Here is a better criteria. If you are over 55, Bush and his party's careless regard for the budget and the deficit probably won't matter too much, you might be safely retired before the you know what hits the fan. If you are under 40, your finances and taxes are what are going to hit the fan when the piper must be paid. If you are between 40 and 55, it is a toss up when the reckless disregard will cost you because at least for now in your prime earning years you get a nice tax break, but your retirement could be a big mess. Judge accordingly...
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by D2bets:
Osama definitely wants Bush. He couldn't have hired a better recruiter for Al Qaeda. I think Osama may be planning a pre-election strike with the hopes that the US will "rally around Bush" and re-elect him.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Brilliant thinking D2. Bin Laden is only happy when he is being attacked. He also just loves hanging out in caves, afraid to show his face even on video (that's a great recruitment tool isn't it?), moving only at night, seeing his fellow madmen get killed or captured, and watching Iraq and Afghanistan gradually become democratic. All those new recruits don't need training, so who needs training bases or an independent Islamic state in Osama's back pocket.
Conspiracy theories are a blast, and the wacked out lefties are by far the best. Keep up the fine comedy.
Osama definitely wants Bush. He couldn't have hired a better recruiter for Al Qaeda. I think Osama may be planning a pre-election strike with the hopes that the US will "rally around Bush" and re-elect him.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Brilliant thinking D2. Bin Laden is only happy when he is being attacked. He also just loves hanging out in caves, afraid to show his face even on video (that's a great recruitment tool isn't it?), moving only at night, seeing his fellow madmen get killed or captured, and watching Iraq and Afghanistan gradually become democratic. All those new recruits don't need training, so who needs training bases or an independent Islamic state in Osama's back pocket.
Conspiracy theories are a blast, and the wacked out lefties are by far the best. Keep up the fine comedy.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Seymour:
Shotgun, do you think muslim extremism has grown since our invasion of Iraq?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Seymour, did 9-11 happen prior to our invasion of Iraq? I can't answer any other way until you define muslim extremism.
Shotgun, do you think muslim extremism has grown since our invasion of Iraq?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Seymour, did 9-11 happen prior to our invasion of Iraq? I can't answer any other way until you define muslim extremism.
Shot,
Check this out. Iraq was a secular state, a dictatorship nonetheless but a secular state, one that tolerated Christianity. Not a Muslim extremist state.
If you recall they went to war in the last 20 years with Muslim nations Iran and Kuwait, both more fundamentally Islamic states than Iraq.
The idea that they would band together with al qaeda is a joke. They have no common interest. The reason Iraq didn't give weapons to al qaeda? They did not trust them, most likely they were concerned weapons would eventually be turned against Iraq - much in the same way, Osama turned against the USA after all those years where we supported him in Afhganistan against the Soviets.
Iraq was a nation created by Britain in the last stages of empire that consists of 3 strongly, sometimes violently opposed groups - Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds. These were held together by a brutal regime much like Yogoslavia's ethnic rifts were held together by Tito. After Tito died and stronghold dissipated, the country fell into civil war.
Like the Israelis, I predict this will happen to Iraq once the USA withdraws. The vacuum will be occupied by civil war. Thus I favor us getting out of there as soon as possible to minimize troop casualties in an ultimately doomed cause.
No doubt there are Muslims from other countries drawn and recruited to Iraq to fight the "U.S. occupation" - read recent Time or Newsweek issues. And meanwhile, Muslim extremist groups march on inside and outside of Iraq.
That's my opinion. The Bush Admin's opinion is that democracy will flourish in Iraq leading to resolution of Israeli/Palestinian problems and overall blooming of democracy in the Middle East. But then again, they believed we'd find WMDs, that there were ties to al qaeda, that we'd be welcomed with open arms and that oil revenues would pay for reconstruction. And of course, they celebrated Mission Accomplished over a year ago.
If your local weather forecaster was that far off consistenly, would you continue to believe him?
Check this out. Iraq was a secular state, a dictatorship nonetheless but a secular state, one that tolerated Christianity. Not a Muslim extremist state.
If you recall they went to war in the last 20 years with Muslim nations Iran and Kuwait, both more fundamentally Islamic states than Iraq.
