|
Post by globe on Nov 2, 2010 20:24:14 GMT -5
You also told us about 2 years ago that all Irish people were terrorists, remember that little racist diatribe? So forgive me if I don't take your opinions very seriously. Yeah cos clearly I'm a racist, hate filled person. I tried to play UGHF at his own game. It may have been distasteful, and it may have failed, but it was nothing sincere, and you fully well know that. Pish, you are trying to make excuses just like you did at the time. I can dig the thread up and remind everybody of what a tolerant person you are if you want?
|
|
|
Post by MEANSTREAK on Nov 2, 2010 20:25:02 GMT -5
NL4E did say we like results fast - but neglected to say we get tired of excuses pretty fast too. One year was enough to spend blaming Bush, that shit is starting to stink something fierce. When does it stop being Bush's fault and start being Obama's problem? I have no idea if Obama is blaming Bush, I'm simply looking at things from an outsiders point of view - if you seriously think that Obama or any other person who had won that last election could have sorted out the economic mess he was handed in two years, then you are a bit of a numpty to be honest. Yep, I'm a bit of a numpty. Typical.
|
|
|
Post by globe on Nov 2, 2010 20:26:09 GMT -5
Bush is a laughing stock all around the world. Deal with that. Who cares? The President of the United States is the President of that country and not the world. Maybe Bush should have remembered that when he was invading other countries eh?
|
|
|
Post by globe on Nov 2, 2010 20:26:46 GMT -5
I have no idea if Obama is blaming Bush, I'm simply looking at things from an outsiders point of view - if you seriously think that Obama or any other person who had won that last election could have sorted out the economic mess he was handed in two years, then you are a bit of a numpty to be honest. Yep, I'm a bit of a numpty. Typical. To be fair you do come across as a bit of one.
|
|
|
Post by Beady’s Here Now on Nov 2, 2010 20:28:30 GMT -5
Yeah cos clearly I'm a racist, hate filled person. I tried to play UGHF at his own game. It may have been distasteful, and it may have failed, but it was nothing sincere, and you fully well know that. Pish, you are trying to make excuses just like you did at the time. I can dig the thread up and remind everybody of what a tolerant person you are if you want? I told you what I was trying to do in that thread. Look at my overall posting pattern and not once isolated incident. Find other threads, please, where I so clearly go on such a diatribe. FFS, it was a bad joke, and I have apologized for it. Get over it.
|
|
|
Post by globe on Nov 2, 2010 20:30:21 GMT -5
Pish, you are trying to make excuses just like you did at the time. I can dig the thread up and remind everybody of what a tolerant person you are if you want? I told you what I was trying to do in that thread. Look at my overall posting pattern and not once isolated incident. Find other threads, please, where I so clearly go on such a diatribe. FFS, it was a bad joke, and I have apologized for it. Get over it. Don't ever tell me to get over anything. Its not one isolated incident though, you've lost the plot several times, I actually think you are unhinged.
|
|
|
Post by Beady’s Here Now on Nov 2, 2010 20:30:52 GMT -5
Who cares? The President of the United States is the President of that country and not the world. Maybe Bush should have remembered that when he was invading other countries eh? Coming off of 9/11 it was the right thing to do. I still support the pre-emptive/preventive mantra. Why wait for them to kill us before we kill them? Ok, we were wrong in Iraq. But Saddam should have been removed years prior, anyway. He went against UN sanctions and committed many crimes against humanity. That's enough for war as is. Deal with that.
|
|
|
Post by globe on Nov 2, 2010 20:33:14 GMT -5
Maybe Bush should have remembered that when he was invading other countries eh? Coming off of 9/11 it was the right thing to do. I still support the pre-emptive/preventive mantra. Why wait for them to kill us before we kill them? Ok, we were wrong in Iraq. But Saddam should have been removed years prior, anyway. He went against UN sanctions and committed many crimes against humanity. That's enough for war as is. Deal with that. Wait for who to kill us? You are fucking brain-washed!
|
|
|
Post by MEANSTREAK on Nov 2, 2010 20:36:11 GMT -5
One year was enough to spend blaming Bush, that shit is starting to stink something fierce. When does it stop being Bush's fault and start being Obama's problem? hmm... sorry meanstreak, but my impression of you conservative folks in this forum is that you accepted one single excuse for 8 years of fatal politics: 9/11 Fatal? Maybe, but the fact is Bush is gone and simply blaming him while the deficit increases exponetially is not being a good leader. Call me a crazy conservative, but I voted for Ron Paul.
