hard to define what the endgame for a war on terror would be. Narrowing down the target would make it easier for Americans to envision the goals.im not sure what you mean by "isnt a lefty argument", but you present a multi-layered issue. There is no 'end game' because clearly this is not a traditional war with a traditional enemy.
Narrowing down the target isnt something that we are unable to do, its something that political correctness dictates that we are unwilling to do, and thats the scariest part of this whole thing.
Quote:Hillary Clinton is an odd bird. Her rhetoric is very much of a populist and she's a social liberal. However, she's also pro-business. If you doubt that, check out who her contributors are. Bill Clinton continued the free trade reforms of the Reagan/Bush administrations e.g. NAFTA and GATT while deregulating the utilities/phone companies as well as kill what was left of organized labor. We'd be kidding ourselves to think that the Clintons got to be where they were by being dope smoking liberal hippies.sure, I agree with that, and Id love to go into her and bubba's drug dealer, foreign national, and otherwise criminal contributors but it would take us way off topic
Ive listened to a lot of what she has had to say the past few months, and Ive gained a lot more respect for her than I thought I would. I particularly like the fact that she defends her original decision on the war unlike the rest of the democrats who flop to what ever side public opinion dictates
I would vote for hillary long before I would vote for Obama. But thats not saying much. That guy scares the shit out of me.
Quote:*edit*How'd you find those sites that the pics are pulled from? That's way left of center and they're British lefties which are much more populist than traditional American lefties.just a quick google search and it was a more tounge in cheek (this thread is only half serious to be honest) in response to jack's 'god hates fags' pics in his evolution thread.
having said that, "The 9/11 truth movement" is large and has significant presence and has quite a few followers, as the poll statistics point to.
- Jeff - 07-13-2007
wow, the first Evan thread in many long months...I am whole again.
- Andy - 07-13-2007
What's the world coming to? Evan likes Hillary. She flops big time, IMO. The only person that hasn't flopped is McCain and he's paying bigtime for it. If a politician changes their views over time due to considerations larger than their own political survival, that's fine by me. I don't think Hillary did that.
My argument with the "Global war on terror" rhetoric has a couple of different points of concern.
1) What is terror and who are we fighting? We're not fighting in Darfur nor Sierra Leone nor the DRC. Those places have some of the worst kinds of terrorism e.g. child soldiers, sex slaves and rape as a tool of genocide.
2) We're not fighting terror. We're fighting a specific brand of Islamic Radicalism.
3) Had we had a more narrow target, we probably wouldn't have gone into Iraq. The justifications for this war has changed from Al Qaeda is in bed with Saddam to WMD to fight for Democracy. When did we start caring about democracy in the 3rd world?
4) The money/manpower we've expended in Iraq has weakened our position to address some more urgent threats both geopolitically as well as domestic issues. The Iraq War has sucked the air out of other issues that deserve to be discussed.
5) Lastly, the CIA reports that AQ is actually growing in strength. This is policy failure at its core.
I say all this with the caveat that Pres Bush likes grand, wide reaching rhetoric and that would've been fine with me so long has his mission statement was more targeted. Unfortunately, he surrounded himself with people that give him some horrendous advice.
- Evan - 07-13-2007
Andy Wrote:What's the world coming to? Evan likes Hillary. She flops big time, IMO.I didnt say I like her, and I didnt say she doesnt flop, just that on this particular issue she is taking some personal responsibility for how she voted unlike the other democrats who flop and then blame it on the republicans and hope that people forget that they voted for the war, too.
Quote:1) What is terror and who are we fighting? We're not fighting in Darfur nor Sierra Leone nor the DRC. Those places have some of the worst kinds of terrorism e.g. child soldiers, sex slaves and rape as a tool of genocide.a) thats not terrorism. Now you are buying into the overuse of the term 'terrorism' and trying to expand its meaning to 'bad shit and bad people'. Thats not what it means. we give billions to the UN to deal with those things. not surprisingly, they suck at it.
b) our priorities in the 'global war on terror' are clearly the terrorism that is targeted at us and our allies.
Quote:2) We're not fighting terror. We're fighting a specific brand of Islamic Radicalism.several brands actually, more like a whole company of Islamic Radicalism, but I agree whole heartedly 100%.
The problem is you cant say 'global war on islamic radicalism', and thats a huge problem. You cant fight an enemy that you refuse to identify.
Quote:3) Had we had a more narrow target, we probably wouldn't have gone into Iraq. The justifications for this war has changed from Al Qaeda is in bed with Saddam to WMD to fight for Democracy. When did we start caring about democracy in the 3rd world?now we are reeeeaaaallly way off topic, but you wont hear many arguments from me there. Iraq has the potential to become either a cesspool breeding ground of radical islam or a springboard for (badly needed) muslim enlightenment and middle east peace. Is it worth the risk? Is it a good decision to try? who knows. The world is a better place without saddam for sure, but there is potential for it to be worse.
Quote:5) Lastly, the CIA reports that AQ is actually growing in strength. This is policy failure at its core.now that is bs. While al qaeda grows in strength, you cannot attribute that to our policy failure by any stretch of imagination. The growing popularity of radical islam is not attributable to our failure, especially when you look at number 2 above, we cant even identify our enemy but its failure of policy if they get stronger?
If you think that its the fault of our policy then how would you change that policy?
Do you think what the democrats are doing by taking away the tools that the intel agencies have at fighting terror is the right way to fight growing terrorist strength?
- CaptainHenreh - 07-13-2007
Evan Wrote:now that is bs. While al qaeda grows in strength, you cannot attribute that to our policy failure by any stretch of imagination. The growing popularity of radical islam is not attributable to our failure, especially when you look at number 2 above, we cant even identify our enemy but its failure of policy if they get stronger?
If you think that its the fault of our policy then how would you change that policy?
Do you think what the democrats are doing by taking away the tools that the intel agencies have at fighting terror is the right way to fight growing terrorist strength?
Maybe our Policies are driving the growth of radical Islam?
Just a thought.
- Ginger - 07-13-2007
I'm one to stay out of politics pretty much all the time.. and this is no different for me. I'm curious, though, with the recent rash of poltical threads, what you guys are hoping to accomplish? It all looks like a bunch of hard headed arguing that never goes anywhere to me.
- ScottyB - 07-13-2007
asteele2 Wrote:It all looks like a bunch of hard headed arguing that never goes anywhere to me.
it's fun i guess?
....but i doubt it's going to change anyone's mind about something they adamantly believe in.
- Mike - 07-13-2007
just as there are dumb repubs, there are dumb dems. dumb people are everywhere... i'd say 35% of the population is a rather low estimate
- Ginger - 07-13-2007
I'm not trying to call anybody out on "this is dumb" or anything, for the record. I'm actually curious.
- CaptainHenreh - 07-13-2007
asteele2 Wrote:I'm not trying to call anybody out on "this is dumb" or anything, for the record. I'm actually curious.
C'mon Andrew. You like a good scrap as much as the next guy, don't tell me you don't.
- Mike - 07-13-2007
asteele2 Wrote:I'm not trying to call anybody out on "this is dumb" or anything, for the record. I'm actually curious.
i was replying to evan's original question.
- Ginger - 07-13-2007
Mike Wrote:i was replying to evan's original question.
I know, I was just clarifying myself before somebody decided to think that I might be trying to cut them down.
And as for Rex.. dude startred a motorbike argument with me last night, all in good fun, and I hated it. I get enough things to argue about at work when somebody is paying me to - I'd like to lead an existance void of that sort of thing (and all stresses included) when I'm away from my desk. Not everybody's the same, my grandfather used to have a love/hate relationship with politics he could never break, and I'm sure some people here like it... but it sure seems like there's a lot of banter going on that never serves but to develop "loud" interweb pissing contests.
- Mike - 07-13-2007
some people thoroughly enjoy interweb drama... just gotta ignore it.
- Goodspeed - 07-13-2007
asteele2 Wrote:I'm sure some people here like it... but it sure seems like there's a lot of banter going on that never serves but to develop "loud" interweb pissing contests.
Its all for the sheer enjoyment you get from proving yourself superior after poking holes in an inferior argument. Allow me to use an example...
Evan Wrote:Andy Wrote:5) Lastly, the CIA reports that AQ is actually growing in strength. This is policy failure at its core.
now that is bs. While al qaeda grows in strength, you cannot attribute that to our policy failure by any stretch of imagination.
Sure you can. Our policy of running off from chasing Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan and starting a futile, destructive war that only serves to distract us and diminish our self-defense capabilities directly correlates to AQ growing stronger. We said we'd take the fight to them. We did, for a few years, and we were successful. Then when we entered Iraq, which has since turned into a huge mess, AQ had the chance to regroup, re-organize, re-train and re-think their mission.
They have used our occupation of Iraq to draw in supporters and recruit more terrorists. The FBI, the CIA, the State Department, all agree that our war in Iraq has only served to increase terrorism and the threat to the United States. The authoritative National Intelligence Estimate, due out soon, has found that AQ is growing in strength, and many of the 16 agencies that contribute to the report can't deny that Iraq and our "War on Terror" have only served to INCREASE terrorism. Way to go, Repubs.
Secondly, what difference does it make to call it terrorism or islamic radicalism? Terrorism is a catchy scare word used by the media, our intelligence agencies know they are fighting radical islamists and thats all that really matters.
Third, about Dems shutting down tools used to fight terrorism....In my mind, shutting down secret prisons, Abu Ghraib, and fighting Guantanamo aren't bad things. You talk about not knowing what to call our enemy being bad, I'm talking about using lawless torture methods that are entirely against our supposed American ideals being bad. I am not a democrat btw. I just lean more towards them than Republicans. But I do love how you generalize a few 9/11 whack jobs as being representative of liberals in this country. That kind of attack-dog generalizing attitude is in fact, typical of most in republican party. How's that for a generalization :wink:
- Andy - 07-13-2007
I didn't think anyone was arguing.
With regard to AQ gaining strength, I wasn't attributing that Pres Bush. I attribute that policy failure to the US as a whole. The Dems, the populace and the Repubs. We are all sucking at this, right now.
Rex is right though. Our FP doesn't help matters at all.
- Ginger - 07-13-2007
I guess my terminology is messed up. I don't mean arguing in the way that we all hate each other... but I personally don't get enjoyment out of poltical debate even a little bit, do you guys?
And Goodspeed, if you enjoy proving yourself "superior" over a political debate we'll put you back in your place... maybe you should go buy a car.