I Have Difficulty Supporting Obama

A forum not related to waterfowl for discussing the more controversial and hot topic issues in our world from immigration, politics, the war, etc..

Moderators: Smackaduck, MM

Postby Redline29 » Thu Jun 05, 2008 3:20 pm

dudejcb wrote:“This isn’t the Tony Rezko I knew,”


How many times is he going to be allowd to get away with useing this same line?
User avatar
Redline29
hunter
 
Posts: 232
Joined: Tue May 20, 2008 11:55 pm
Location: NW, PA


Postby dudejcb » Thu Jun 05, 2008 3:46 pm

for all you tough guys who think Bush has kept us safe... the 9/11 commission's second report is out. apparently Osama was not in Iraq, and neither was al Queda.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/06/0 ... 05374.html
What's so funny 'bout peace love and understanding?
User avatar
dudejcb
hunter
 
Posts: 5267
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2006 8:29 am
Location: SW Idaho

Postby SpinnerMan » Thu Jun 05, 2008 4:28 pm

That is news to you?

Now if we could just figure out if he is in Iran, Pakistan or hell.

What I want to know is how would world wide terrorism changed if we would have gotten Obama and quit? Do you really prefer a war with Pakistan or Iran? I know you are against acting on incomplete intelligence because that means some time it will be wrong. Of course, if we just did a hit an run in Iraq like Clinton, then we would have never know what was true and what wasn't.

Oh, I forgot. Your guys would have executed the first perfect war and he would have never allowed him to escaped from whatever that valley we think he was in. I know you all think your that bright, but I'll burst your bubble. Thinks don't work perfectly like they do in your dreams.

Al Qaeda in Iraq was not the #1, #2, or #3 reason. It was one of about a dozen reasons.

Iraq's ties to terrorism (not Al Qaeda) was the number one reason in my view. That was confirmed.

Iraq's ability to escalate the terrorists capabilities by providing them with WMDs was #2, but tightly coupled to #1. This was also confirmed.

Stockpiles of WMDs was brought to the for front because I guess the simpletons couldn't understand all of the more complicated strategic reasons we were changing the way we confronted world wide Islamo-fascist terrorism. Bio and chemical weapons on not like nuclear weapons. If you maintain the know-how you can make them quickly. Stockpiles don't cost near as much or take near as long to produce as nukes. Saddam was maintaining the know-how and precluding open interviews outside of Iraq of all of his WMD scientist. Obviously, I can't read Saddam's mind, but I can't think of any good reason for these. Granted we appear to have been wrong on the stockpiles of WMDs, since we have only found a few odds and ends.

The fact that they continued to shoot at our air crafts in violation of the cease fire agreement is something we should never tolerate.

There were a bunch of reasons. Most were true, but it is true they did keep secret the fact that they got rid of their stockpiles of WMDs. Where, when, and why are not clear. That's the problem of a secretive repressive regeme. Nobody believes them.

However, Al Qaeda is there now and you want to quit. So I guess this was irrelevant anyways.
User avatar
SpinnerMan
hunter
 
Posts: 16426
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:24 am
Location: Joliet, IL

Postby LIGHT12 » Thu Jun 05, 2008 4:29 pm

Well now I see where you get your news. I understand why your backing Obama.
Have you ever woke up one day and said. Damn when does the season start.
User avatar
LIGHT12
hunter
 
Posts: 1220
Joined: Fri Nov 11, 2005 3:59 pm
Location: ARIZONA

Postby seastreet » Thu Jun 05, 2008 6:48 pm

LIGHT12 wrote:Well now I see where you get your news. I understand why your backing Obama.


No kidding. I'm sure this ad runs in it quite often...

Image
Glimmerjim wrote: I may be slow but I'm dumb!
User avatar
seastreet
hunter
 
Posts: 1686
Joined: Thu Jan 04, 2007 1:56 pm
Location: Downeast, NC

Postby dudejcb » Fri Jun 06, 2008 10:58 am

you guys think that ignoring or blaming the messenger, or inserting false arguments or scare mongering is a strategy that holds water. Get real.

Yeah, I'm a communist. I only read the Huffington Post. If only we had gotten Osama all our troubles would be over... What a bunch of twits.
What's so funny 'bout peace love and understanding?
User avatar
dudejcb
hunter
 
Posts: 5267
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2006 8:29 am
Location: SW Idaho

Postby SpinnerMan » Fri Jun 06, 2008 12:41 pm

What are your thoughts on my main point?