The idea that they would band together with al qaeda is a joke. They have no common interest. The reason Iraq didn't give weapons to al qaeda? They did not trust them, most likely they were concerned weapons would eventually be turned against Iraq - much in the same way, Osama turned against the USA after all those years where we supported him in Afhganistan against the Soviets.
Iraq was a nation created by Britain in the last stages of empire that consists of 3 strongly, sometimes violently opposed groups - Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds. These were held together by a brutal regime much like Yogoslavia's ethnic rifts were held together by Tito. After Tito died and stronghold dissipated, the country fell into civil war.
Like the Israelis, I predict this will happen to Iraq once the USA withdraws. The vacuum will be occupied by civil war. Thus I favor us getting out of there as soon as possible to minimize troop casualties in an ultimately doomed cause.
No doubt there are Muslims from other countries drawn and recruited to Iraq to fight the "U.S. occupation" - read recent Time or Newsweek issues. And meanwhile, Muslim extremist groups march on inside and outside of Iraq.
That's my opinion. The Bush Admin's opinion is that democracy will flourish in Iraq leading to resolution of Israeli/Palestinian problems and overall blooming of democracy in the Middle East. But then again, they believed we'd find WMDs, that there were ties to al qaeda, that we'd be welcomed with open arms and that oil revenues would pay for reconstruction. And of course, they celebrated Mission Accomplished over a year ago.
If your local weather forecaster was that far off consistenly, would you continue to believe him?
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WildBill:
Here is a better criteria. If you are over 55, Bush and his party's careless regard for the budget and the deficit probably won't matter too much, you might be safely retired before the you know what hits the fan. If you are under 40, your finances and taxes are what are going to hit the fan when the piper must be paid. If you are between 40 and 55, it is a toss up when the reckless disregard will cost you because at least for now in your prime earning years you get a nice tax break, but your retirement could be a big mess. Judge accordingly...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I will take somone who would be better at saving my life over saving me money.
Here is a better criteria. If you are over 55, Bush and his party's careless regard for the budget and the deficit probably won't matter too much, you might be safely retired before the you know what hits the fan. If you are under 40, your finances and taxes are what are going to hit the fan when the piper must be paid. If you are between 40 and 55, it is a toss up when the reckless disregard will cost you because at least for now in your prime earning years you get a nice tax break, but your retirement could be a big mess. Judge accordingly...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I will take somone who would be better at saving my life over saving me money.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WildBill:
Hmm, so you are predicting if Kerry is elected say 20% of the country will die due to terrorism???<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
One of the dumbest post I have seen on the forums so far.
------------------------------
Pat Buchanan and Bill O'Reilly for the White House
Hmm, so you are predicting if Kerry is elected say 20% of the country will die due to terrorism???<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
One of the dumbest post I have seen on the forums so far.
------------------------------
Pat Buchanan and Bill O'Reilly for the White House
No your posts are dumb. I don't need anyone to tell me or anyone else what criteria we should use to elect someone. It is a vote to do what I choose with. The inference that others tell me what is important being a good idea is hideous. Tell me all the dumb reasons to vote for W all you want, but don't tell me what are good and bad reasons to vote for who I choose.
And my post was simply to make a point. I personally think you guys are kidding me if you think the country would be dangerous from terrorists no matter who gets elected. I don't buy this crap that Bush has protected us from nothing. That is just a farce to imply that if he hadn't taken all these dumb steps, like the Patriot Act which has hardly been used to fight terrorism, make us all sleep better at night. Saddam sitting in jail does little to make me sleep better. Thinking about how we have a 5% budget deficit with no real plan to change it does worry me because I have to think about economic turmoil in the next 20 years. If we really want to term everyone dangerous to us, maybe we should call street gangs terrorists and put up a color-coded warning system based on what battles they are currently fighting. After a drive-by with 2 dead, raise that code to red because revenge is coming soon. When it comes down to it, makes a hell of a lot more sense to me because citizens here have a much higher chance of dying from that than from these endless terrorist "threats" we hear about.
