question for those who voted for Bush the last 2 elections


Normally open July 4th only---the one day a year when partisan politics, religion, etc. are acceptable topics on this Board (within reason). The forum is now closed.

Postby eldrick » Tue Oct 28, 2008 11:41 pm

bad hammy wrote:
eldrick wrote:if dying of natural causes meant him being in power for another 20y ( & killing countless more people ), then invade sooner than later !

In 2003 he wasn't killing us or his neighbors. If you feel like going after every government which kills its own people then get your own PM to take the lead. You have a lot of work ahead of you . . .


so you are of the belief that a despot who invaded a neighbouring country & may have gone on to invade another one after, both allies of the west, shoudn't be removed from power by military means, just because of the passage of time ?!

mere passage of time absolves a criminal from punishment ?!
eldrick
 
Posts: 14147
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: 19th hole st andrews

Postby eldrick » Tue Oct 28, 2008 11:49 pm

lonewolf wrote:
eldrick wrote:
lonewolf wrote:but he is not responsible for the current economic crisis


he is

his govt didn't provide enough regulatory control over these nonsense mortgage bonds allowing complete garbage to be passed off as AAA rated bonds which banks, etc snapped up


eldrick, in "the buck stops here" sense you can say Bush was responsible. However, the fact is there are three culpable entities responsible for the meltdown in the housing debacle.

First, a Democratic controlled Congress, ram-rodded by Senators Frank and Dodd, defeated Bush attemps at regulation and, as social pandering, forced lending institutions to make risky, subprime loans to unqualified people .


i have no recollection of a democratic senate opposing fnancial regulation

perhaps you can provide the example of the bill concerned ?

as far as i'm aware democrats tend to be more regulatory when it comes to finance rather than less & have hard time believing they vetoed such a bill
eldrick
 
Posts: 14147
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: 19th hole st andrews

Postby eldrick » Tue Oct 28, 2008 11:58 pm

lonewolf wrote:
jazzcyclist wrote:
lonewolf wrote:I don't know how anyone can ignore Obama's past and continued consort with domestic terrorists, felons and anti-American racists and his blatant denial of documented facts.

Who are the felons and racists that you are referring to and what facts has he denied? :?


Well, lets start with Rezco, Ayers and Wright and, please, don't bother to recite the standard rebuttal which does not wash.
As to denial of documented statements and facts, they are too many to recount off the top of my head. Sometimes there is so much chaff flying, I winnow out the impression and forget the details.


you are grasping at straws

- rezco : has obama been charged with any wrong-doing ?

if no, then end of story

- ayers : presumably a rehabilitated terrorist as he got a respectable local govt job some years later - obama had to work with him

what was obama supposed to do ?

storm out the room shouting "i'm not working with a terrorist !" whilst everyone else on the committee were working with ayers ?

preacher - is obama responsible for someone else's views ?

he attended the church whilst the preacher stuck to the christian text, but when he veered off into racist, inflammatory preaching, obama denounced him & left that church

bad preacher - obama leaves

what more did you expect him to do ?
eldrick
 
Posts: 14147
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: 19th hole st andrews

Postby SQUACKEE » Wed Oct 29, 2008 2:19 am

he attended the church whilst the preacher stuck to the christian text, but when he veered off into racist, inflammatory preaching, obama denounced him & left that church

Eldy the truth is Wright said "God damn America" and other things after 9/11and Obama stayed for another 7 years.A few months before Obama left he said he would never leave. Either Obama is an idiot and had no idea how radical Wright was or he did know and decided to stay. I believe the later.

P.S. i hope my post follows my rule, first give the facts, then give your opinion. :D
SQUACKEE
 
Posts: 12885
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Heaven-In front of stereo listenin to re-mastered Beatles

Postby Marlow » Wed Oct 29, 2008 3:42 am

SQUACKEE wrote:Either Obama is an idiot and had no idea how radical Wright was or he did know and decided to stay. I believe the later.


