Announce a date by which U.S. forces in Iraq should surrender and withdraw, and you're officially a Democratic candidate for president.
-
Hello, this board in now turned off and no new posting.
Please REGISTER at Anabolic Steroid Forums, and become a member of our NEW community!
-
Check Out IronMag Labs® KSM-66 Max - Recovery and Anabolic Growth Complex
Requirements for Democratic Presidential Candidate
- Thread starter ZECH
- Start date
What are the Republican reqs.?
" Cry 'Havoc,' and let slip the dogs of war"
While the rest of the US say's in unison:
"That this foul deed shall smell above the earth
With carrion men, groaning for burial."
" Cry 'Havoc,' and let slip the dogs of war"
While the rest of the US say's in unison:
"That this foul deed shall smell above the earth
With carrion men, groaning for burial."
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2004
- Messages
- 32,369
- Reaction score
- 2,936
- Points
- 0
- Age
- 53
- Location
- In a van, down by the river...
Announce a date by which U.S. forces in Iraq should surrender and withdraw, and you're officially a Democratic candidate for president.
...while sticking their foot so far down their throat that they kick themselves in the ass.
Start senseless wars.
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2004
- Messages
- 32,369
- Reaction score
- 2,936
- Points
- 0
- Age
- 53
- Location
- In a van, down by the river...
Alternatively, you can do the Democrat thing and do shit about people attacks against the US aboard. Appear so spineless that they launch an attack on US soil and kill 3000 people in minutes.
Yeah...
Well the current republicans suck ass, you can put a rose on shit but it's still going to smell like shit.
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2004
- Messages
- 32,369
- Reaction score
- 2,936
- Points
- 0
- Age
- 53
- Location
- In a van, down by the river...
The euphemism being that all politicians are shit, right?
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2004
- Messages
- 32,369
- Reaction score
- 2,936
- Points
- 0
- Age
- 53
- Location
- In a van, down by the river...
No doubt, he's a cut above the rest. I think Slick Willie was even better. He's responsible for the deaths of 3000 people and there are still a bunch of fucking morons that think he was a good president.
Alternatively, you can do the Democrat thing and do shit about people attacks against the US aboard. Appear so spineless that they launch an attack on US soil and kill 3000 people in minutes.
Yeah...
Yeah because it happened under a democrats watch ...oh wait, Bush isn't a democrat...
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2004
- Messages
- 32,369
- Reaction score
- 2,936
- Points
- 0
- Age
- 53
- Location
- In a van, down by the river...
...oh wait, Bush isn't a democrat...
Working hard for that "Dumb fuck of the year" award, eh, BigDyl?
It happened less than 6 months after his term was over, but most (perhaps all) of the attacks, and the failure to adequately respond to them, that led up to 9/11 happened on Slick Willie's watch.
It's the same thing that happened with the economy.
I guess Slick Willie is responsible for the 3000 deaths in iraq also?
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2004
- Messages
- 32,369
- Reaction score
- 2,936
- Points
- 0
- Age
- 53
- Location
- In a van, down by the river...
No, that was Bush.
Announce a date by which U.S. forces in Iraq should surrender and withdraw, and you're officially a Democratic candidate for president.
Both parties are carefully playing this out.
Sadly, politics has overtaken many of the decisions on Iraq, now.
There are huge elections coming in 19 months. And remember, not just for Prez, but for 1/3 of the Senate, and a lot of House seats.
The dilemma for both parties:
They cannot do what needs to be done military to stabalize the Al-Maliki coalition government.
But if the U.S. withdraws those who support withdrawing will be blamed for losing, or giving up.
Politicians of both parties are stuck in a rock and a hard place.
- Joined
- Mar 27, 2005
- Messages
- 4,312
- Reaction score
- 10
- Points
- 0
Alternatively, you can do the Democrat thing and do shit about people attacks against the US aboard. Appear so spineless that they launch an attack on US soil and kill 3000 people in minutes.
Yeah...
- Joined
- Mar 27, 2005
- Messages
- 4,312
- Reaction score
- 10
- Points
- 0
The funny thing is, certain uber conservatives keep bringing up 9/11 and the word spineless.
Are democrat's spineless for not wanting to get involved in a war that never shouldve happened? Or are we retarded because we will finally accept that Iraq and 9/11 arent related??
Also, conservative British PM Chamberlain's "spineless" politics were a catalyst for WW2, while FDR's liberal politics arguably saved democracy in Europe.
Sadly, half the people who will participate in this thread won't honor my point, or anyone else's.
Are democrat's spineless for not wanting to get involved in a war that never shouldve happened? Or are we retarded because we will finally accept that Iraq and 9/11 arent related??
Also, conservative British PM Chamberlain's "spineless" politics were a catalyst for WW2, while FDR's liberal politics arguably saved democracy in Europe.
Sadly, half the people who will participate in this thread won't honor my point, or anyone else's.
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2004
- Messages
- 32,369
- Reaction score
- 2,936
- Points
- 0
- Age
- 53
- Location
- In a van, down by the river...
You're confused. The attacks during Clinton's administration predate both 9/11 and GWB's war in Iraq; but don't let that stop you from a senseless line of questioning.
You're trying to compare the modern groups of Republicans and Democrats to their predecessors from over 60 years ago? And with those from another political group in another country, also from over 60 years ago?
Good luck with that.
- Joined
- Mar 27, 2005
- Messages
- 4,312
- Reaction score
- 10
- Points
- 0
Then how does the original attack during Clinton's presidency differ at all from GWB's presidential terrorism attacks? "Fools repeat mistakes, the intelligent learn from their mistakes, and the wise learn from other's mistakes." Sounds like GWB might be the former to me.
I brought up FDR because his politics were ahead of his time by a large, large margin, and dont vary much from today's political scene. Widely considered to be one of the greatest leaders of all time, I don't consider him spineless. You may, blindly b/c of his title of a democrat, but I don't.
"Are democrat's spineless for not wanting to get involved in a war that never shouldve happened?"
They are spineless for backing the Iraq war when it was politically advantageous to do so and then condemning it as Bush's war, as polls changed.
They are spineless for backing the Iraq war when it was politically advantageous to do so and then condemning it as Bush's war, as polls changed.
- Joined
- Mar 27, 2005
- Messages
- 4,312
- Reaction score
- 10
- Points
- 0
And republicans didn't do the same?? You have much to learn, grasshopper.
I have to agree with you on this one, they were riding the wave to get votes and now the tide has turned.........
One of my favorites, as was Teddy.
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2004
- Messages
- 32,369
- Reaction score
- 2,936
- Points
- 0
- Age
- 53
- Location
- In a van, down by the river...
You're missing the point; Clinton didn't do anything of substance which made the terrorists feel bold enough to do 9/11.
Someone's got to grab the bull by the balls and kick these incompetent punks out of power.Announce a date by which U.S. forces in Iraq should surrender and withdraw, and you're officially a Democratic candidate for president.
Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld created the Office of Special Programs in the Pentagon which mischaracterized Iraq's WMD threat. These people disseminated these lies about WMDs to the Congress so that everyone 'is on the same page.'
The congress authorized Bush to use force, if necessary, to defuse Iraq's WMD threat as presented in the "evidence" supplied by Bush & Co.
Bush abuses that grant of authority from the Congress by illegally invading Iraq before the UN Inspectors can finish the inspections and prior to any okey dokey from the UN Security Council.
From where I'm sitting, it looks like the democrats, in their efforts to end this ongoing mistake and war crime in Iraq, are doing the right thing in calling for withdrawal.
Consider the steps offered by Clinton's 1996 omnibus anti-terror legislation, the pricetag for which stood at $1.097 billion. The following is a partial list of the initiatives offered by the Clinton anti-terrorism bill:
· Screen Checked Baggage: $91.1 million
· Screen Carry-On Baggage: $37.8 million
· Passenger Profiling: $10 million
· Screener Training: $5.3 million
· Screen Passengers (portals) and Document Scanners: $1 million
· Deploying Existing Technology to Inspect International Air Cargo: $31.4
million
· Provide Additional Air/Counterterrorism Security: $26.6 million
· Explosives Detection Training: $1.8 million
· Augment FAA Security Research: $20 million
· Customs Service: Explosives and Radiation Detection Equipment at Ports: $2.2 million
· Anti-Terrorism Assistance to Foreign Governments: $2 million
· Capacity to Collect and Assemble Explosives Data: $2.1 million
· Improve Domestic Intelligence: $38.9 million
· Critical Incident Response Teams for Post-Blast Deployment: $7.2 million
· Additional Security for Federal Facilities: $6.7 million
· Firefighter/Emergency Services Financial Assistance: $2.7 million
· PublicBuilding and Museum Security: $7.3 million
· Improve Technology to Prevent Nuclear Smuggling: $8 million
· Critical Incident Response Facility: $2 million
· Counter-Terrorism Fund: $35 million
· Explosives Intelligence and Support Systems: $14.2 million
· Office of Emergency Preparedness: $5.8 million
The Clinton administration poured more than a billion dollars into counterterrorism activities across the entire spectrum of the intelligence community, into the protection of critical infrastructure, into massive federal stockpiling of antidotes and vaccines to prepare for a possible bioterror attack, into a reorganization of the intelligence community itself. Within the National Security Council, "threat meetings" were held three times a week to assess looming conspiracies. Source: William Rivers Pitt
Owned!
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2004
- Messages
- 32,369
- Reaction score
- 2,936
- Points
- 0
- Age
- 53
- Location
- In a van, down by the river...
There's zero about retaliation in that list. That looks nice in a bulleted list but it did nothing to make the enemy afraid to attack us.
But again, nice use of a bulleted list.
You make a senseless point. Retaliation is meaningless in the context of terrorism. What is not meaningless is tracking down terrorists and arresting them.
But we can play your game of retaliation or scaring the enemy to keep it from attacking us...actually I'm not sure what your point is.
Which enemy do we retaliate against?
Ireland had terrorists. Should we pre-emptively bomb them? How about Saudi Arabia or Pakistan. We could bomb them too to teach potential terrorists a lesson.
Where is this enemy located?
Terrorism is a tactic. It's everywhere and nowhere.
How do you go about scaring him/her/it?
Bombing.
I know, I know, asked/answered.
