100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: Obama 08 | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
I do not have time to go into this now. But, we CAN be safe with a qualified Democrat in office. We need someone that can also help the current situations WITHIN our country. The current situations within our country have been ignored far too long.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
And I am not a republican... pot meet the kettle so we're both mistaken on that point. but that wasn't solely intended for you, you're not the only one to assume i'm a dem |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
mrtxstar
on
Thu 01/10/08 02:35 PM
|
|
I don't hear the persuasive reason I asked for. I'm starting to think you don't have one. I eagerly await a plausible reason to believe America is any safer with a democrat in the white house.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I don't hear the persuasive reason I asked for. I'm starting to think you don't have one. I eagerly await a plausible reason to believe America is any safer with a democrat in the white house. that's not anything i ever claimed |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
mrtxstar
on
Thu 01/10/08 02:41 PM
|
|
Hell yes Bush is qualified to deal with the islamo radicals. Why do you think we have not been attacked in 6+ years? Bill Clinton did nothing to curve the steady build up in violence commited by terrorists. Kobar towers, embassy bombings, and the bombing of the WTC.... Clinton did nothing to stop the radicals. 9/11 was plotted, financed and put in place during Clintons watch but because it was executed during Bush's first year, you choose to believe it was his fault? Pointing the finger at Bush is not persuasive. Count your blessings you live in a safe country right now. You will look back on this day in time quite fondly when your democrat president fails to maintain the nations security. You want a democrat in the white house? Are you willing to bet all our lifes on it? I'm not. every post you makes forces me to believe that you don't know what you're talking about I beg to differ. You challenge what I know. So explain yourself. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I beg to differ. You challenge what I know. So explain yourself.
i'm challenging your belief that bush is doing a good job. if airlines did their jobs, we would have not been attacked. if customs did their jobs, we would not have been attacked. if the fbi shared info about possible terrorist, we would not have been attacked. if bush and his people had taken osama's threats seriously... what i'm saying is that it's not a great achievement that we're safe now, it's more agencies with more people still doing the same half assed job. more people doing half assed = more ass in general anyone with any kind of plan could achieve the results that bush has, and had it been anyone else we might not have alienated most of our allies |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I beg to differ. You challenge what I know. So explain yourself.
i'm challenging your belief that bush is doing a good job. if airlines did their jobs, we would have not been attacked. if customs did their jobs, we would not have been attacked. if the fbi shared info about possible terrorist, we would not have been attacked. if bush and his people had taken osama's threats seriously... what i'm saying is that it's not a great achievement that we're safe now, it's more agencies with more people still doing the same half assed job. more people doing half assed = more ass in general anyone with any kind of plan could achieve the results that bush has, and had it been anyone else we might not have alienated most of our allies I respectfully disagree... Preventing 9/11 was Clinton's failure, not Bush. The lack of attacks since then doesn't just happen. It took action! Numerous plots have been foiled because of action. The democarts do not offer anything to persuade me to believe their actions would keep this country safe. They want our defeat in Iraq. They want socialist ideas implemented. No thank you. I am an independent mind that wants this country to remain safe. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
i never said clinton was clean of this. but the attacks happened on bush's watch, and his people were aware of problems.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Then we will have to agree to disagree.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
i never said clinton was clean of this. but the attacks happened on bush's watch, and his people were aware of problems. That is correct. His people were aware of the problems that they had inherited. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
i never said clinton was clean of this. but the attacks happened on bush's watch, and his people were aware of problems. That is correct. His people were aware of the problems that they had inherited. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
And my "Post Topic" got stuck.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Again, we will have to agree to disagree. Now, can we please get back on topic?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"By far the best presentation as a candidate, among all the candidates in both parties, is that of Barack Obama. But if he actually believes even half of the irresponsible nonsense he talks, he would be an utter disaster in the White House." - Thomas Sowell
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Winx
on
Thu 01/10/08 06:28 PM
|
|
I beg to differ. You challenge what I know. So explain yourself.
i'm challenging your belief that bush is doing a good job. if airlines did their jobs, we would have not been attacked. if customs did their jobs, we would not have been attacked. if the fbi shared info about possible terrorist, we would not have been attacked. if bush and his people had taken osama's threats seriously... what i'm saying is that it's not a great achievement that we're safe now, it's more agencies with more people still doing the same half assed job. more people doing half assed = more ass in general anyone with any kind of plan could achieve the results that bush has, and had it been anyone else we might not have alienated most of our allies I respectfully disagree... Preventing 9/11 was Clinton's failure, not Bush. The lack of attacks since then doesn't just happen. It took action! Numerous plots have been foiled because of action. The democarts do not offer anything to persuade me to believe their actions would keep this country safe. They want our defeat in Iraq. They want socialist ideas implemented. No thank you. I am an independent mind that wants this country to remain safe. Fact (Not Opinion) - There was no Al-Qaida in Irag during Clinton's time. Iraq was all Bush's brainstorm. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
After September 11th, it became apparent that simply going after Al-Qaeda was not going to be enough to prevent future attacks. First off, if you simply target Al-Qaeda, what happens if the core of group simply changes its name or groups with other anti-American terrorists? Furthermore, how can you effectively target terrorists protected by the power of a rogue state? The answer is, "you can't". In addition, the training, resources, & protection provided by those rogue states is the very thing that enables a group like Al-Qaeda to become capable of pulling off the sort of attack we saw on 9/11. So in order to prevent future 9/11s, you have to go after not just Al-Qaeda, but all terrorist groups with global reach and the rogue states that support them. George Bush made that clear in his Sept 20, 2001 speech to the nation when he said, "Our war on terror begins with al Qaeda, but it does not end there. It will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped and defeated....
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
to many, his statements just go to show how naive he is about other people/cultures. our actions more often than not are what causes these people to hate us.
honestly, we need to quit ****ing around with other people's countries |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Not being in Iraq did not prevent 9/11 so you are wrong.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
like now, we've turned iraq into a terrorist state. a place for them to gather and attack us or recruit upset commoners
we need a prez who will not only show he has balls, but also a mind. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
what? iraq has nothing to do with 9/11
|
|
|
|
|