'Loyalty' is an odd thing. It can compel one to remain friends with someone long after we should have seen the bad coming. I've done that a couple times now and I hope I'm learning my lesson, but I also hope I am not adjudged guilty by association.
Marlow
 
Posts: 21125
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill

Postby bad hammy » Wed Oct 29, 2008 3:52 am

lonewolf wrote:First, a Democratic controlled Congress, ram-rodded by Senators Frank and Dodd, defeated Bush attemps at regulation and, as social pandering, forced lending institutions to make risky, subprime loans to unqualified people .

Please try again. The Dems had control of Congress for the last two years. This crisis was brewing long before that.


lonewolf wrote:
Daisy wrote:As far as i can tell, the reason none of this appears to concern voters is that a quick look across the aisle reveals McCain's campaign to be full of a similar supporting cast (with the exception of Ayers). It all equals out in the wash.

As for Ayers, no one takes it seriously as it appears to be a non story.


Nope, Daisy, the MSM ignores it but some voters are concerned.

You are right, the MSM is ignoring things that we should be concerned about. If we should be concerned about the extremely tenuous connection between Obama and Ayers, then we should be concerned about the connection between McCain and the head of his transition team, William Timmons, who actively lobbied to ease international sanctions on behalf of our old friend Saddam Hussein between 1992 and 1997, in hopes of securing a $45 million oil deal.
bad hammy
 
Posts: 10881
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby jazzcyclist » Wed Oct 29, 2008 5:08 am

lonewolf wrote:
jazzcyclist wrote:
lonewolf wrote:I don't know how anyone can ignore Obama's past and continued consort with domestic terrorists, felons and anti-American racists and his blatant denial of documented facts.

Who are the felons and racists that you are referring to and what facts has he denied? :?


Well, lets start with Rezco, Ayers and Wright and, please, don't bother to recite the standard rebuttal which does not wash.

Neither Ayers or Wright are felons and Obama severed his relationship with Rezko long before he became one. And none of these three men have made any racist statements that I know of, though Ayers and Wright have definitely made anti-American statements.
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10860
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby Flumpy » Wed Oct 29, 2008 5:23 am

tandfman wrote:But many thoughtful folks believe that W's policies were totally ineffective in that area and may, in fact, have unintentionally given comfort to those evil men who are trying to spread anti-American fanaticism and violence in the Islamic world.


He's done their job for them. The war in Iraq was the best recruitment ad for Al Quaida imaginable. Because there was no evidence at all that any terrorism attacks on the West had anything to do with Saddam Hussein (Probably because they didn't) it looks very much to Muslims around the world that the US was just waging a war against them simply because of their religion.

The Iraqi war has nothing to do with terrorism or 'freedom' and it mystifies me why anyone would still think that it does.
Flumpy
 
Posts: 3901
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby jazzcyclist » Wed Oct 29, 2008 5:24 am

lonewolf wrote:It is unfortunate the two societies have not been able to co-exist but IMO the onus for that lies on Yassar Arafat who made a career of stirring that pot until his death.

You and I, apparently, are not going to agree in our assessment of US historical treatment of Arabs/Muslims but I will not concede that anything we may have done warrants the current irrational, murderous actions of terrorists which are largely fueled, according to moderate Islamic scholars, by warped interpretation of the Koran.

Lonewolf, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree since I definitely don't put all of the blame on Arafat, though he is far from innocent in all of this. But it was Benjamin Netanyahu who deliberately incited the extremist elements among Israel's setters before Yitzhak Rabin was assassinated, and today many Israelis, including Rabin's family and Ehud Barak hold him responsible. And it was Netanyahu who took a wrecking ball to the Oslo peace process once he became Prime Minister.

As for our overall treatment of Arabs/Muslims, I guess your views are similar to the views of all the Republicans candidates for President except Ron Paul, who seemed to be the only one who believed in what the CIA calls "blowback".
Last edited by jazzcyclist on Wed Oct 29, 2008 11:18 am, edited 1 time in total.
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10860
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby Pego » Wed Oct 29, 2008 7:52 am

jazzcyclist wrote:
lonewolf wrote:It is unfortunate the two societies have not been able to co-exist but IMO the onus for that lies on Yassar Arafat who made a career of stirring that pot until his death.

You and I, apparently, are not going to agree in our assessment of US historical treatment of Arabs/Muslims but I will not concede that anything we may have done warrants the current irrational, murderous actions of terrorists which are largely fueled, according to moderate Islamic scholars, by warped interpretation of the Koran.