If I understand your argument, since there may have been no Al Qaeda in Iraq prior to the start of the war, we should have never started the war. (An ascertion which I disagree, but I think you are making).

However, now that we are in the middle of the war and we know for a fact that there are Al Qaeda in Iraq, we should quit.

How does this make any sense? It's either inconsistent or Al Qaeda in Iraq is irrelevent. Please enlightment me as to what the real substance of the argument is. I don't get it.

If your only point is that are intelligence was flaw. No crap. It always is and it always will be. We work very hard to keep secrets from our enemy and shockingly they do the same. This is just an excuse for doing nothing and piling on anyone that actually makes a decision, because they will never be 100% correct.

If your point is Iraq had nothing to do with the planning of the 9/11 attacks, I agree 100%. That was never ever the official position of the White House. Were there some people that mispoke or even lied about this? Yes. Were there people that misunderstood the Al Qaeda - Iraq link and interpretted it to be Iraq was involved in 9/11? Yes. This all has to do with the piss-poor media and the politicians that were trying to cover their asses and trying really hard to accept no blame whether they voted for or against the war regardless of how it turned out in the future.

No you're not a communist, you just like collective government :huh:
User avatar
SpinnerMan
hunter
 
Posts: 16426
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:24 am
Location: Joliet, IL

Postby dudejcb » Fri Jun 06, 2008 1:31 pm

Okay, let me go back to your last post and respond to your "Points."
SpinnerMan wrote:What I want to know is how would world wide terrorism changed if we would have gotten Obama and quit?
I doubt we would have quit. there are still plenty of bad guys to deal with so that's an absurd notion to attempt to impose on me. son't put words inmy mouth.

However, by not going into Iraq we would not have diluted our forces thereby diminishing their prospects for success. We would have cleand up Afghanistan, made is stable, and them moved on to other fish.

SpinnerMan wrote:Do you really prefer a war with Pakistan or Iran? I know you are against acting on incomplete intelligence because that means some time it will be wrong. Of course, if we just did a hit an run in Iraq like Clinton, then we would have never know what was true and what wasn't..
I don't know that I prefer a war with Pakistan, but Pakistan is my largest concern. It's not very stable, helps al Queda by giving them free territory to work from, and Pakistan has nuclear weapons. Nightmare scenario! Staying in Afghanistan and completing the job would have ammeliorated this situation immensely. but now it has just gotten worse. good call by GW and the boys.

SpinnerMan wrote:Oh, I forgot. Your guys would have executed the first perfect war and he would have never allowed him to escaped from whatever that valley we think he was in. I know you all think your that bright, but I'll burst your bubble. Thinks don't work perfectly like they do in your dreams..
The thinking may not alwasy work perfectly but persistence pays off. Your heros didn't have the persistence or strategic intellect to prosecute the effort in a step by step logical manner (kind of like the island hopping strategy we used in WWII with the Japanese), instead they went skitzo in Iraq and made everything worse.

SpinnerMan wrote:Al Qaeda in Iraq was not the #1, #2, or #3 reason. It was one of about a dozen reasons..
No, it became the fall back reason after WMD's were not found. don't you remember?

SpinnerMan wrote:Iraq's ties to terrorism (not Al Qaeda) was the number one reason in my view. That was confirmed..
yeah, I know. Saddam offered money to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers and did other bad things. so this is a good reason to pull back in Afghanistan and let that situation devolve and allow the Taliban and al Queda regroup and gain strenght. GENIUS!

SpinnerMan wrote:Iraq's ability to escalate the terrorists capabilities by providing them with WMDs was #2, but tightly coupled to #1. This was also confirmed..
No, in fact it was confirmed that they didn't have WMD's and GW went with the shoddy info about "yellow cake" as a scare tactic to justify his foregone decision to attack Iraq. The English meeting memo confirmed this.

SpinnerMan wrote:Stockpiles of WMDs was brought to the for front because I guess the simpletons couldn't understand all of the more complicated strategic reasons we were changing the way we confronted world wide Islamo-fascist terrorism. Bio and chemical weapons on not like nuclear weapons. If you maintain the know-how you can make them quickly. Stockpiles don't cost near as much or take near as long to produce as nukes. Saddam was maintaining the know-how and precluding open interviews outside of Iraq of all of his WMD scientist. Obviously, I can't read Saddam's mind, but I can't think of any good reason for these. Granted we appear to have been wrong on the stockpiles of WMDs, since we have only found a few odds and ends..
first, you are incorrectly using the word for. it should say "Stockpiles of WMDs was brought to the forEfront. Now that the english lesson is over.