And my post was simply to make a point. I personally think you guys are kidding me if you think the country would be dangerous from terrorists no matter who gets elected. I don't buy this crap that Bush has protected us from nothing. That is just a farce to imply that if he hadn't taken all these dumb steps, like the Patriot Act which has hardly been used to fight terrorism, make us all sleep better at night. Saddam sitting in jail does little to make me sleep better. Thinking about how we have a 5% budget deficit with no real plan to change it does worry me because I have to think about economic turmoil in the next 20 years. If we really want to term everyone dangerous to us, maybe we should call street gangs terrorists and put up a color-coded warning system based on what battles they are currently fighting. After a drive-by with 2 dead, raise that code to red because revenge is coming soon. When it comes down to it, makes a hell of a lot more sense to me because citizens here have a much higher chance of dying from that than from these endless terrorist "threats" we hear about.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Mudbone:
Shot,
Check this out. Iraq was a secular state, a dictatorship nonetheless but a _secular_ state, one that tolerated Christianity. Not a Muslim extremist state.
If you recall they went to war in the last 20 years with Muslim nations Iran and Kuwait, both more fundamentally Islamic states than Iraq.
The idea that they would band together with al qaeda is a joke. They have no common interest. The reason Iraq didn't give weapons to al qaeda? They did not trust them, most likely they were concerned weapons would eventually be turned against Iraq - much in the same way, Osama turned against the USA after all those years where we supported him in Afhganistan against the Soviets.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Mud, you make some solid points. But you're wrong when you say Iraq-Al Queda weren't going to cooperate; documents uncovered in Iraq show this is obviously not the case. Initially Iraq was interested in destabilizing Saudi Arabia, and wanted to use Bin Laden to do it. When you couple that with evidence provided by Putin saying Saddam was preparing terrorist attacks on the US, Bush had little choice but to take a hard line on Iraq.
Shot,
Check this out. Iraq was a secular state, a dictatorship nonetheless but a _secular_ state, one that tolerated Christianity. Not a Muslim extremist state.
If you recall they went to war in the last 20 years with Muslim nations Iran and Kuwait, both more fundamentally Islamic states than Iraq.
The idea that they would band together with al qaeda is a joke. They have no common interest. The reason Iraq didn't give weapons to al qaeda? They did not trust them, most likely they were concerned weapons would eventually be turned against Iraq - much in the same way, Osama turned against the USA after all those years where we supported him in Afhganistan against the Soviets.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Mud, you make some solid points. But you're wrong when you say Iraq-Al Queda weren't going to cooperate; documents uncovered in Iraq show this is obviously not the case. Initially Iraq was interested in destabilizing Saudi Arabia, and wanted to use Bin Laden to do it. When you couple that with evidence provided by Putin saying Saddam was preparing terrorist attacks on the US, Bush had little choice but to take a hard line on Iraq.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WildBill:
No your posts are dumb. I don't need anyone to tell me or anyone else what criteria we should use to elect someone. It is a vote to do what I choose with. The inference that others tell me what is important being a good idea is hideous. Tell me all the dumb reasons to vote for W all you want, but don't tell me what are good and bad reasons to vote for who I choose.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Maybe we on the right should throw a temper tantrum like this every time someone tells us that we have to go see Michael Moore's movie before we vote.
No your posts are dumb. I don't need anyone to tell me or anyone else what criteria we should use to elect someone. It is a vote to do what I choose with. The inference that others tell me what is important being a good idea is hideous. Tell me all the dumb reasons to vote for W all you want, but don't tell me what are good and bad reasons to vote for who I choose.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Maybe we on the right should throw a temper tantrum like this every time someone tells us that we have to go see Michael Moore's movie before we vote.
Shotgun, you beat to the punch with the temper tantrum comment.
Anyway, this WildBill guy is a sick fuk. He once said he opposed the partial birth abortion ban. You got to really be SICK in the brains to oppose that law.
Now with his sick, twarped fuking brain he is comparing street gangs to terrorist.
Street Gangs don't try to kill Millions in the name of Allah.
Do you know why there hasn't been a terrorist attack on US soil since 9/11?
BUSH
Anyway, this WildBill guy is a sick fuk. He once said he opposed the partial birth abortion ban. You got to really be SICK in the brains to oppose that law.
Now with his sick, twarped fuking brain he is comparing street gangs to terrorist.
Street Gangs don't try to kill Millions in the name of Allah.
Do you know why there hasn't been a terrorist attack on US soil since 9/11?
BUSH