|
|
|
Post by Beady’s Here Now on Nov 2, 2010 20:36:50 GMT -5
Coming off of 9/11 it was the right thing to do. I still support the pre-emptive/preventive mantra. Why wait for them to kill us before we kill them? Ok, we were wrong in Iraq. But Saddam should have been removed years prior, anyway. He went against UN sanctions and committed many crimes against humanity. That's enough for war as is. Deal with that. Wait for who to kill us? You are fucking brain-washed! That first statement wasn't necessarily referring to Iraq, but rather dictatorial regimes in general. If we see there's a threat, and we think that threat is incredibly substantial, then we should stop that threat from materializing. Clinton had chances to kill OBL in the 90s and failed to do so because of risk of collateral damage. Of course collateral damage is a concern and should be minimized, but if Clinton had a 9/11 event (something even worse than 93 WTC Bombing) I think he would have bombed OBL regardless. That's what I'm talking about. You need to weigh up options. It may be harsh, but what else can you do? Do you risk collateral damage in order to save 3,000 people? Where do you draw the line? It's an interesting debate.......
|
|
|
Post by halftheworld on Nov 2, 2010 20:39:55 GMT -5
Coming off of 9/11 it was the right thing to do. I still support the pre-emptive/preventive mantra. Why wait for them to kill us before we kill them? oh boy, you're smarter than that... Ok, we were wrong in Iraq. But Saddam should have been removed years prior, anyway. do you think people are dumb? playing the moral card in saddam case is so ridiculous.
|
|
|
Post by globe on Nov 2, 2010 20:42:33 GMT -5
Wait for who to kill us? You are fucking brain-washed! That first statement wasn't necessarily referring to Iraq, but rather dictatorial regimes in general. If we see there's a threat, and we think that threat is incredibly substantial, then we should stop that threat from materializing. Clinton had chances to kill OBL in the 90s and failed to do so because of risk of collateral damage. Of course collateral damage is a concern and should be minimized, but if Clinton had a 9/11 event (something even worse than 93 WTC Bombing) I think he would have bombed OBL regardless. That's what I'm talking about. You need to weigh up options. It may be harsh, but what else can you do? Do you risk collateral damage in order to save 3,000 people? Where do you draw the line? It's an interesting debate....... Not its not an interesting debate, its a fucking tragic one - the whole Iraq and Afghanistan thing was and is a complete debacle from start to finish.
|
|
|
Post by Beady’s Here Now on Nov 2, 2010 20:42:47 GMT -5
Better analogy:
You're the president. You just came off of 9/11 where 3,000 people died due to terrorists. You get information that says Saddam has WMD, he hates the US, and has possible connections to AQ, the group that killed those 3,000 people. This intelligence is deemed to be strong, has international support from France, England, and Germany, and has been there for the past 10 years - the previous president even warned you about this threat. Additionally, Saddam has now refused weapons inspectors, which suggests he's hiding something.
Do you: A. Refuse to act forcefully, chancing more sanctions which have failed in the past, hoping the threat isn't as bad as you think it is is.
or
B. Attack and get rid of the threat. ----
Hindsight is 20/20, of course. But option A to me is irresponsible. What if he did have those weapons and he used them against us directly or sold them to terrorists? You'd be then arguing why Bush didn't go into Iraq and remove the threat. You can't have it both ways, that's what my grievance comes down to.
|
|
|
Post by Beady’s Here Now on Nov 2, 2010 20:43:36 GMT -5
Whatever, I'm done rehashing debates from 5 years ago.
|
|
|
Post by halftheworld on Nov 2, 2010 20:45:17 GMT -5
hmm... sorry meanstreak, but my impression of you conservative folks in this forum is that you accepted one single excuse for 8 years of fatal politics: 9/11 Fatal? Maybe, but the fact is Bush is gone and simply blaming him while the deficit increases exponetially is not being a good leader. Call me a crazy conservative, but I voted for Ron Paul. well i didn't watch the clip, i'll probably do that later that night. a good leader... good point: what is a good leader? someone who radically fulfills his agenda he was elected for? or someone who will respect the peoples will during his term of election?
|
|
|
Post by halftheworld on Nov 2, 2010 20:53:42 GMT -5
Call me a crazy conservative, but I voted for Ron Paul. ron paul? wiki says that he was against the iraqi war, against the patriot act... (okay, and the usual anti-gay and pro-life-thing). naa, i would never call you crazy. but bloody conservative.
|
|
|
Post by halftheworld on Nov 2, 2010 20:57:19 GMT -5
Whatever, I'm done rehashing debates from 5 years ago. He he, A++ for Mr. Live4evr in politics for his fascinating work titled: "I just don' t give a fuck what i told you two years ago"
|
|
|
Post by MEANSTREAK on Nov 2, 2010 21:02:45 GMT -5
Fatal? Maybe, but the fact is Bush is gone and simply blaming him while the deficit increases exponetially is not being a good leader. Call me a crazy conservative, but I voted for Ron Paul. well i didn't watch the clip, i'll probably do that later that night. a good leader... good point: what is a good leader? someone who radically fulfills his agenda he was elected for? or someone who will respect the peoples will during his term of election? well, a pretty strong case could be made that Obama has done neither! But listen to RP, he's a breath of fresh air in a world full of stale politics.
|
|
|
Post by halftheworld on Nov 2, 2010 21:05:23 GMT -5
Better analogy: You're the president. You just came off of 9/11 where 3,000 people died due to terrorists. You get information that says Saddam has WMD, he hates the US, Ha ha. Okay, politics isn't your thing. Saddam didn't hate the US. He just loved himself. He was pretty cool with the United States, when their politics matched. When you think he was just a nutter with a bomb you are pretty naive.
|
|
|
Post by halftheworld on Nov 2, 2010 21:07:38 GMT -5
well i didn't watch the clip, i'll probably do that later that night. a good leader... good point: what is a good leader? someone who radically fulfills his agenda he was elected for? or someone who will respect the peoples will during his term of election? well, a pretty strong case could be made that Obama has done neither! But listen to RP, he's a breath of fresh air in a world full of stale politics. ah no, don't hide behind a youtube clip. go on, you can type pretty fast ;D and somehow i agree with you, but probably not the way you like.
|
|
|
Post by Beady’s Here Now on Nov 2, 2010 21:42:49 GMT -5
Better analogy: You're the president. You just came off of 9/11 where 3,000 people died due to terrorists. You get information that says Saddam has WMD, he hates the US, Ha ha. Okay, politics isn't your thing. Saddam didn't hate the US. He just loved himself. He was pretty cool with the United States, when their politics matched. When you think he was just a nutter with a bomb you are pretty naive. 1. It was a hypothetical and whether Saddam liked us or not is a moot point, the point is we thought he didn't..... 2. Tell that to my BA in Political Science, and minor in history, thank you very much
|
|
|
Post by NYR on Nov 2, 2010 22:06:09 GMT -5
You can like Obama's policies all you want, but surely you'd have to admit he's a poor leader at the very least. Obama has only himself to blame. it's hard to lead when the opposition refused to cooperate and compromise. you might forget the post you made days after the election, which was an article written by rush limbaugh. what did it say? "i want obama to fail." i think obama did as well as he could, especially when he had weak democrats in congress as well as a huge opposition who apparently forgot about all about 2000-2008. Better analogy: You're the president. You just came off of 9/11 where 3,000 people died due to terrorists. You get information that says Saddam has WMD, he hates the US, and has possible connections to AQ, the group that killed those 3,000 people. of course we know saddam had wmd's. reagan gave them to him! however, the reports you are referring to were falsified. how quickly our memories fade. You know I think it's hillarious that you think you are British when you come out with the shite you do like on this thread, your views are so un-British like its unreal. he'd vote thatcher if he could. assuming, of course, he's actually british.
|
|
|
Post by globe on Nov 3, 2010 3:15:05 GMT -5
2. Tell that to my BA in Political Science, and minor in history, thank you very much Hillarious, says it all really. he'd vote thatcher if he could. assuming, of course, he's actually british.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 3, 2010 14:45:50 GMT -5
obama has fucked up on many issues, however this is damn near irrelevant in the economic climate the president was going to loose the mid terms and there was very little he could have done about it.
still he has two years to convince those that voted for him last time to vote for him again.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 3, 2010 14:49:04 GMT -5
Better analogy: You're the president. You just came off of 9/11 where 3,000 people died due to terrorists. You get information that says Saddam has WMD, he hates the US, and has possible connections to AQ, the group that killed those 3,000 people. This intelligence is deemed to be strong, has international support from France, England, and Germany, and has been there for the past 10 years - the previous president even warned you about this threat. Additionally, Saddam has now refused weapons inspectors, which suggests he's hiding something. Do you: A. Refuse to act forcefully, chancing more sanctions which have failed in the past, hoping the threat isn't as bad as you think it is is. or B. Attack and get rid of the threat. ---- Hindsight is 20/20, of course. But option A to me is irresponsible. What if he did have those weapons and he used them against us directly or sold them to terrorists? You'd be then arguing why Bush didn't go into Iraq and remove the threat. You can't have it both ways, that's what my grievance comes down to. fuck you, most of the people who are against the war were against it before it started. hindsight, fuck that some of us had foresight.
|
|