You are reaching on this notion that "the simpletons couldn't understand all of the more complicated strategic reasons we were changing the way we confronted world wide Islamo-fascist terrorism."

It's wasn't complicated, it was just stupid.

SpinnerMan wrote:The fact that they continued to shoot at our air crafts in violation of the cease fire agreement is something we should never tolerate.
So, even though there lame attempts to shoot at us had NO effect, we should shoot ourselves in the foot and overstretch our military and put them at higher risk in so doing. Again I gotta say, GENIUS!


SpinnerMan wrote:There were a bunch of reasons. Most were true, but it is true they did keep secret the fact that they got rid of their stockpiles of WMDs. Where, when, and why are not clear. That's the problem of a secretive repressive regeme. Nobody believes them..
No kidding. If I were Saddam and I had attacked two of my neighbors, and had most of my own country hating my guts, I wouldn't have told the world...HEY WORLD, I got nothin'. I couldn't defend myself if I tried.

He was an arse but he wasn't that stupid, and even you should be able to get that.

SpinnerMan wrote:However, Al Qaeda is there now and you want to quit. So I guess this was irrelevant anyways.
No, I want to let Iraq do their own killing of each other, and get our guys out of the line of fire to the greatest extent possible.

Also I think we should fall back to the oilfields and shipping ports and take as much of their oil as we need to make ourselves whole and get pay off our debt to China and Japan, and get gas prices under control. With our people still on the periphery, if something were to go haywire while we're filling our gas tanks, then we'd still have our guys in theatre and be able to make the necessary moves if we need to.

Any questions?
What's so funny 'bout peace love and understanding?
User avatar
dudejcb
hunter
 
Posts: 5267
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2006 8:29 am
Location: SW Idaho

Postby jehler » Fri Jun 06, 2008 2:07 pm

dude you are really getting good with the quotes! :thumbsup:
User avatar
jehler
thread hi-jacking expert and a great guy
 
Posts: 17517
Joined: Sat Nov 18, 2006 2:52 pm
Location: Traverse City, MI

Postby SpinnerMan » Fri Jun 06, 2008 2:13 pm

Yeah, but he was just filibustering to try to obfuscate from the problem that we shouldn't have went to war because Al Qaeda wasn't there, but now that they are we should leave. It progressive logic.
User avatar
SpinnerMan
hunter
 
Posts: 16426
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:24 am
Location: Joliet, IL

Postby jehler » Fri Jun 06, 2008 2:17 pm

I know but he used to screw them up so bad i would get confused trying to read them. credit where credit is due even if I don't agree with the content :smile:
User avatar
jehler
thread hi-jacking expert and a great guy
 
Posts: 17517
Joined: Sat Nov 18, 2006 2:52 pm
Location: Traverse City, MI

Postby jehler » Fri Jun 06, 2008 2:19 pm

like if we wouldn't have gone into iraq afgan. could have been cleaned up and made stable :rofl: afganistan stable, that is a pipe dream :rofl:
User avatar
jehler
thread hi-jacking expert and a great guy
 
Posts: 17517
Joined: Sat Nov 18, 2006 2:52 pm
Location: Traverse City, MI

Postby dudejcb » Fri Jun 06, 2008 2:37 pm

SpinnerMan wrote:Yeah, but he was just filibustering to try to obfuscate from the problem that we shouldn't have went to war because Al Qaeda wasn't there, but now that they are we should leave. It progressive logic.
Still not quite getting my take are you.

We shouldn't have gone into Iraw because it was a bad war strategy based on our military abilities and our unfinished business in Afghanistan. Who know how stable we might have made it, but probably a bit less unstable than it is now.

Speaking of filibustering... the Senate R's have successfully fillibustered any legislation on climate change, yet again. this has the effect of letting us slide further and further into a bad situation without taking and remedial action, so that when the time comes where it can no longer be ignored it will just be harder and more expensive that it otherwise might have been. Now that's great leadership! BRAVO R's! you can go now, it's almost November.
What's so funny 'bout peace love and understanding?
User avatar
dudejcb
hunter
 
Posts: 5267
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2006 8:29 am
Location: SW Idaho

Postby Dolsmi » Fri Jun 06, 2008 2:47 pm

dudejcb wrote:[]

Speaking of filibustering... the Senate R's have successfully fillibustered any legislation on climate change, yet again. this has the effect of letting us slide further and further into a bad situation without taking and remedial action, so that when the time comes where it can no longer be ignored it will just be harder and more expensive that it otherwise might have been. Now that's great leadership! BRAVO R's! you can go now, it's almost November.


Have to give the Congress a thumb's up on that one.
Not the right time right now with too many unanswered questions and theories to enact more taxes and legislation on "global warming", or as it is called now "climate change".
User avatar
Dolsmi
hunter
 
Posts: 540
Joined: Sun Apr 01, 2007 8:02 am
Location: Minnesota

Postby dudejcb » Fri Jun 06, 2008 3:04 pm

therre weren't any new taxes. the reason the R's gave was that the legislation might put upward pressure on energy costs.

At this point I think a north wind would cause the price of gas to spike. So while the reason given sounds like good fatherly advice, in light of how gas prices are rising at will regardless and with no action whatsoever, it seems more like a head in the sand response.
What's so funny 'bout peace love and understanding?
User avatar
dudejcb
hunter
 
Posts: 5267
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2006 8:29 am
Location: SW Idaho

Postby Dolsmi » Fri Jun 06, 2008 4:10 pm

dudejcb wrote:therre weren't any new taxes. the reason the R's gave was that the legislation might put upward pressure on energy costs.

At this point I think a north wind would cause the price of gas to spike. So while the reason given sounds like good fatherly advice, in light of how gas prices are rising at will regardless and with no action whatsoever, it seems more like a head in the sand response.


This bill uses a "cap-and-trade" system wherein the government would cap the amount of pollution a company is allowed to emit -- which would be lowered each year -- but would also give companies some flexibility by allowing them to buy pollution credits from companies whose emissions fall below their caps.

Under the bill, the government would auction off the credits and use some of the proceeds to help consumers who are expected get hit by higher energy costs.

This to me sounds like a tax that the companies will have to pay to get these credits, which then in turn the companies will pass these increased expenses (carbon credits, taxes- whatever you want to call it) to the consumer.
User avatar
Dolsmi
hunter
 
Posts: 540
Joined: Sun Apr 01, 2007 8:02 am
Location: Minnesota

Postby dudejcb » Fri Jun 06, 2008 5:14 pm

I don't think the government auctions off the credit at all. the companies that earn the credits by reducing their carbon output, can then sell those emmissions credits to someone else who may not be able to reduce their emmissions so easily.

It's a market based approach, not a government tax or fine approach.
What's so funny 'bout peace love and understanding?
User avatar
dudejcb
hunter
 
Posts: 5267
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2006 8:29 am
Location: SW Idaho

Postby Dolsmi » Fri Jun 06, 2008 6:52 pm

dudejcb wrote:I don't think the government auctions off the credit at all. the companies that earn the credits by reducing their carbon output, can then sell those emmissions credits to someone else who may not be able to reduce their emmissions so easily.

It's a market based approach, not a government tax or fine approach.


You might be right, but I was just going by what was stated in the bill about the Gov. auctioning these off...
User avatar
Dolsmi
hunter
 
Posts: 540
Joined: Sun Apr 01, 2007 8:02 am
Location: Minnesota

Postby Kurt » Sun Jun 08, 2008 2:45 pm

captainduckhead wrote:
olddkguide wrote:I'll stick with my original statement, we need a warrior to lead this nation right now. None of the other stuff will amount to a hill of beans if we all have to bow to the east every morning. Gas will soon be $140 a barrel. Who flew the planes , Saudis that were extremist. Wake up folks we are at war. Gas is being used as an economic weapon against us and we are to stupid to see it. The Arabs are laughing to the bank. To the conquer goes the spoils. To pull out of the mid-east right now will be putting America's head on the chopping block. Sadom is gone, it is time for the Iraqes to pay us for there freedom, same thing goes for Kawait. Our nation removed a mass murderer. I'm tired of holding back and listening to liberal crap. If the peacenicks all want to go hands and pin what ever color ribbon they are wearing today fine let me suggest a place for you to go do it, Any where but the USA. Obama is the wrong choice for us for many reasons but mostly because he lacks what most of us understand,
we must have someone that will defend this nation against our enemies.

If the United States Of America were made up entirely of people with this opinion, we wouldn't be in the horrible position that we are in right now. It's nice to see that there are still people living here that have a set of nads.



Agree 100%, if the politicians would just let the military do there job we would be much better off. No one is scared of the US because they know all we do is talk. Dont like any of the canidates wish there was a none of the above vote.
Locked and Loaded
User avatar
Kurt
hunter
 
Posts: 361
Joined: Thu Feb 10, 2005 8:46 am
Location: Mobridge,South Dakota

Previous

Return to Controversial Issues Forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest