2
   

How dangerous is the Bush administration?

 
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Sun 15 Jan, 2006 06:46 pm
For crying out loud, I figured your little thought is Bush is tapping American Citizens, not Al Qaeda. I knew your angle of argument. You are grasping at straws. The purpose of the program is to catch terrorists, not whether people are buying drugs from their neighbors or something, I'm not sure what people are so afraid of? The point is an American citizen, or non-citizen in the U.S. is either calling overseas or receiving calls from overseas wherein the number or source has been filtered as being suspicious and possibly connected to terrorist cells. What is your rampant paranoia all about anyway?

Most people have figured out that the Republican Party is more pro-defense than the Democratic Party. I don't know why this is mysterious to you? Where have you been? They made fun of Reagan for building up the military, for his star wars program, some of the weapons, etc. Go back and research it yourself. What did Clinton do during the 90's about terrorism? Zilch, nothing, as far as I can tell. He wanted to make terrorists into a law enforcement problem, not a military problem. After the first Trade Center bombing, he did nothing. Hussein kicked the inspectors out of Iraq and what did he do? Nothing. I remember when Democrats said the CIA wasn't important anymore, the military wasn't as important, because the Cold War was over. Also, Clinton's justice department said agencies could not share data on terrorists. This was really brilliant. I am being sarcastic. They cared more about protecting his backside on information about illegal campaign funds from China than they did about terrorists. If you think the Democrats are so pro-defense, then make your case. I haven't seen a case.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Sun 15 Jan, 2006 10:11 pm
okie wrote:
For crying out loud, I figured your little thought is Bush is tapping American Citizens, not Al Qaeda.
Your words, I asked you to back YOUR WORDS. Geez. you can't do it I guess.
Quote:
I knew your angle of argument. You are grasping at straws.
The only one grasping at straws is you okie. YOUR WORDS.. NOT MINE.. YOURS.
Quote:
The purpose of the program is to catch terrorists, not whether people are buying drugs from their neighbors or something, I'm not sure what people are so afraid of? The point is an American citizen, or non-citizen in the U.S. is either calling overseas or receiving calls from overseas wherein the number or source has been filtered as being suspicious and possibly connected to terrorist cells. What is your rampant paranoia all about anyway?
YOUR WORDS okie.. You said dems. Let me quote you again....
Quote:
Parados, I am consistent. Bush is simply more pro-defense than the Democratic Party. Hey, they even wish to impeach him for tapping into Al Qaida phone conversations.
I asked for support for this statement YOU MADE.. YOUR WORDS. Your deflections don't change your words or my request for you to back up those words YOU posted.

Quote:
Most people have figured out that the Republican Party is more pro-defense than the Democratic Party. I don't know why this is mysterious to you? Where have you been? They made fun of Reagan for building up the military, for his star wars program, some of the weapons, etc. Go back and research it yourself. What did Clinton do during the 90's about terrorism? Zilch, nothing, as far as I can tell. He wanted to make terrorists into a law enforcement problem, not a military problem. After the first Trade Center bombing, he did nothing.
Nothing? Really? 13 convictions is nothing these days? Wow. Tell us again, when did Bush get Osama? I keep forgetting that exact date.

Quote:
Hussein kicked the inspectors out of Iraq and what did he do? Nothing.
Hmm.. seems Bush did nothing in Pakistan just yesterday about Al Qaeda's number 2 man by your standards.
Quote:
I remember when Democrats said the CIA wasn't important anymore, the military wasn't as important, because the Cold War was over. Also, Clinton's justice department said agencies could not share data on terrorists. This was really brilliant. I am being sarcastic. They cared more about protecting his backside on information about illegal campaign funds from China than they did about terrorists. If you think the Democrats are so pro-defense, then make your case. I haven't seen a case.

You dismissed my facts while presenting none of your own. Carter spent more of GDP on military than Bush has. Spending isn't important for support? Oh. wait. That's right Reagan spent money but we should remember
Quote:
He happened to fall into a different historical time frame on the long term trend, which all presidents are subject to.
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 Jan, 2006 10:13 am
Did you study "debate" somewhere along the line? I will give you credit for being dogged with every bone I throw out. Did this all start with my comment on another thread about Humphrey being a Right winger in today's society? I have an idea to see what you think of it. I would like to come up with a 10 point issue list on a new thread, wherein we can compare right and left leaning philosophies, see where Humphrey falls, where Carter falls, etc. Military and defense would of course be one of those points, or possibly two if you want to look at terrorism apart from conventional defense.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 Jan, 2006 12:03 pm
okie wrote:
Did you study "debate" somewhere along the line? I will give you credit for being dogged with every bone I throw out. Did this all start with my comment on another thread about Humphrey being a Right winger in today's society? I have an idea to see what you think of it. I would like to come up with a 10 point issue list on a new thread, wherein we can compare right and left leaning philosophies, see where Humphrey falls, where Carter falls, etc. Military and defense would of course be one of those points, or possibly two if you want to look at terrorism apart from conventional defense.


I would love to see what you think is right vs left philosophy and how you weight it to figure out whether someone is left or right. I am guessing I will be a RWer by your standards that you want to apply to Humphrey. No GUESSING about how a person stands on an issue allowed in deciding their stance. If you don't have a valid source you can't claim they would have felt one way or another. No wishy washy "support of military" you have to have objective standards to judge that support. No use of partisan websites to come up with Hillary being a lefty. You must use her own statements or her voting record in Congress. This should be fun okie.
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 Jan, 2006 12:12 pm
I think you guys are makinhg a mountainout of a molkehill. There is little doubt that the Democrat Party has moved leftward since the days of (say) Woordrow Wilson, or even FDR. Humphrey came out of the "Progressive" wing of the Democrat party in Minnesota, and in his time represented the left wing of the party. However, the party platform has moved farther left since then on many issues.
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 Jan, 2006 12:22 pm
georgeob1, agreed, but I think a new thread would be interesting in terms of casting light on lots of things. When I get time, I will start a new thread with my suggested 10 defining issues that I think we can judge people in terms of left vs. right, and then Parados, or anyone can agree or suggest further refinement of what those 10 issues should be.
0 Replies
 
BumbleBeeBoogie
 
  1  
Reply Wed 18 Jan, 2006 11:13 am
BBB
The important issue is Bush's Supreme Court appointments is not abortion, which was a smoke screen to divert attention away from their favor of increased presidential power. Bush's SC appointments have all been advocates of Unitary presidential-Executive Branch power. Bush is looking for their support when he is accused of breaking the law and violating the Constitution. Bush is successfully packing the court to protect himself.

Libertarians should be alarmed over Bush's goals.

BBB
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Wed 18 Jan, 2006 01:49 pm
Glad to see BBB so slavishly repeating Al Gore's (remember him?) mantra in his typically bombastic hyperbole-laden speech the othe rnight.
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Wed 18 Jan, 2006 05:57 pm
We dodged a major bullet when he lost. Yes, he lost.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/02/2024 at 01:38:28