Lonewolf, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree since I definitely don't put all of the blame on Arafat, though his is far from innocent in all of this. But it was Benjamin Netanyahu who deliberately incited the extremist elements among Israel's setters before Yitzhak Rabin was assassinated, and today many Israelis, including Rabin's family and Ehud Barak hold him responsible. And it was Netanyahu who took a wrecking ball to the Oslo peace process once he became Prime Minister.

As for our overall treatment of Arabs/Muslims, I guess your views are similar to the views of all the Republicans candidates for President except Ron Paul, who seemed to be the only one who believed in what the CIA calls "blowback".


Pandering of the originally through-and-through secular and pragmatic Netanyahu to the religious right has never ceased to mystify me.
Pego
 
Posts: 10203
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: beyond help

Postby lonewolf » Wed Oct 29, 2008 8:28 am

This thread illustrates my contention that people are going to believe what they want to believe. We have all accumulated different "facts" and our assessment of these facts in our memory banks. We have different priorities, place different degrees of importance to transgressions, spin things to our advantage and hang evidence to the contrary.
The mods are right in banning religion and politics on this forum. No good can come from strangers, and certainly not from online friends, debating these topics.
This thread does nothing but reinforce pre-conceived opinions of issues and individuals. I regret it was opened.
lonewolf
 
Posts: 8816
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Indian Territory

Postby jazzcyclist » Wed Oct 29, 2008 9:00 am

lonewolf wrote: We have all accumulated different "facts" and our assessment of these facts in our memory banks. We have different priorities, place different degrees of importance to transgressions.

I think its your latter point that causes more disagreement among us than the former. My impression of you and most of the other posters on this board is that you're more educated and more informed than the average American voter. We pretty much agree on the facts. It's the importance that we place on those facts that separates us and causes us to have different priorities. Aside from the wedge issues such as abortion, gay rights and gun rights, everybody pretty much wants the same thing, that is a prosperous, educated and healthy America and peace and brotherhood throughout the world. What we disagree on is the best way to reach those goals.
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10860
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby lonewolf » Wed Oct 29, 2008 9:45 am

I think we are finally on the same page, jazz, , different strokes for different folks. Reality to each of us is our individual perception.

I will not touch on abortion or gay rights. IMO these should not be political issues, becoming so only when legislation contrary to our personal instincts is passed. .
lonewolf
 
Posts: 8816
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Indian Territory

Postby Conor Dary » Wed Oct 29, 2008 12:01 pm

lonewolf wrote:
Daisy wrote:As far as i can tell, the reason none of this appears to concern voters is that a quick look across the aisle reveals McCain's campaign to be full of a similar supporting cast (with the exception of Ayers). It all equals out in the wash.

As for Ayers, no one takes it seriously as it appears to be a non story.


Nope, Daisy, the MSM ignores it but some voters are concerned. I am not a McCain enthusiast but he is all I got and I am not aware of a Rezco or Jerimiah Wright among his entourage or advisors.


Of course, it has been covered, and the conclusion was there was nothing there.

"A board member at the time, R. Eden Martin, a corporate lawyer and president of the Commercial Club of Chicago, described both men as conscientious in examining proposed community projects but could recall nothing remarkable about their dealings with each other. “You had people who were liberal and some who were pretty conservative, but we usually reached a consensus,” Mr. Martin said of the panel."

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/04/us/po ... =cse&scp=3
Conor Dary
 
Posts: 6297
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: कनोर दारी in Ronald MacDonald's Home Town, and once a Duck always a Duck.

Bush II

Postby bijanc » Wed Oct 29, 2008 12:18 pm

Mike 67 wrote:

"...Marriage is a sacrament instituted by God between a Man and a Woman..."

And until 1967 Mike, in Virginia, marriage was a sacrament between two consenting individuals of legal age and opposite gender, provided that they not be Negro and white....

Gays are actually human Mike, when last I checked. Also, they have no control regarding their sexual preference (or bisexuality), any more than I had control over being righthanded or brown-eyed. We don't prevent lefthanders from marrying.
bijanc
 
Posts: 1416
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Previous

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests