Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:OK, you say that's part of it. How did the republicans cause that? What, when, where, why, and how? And what are the other parts? And how did the republicans cause them? I'm asking for specifics here.

This is not a defense of republicans, certainly not George W Bush in any event. You may actually have some merit with your claim.

But I don't like broad generalities with no support. And so far, you haven't supported this one.

I believe another factor was getting off of the Gold Standard, or Bretton Woods system, at the time.

RobertN Wrote:

At Ease Wrote:My question was more in regards to what I quoted, as to concerns about Obama and terrorism.

Obviously there's little hope in trying to sell the social policy positions of Obama to the board's economic freebirds. I do wonder why his support of Pay-Go hasn't received more attention/support, though.

Yeah, he is a Muslim afterall. I am sure he supports Bin Laden. Where exactly did you go to "school" again? Actually, his plan is to get our troops out of Iraq(where there were no terrorists that attacked us) and work on the Taliban and trying to find Bin Laden not some dictator that was no direct threat to us. You do realize Bush said(not exact quote but close)-"Who the **** cares about Bin Laden"?-you know, the guy who attacked us. Now go stick your head back up GWB's ass. The real world has passed you by.

Um, you do realize that At Ease is aksing why people think Obama would be soft on terror when his public statements have been, at least in some cases, even more agressive than McCain (or GWB for that matter), right? You do realize that he is on here as a supporter of Obama, or at least is defending him in this particular case, right? You do realize that it's very unlikely At Ease would want to put his head anywhere near GWB's ass and is certainly not sucking up to him on this thread, right?

It's poor form to personally insult people you are debating against, and especially poor form to insult those on your same side. Can't we all just get along?

Rebel Wrote:I believe another factor was getting off of the Gold Standard, or Bretton Woods system, at the time.

Wuh-wuh-WHAT?! I thought you weren't a Ron Paul supporter ...

jh Wrote:

RobertN Wrote:

At Ease Wrote:My question was more in regards to what I quoted, as to concerns about Obama and terrorism.

Obviously there's little hope in trying to sell the social policy positions of Obama to the board's economic freebirds. I do wonder why his support of Pay-Go hasn't received more attention/support, though.

Yeah, he is a Muslim afterall. I am sure he supports Bin Laden. Where exactly did you go to "school" again? Actually, his plan is to get our troops out of Iraq(where there were no terrorists that attacked us) and work on the Taliban and trying to find Bin Laden not some dictator that was no direct threat to us. You do realize Bush said(not exact quote but close)-"Who the **** cares about Bin Laden"?-you know, the guy who attacked us. Now go stick your head back up GWB's ass. The real world has passed you by.

Um, you do realize that At Ease is aksing why people think Obama would be soft on terror when his public statements have been, at least in some cases, even more agressive than McCain (or GWB for that matter), right? You do realize that he is on here as a supporter of Obama, or at least is defending him in this particular case, right? You do realize that it's very unlikely At Ease would want to put his head anywhere near GWB's ass and is certainly not sucking up to him on this thread, right?

It's poor form to personally insult people you are debating against, and especially poor form to insult those on your same side. Can't we all just get along?

Read that again, jh. He was responding to me; he just messed up the quote tags. I'll get to see how "fair" you really are now that you know it was me.

georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:

Rebel Wrote:I believe another factor was getting off of the Gold Standard, or Bretton Woods system, at the time.

Wuh-wuh-WHAT?! I thought you weren't a Ron Paul supporter ...

Gold standard, federal bank-backed, Bretton Woods, .....none of it'll matter if we have nukes making everything glow.

Rebel Wrote:

georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:

Rebel Wrote:I believe another factor was getting off of the Gold Standard, or Bretton Woods system, at the time.

Wuh-wuh-WHAT?! I thought you weren't a Ron Paul supporter ...

Gold standard, federal bank-backed, Bretton Woods, .....none of it'll matter if we have nukes making everything glow.

Would you support a Presidential candidate who advocated going and getting terrorists no matter where they hide, but no more unconstitutional undeclared wars and no more nation building?

Rebel Wrote:

jh Wrote:

RobertN Wrote:

At Ease Wrote:My question was more in regards to what I quoted, as to concerns about Obama and terrorism.

Obviously there's little hope in trying to sell the social policy positions of Obama to the board's economic freebirds. I do wonder why his support of Pay-Go hasn't received more attention/support, though.

Yeah, he is a Muslim afterall. I am sure he supports Bin Laden. Where exactly did you go to "school" again? Actually, his plan is to get our troops out of Iraq(where there were no terrorists that attacked us) and work on the Taliban and trying to find Bin Laden not some dictator that was no direct threat to us. You do realize Bush said(not exact quote but close)-"Who the **** cares about Bin Laden"?-you know, the guy who attacked us. Now go stick your head back up GWB's ass. The real world has passed you by.

Um, you do realize that At Ease is aksing why people think Obama would be soft on terror when his public statements have been, at least in some cases, even more agressive than McCain (or GWB for that matter), right? You do realize that he is on here as a supporter of Obama, or at least is defending him in this particular case, right? You do realize that it's very unlikely At Ease would want to put his head anywhere near GWB's ass and is certainly not sucking up to him on this thread, right?

It's poor form to personally insult people you are debating against, and especially poor form to insult those on your same side. Can't we all just get along?

Read that again, jh. He was responding to me; he just messed up the quote tags. I'll get to see how "fair" you really are now that you know it was me.

See, I was afraid of that. But I've read it again and I still see it my way. In case you are right, well then, that'll teach me to be a self-righteous ******* (see, it's ok to make fun of yourself) and I appologize to RobertN.

I still stand by my statement about the personal insults, even between you two. Threads with more discussing & less bickering are much better than the converse. But if I said something everytime you & RobertN got into an insult fest, I'd never have time to post anything else (I know, I know, that might not be a bad thing).

And people, learn to use the quote tags so self-righteous jackasses like myself don't make fools of ourselves.

georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:Would you support a Presidential candidate who advocated going and getting terrorists no matter where they hide,

Yes.

Quote:but no more unconstitutional undeclared wars

No. It's one of the President's constitutional duties as Commander in Chief to protect this nation. Not Congress's. If he can't get the support from Congress, because, and in this case, they are opposing one another politically, he must still protect this nation. I do believe that the Democrats believe that anything bad that happens to this country is good for their party. That's how far we've lowered ourselves.

Quote:and no more nation building?

I'm not a big fan of nation building, but it has had positive effects in the past. After WWI, we did nothing to help Germany and our policies helped the Nazi party gain power. After WWII the Marshall Plan was put into effect and they are now one of out staunchest allies.

Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:That being the case, life in the US under a President Obama appears to me to be a very bleak and unappealing picture.

Anyway, that's how I feel right now. Is there any reason why I should not be so pessimistic? Say something good about him if you can (not just "he's not Bush" either, I mean something good about him, not something bad about someone else).

If Obama does win you will have reasons to be pessimistic because when the phone rings at 3:00am he won't know which end to talk into.

georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:Would you support a Presidential candidate who advocated going and getting terrorists no matter where they hide, but no more unconstitutional undeclared wars and no more nation building?

I would.

Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:

georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:Would you support a Presidential candidate who advocated going and getting terrorists no matter where they hide, but no more unconstitutional undeclared wars and no more nation building?

I would.

It was a bait. The first point is a simplistic solution to a complicated problem. It insinuates that the United States should just go after a terrorist that committed a terrorist act. Clinton tried this **** and failed. International terrorism isn't simply a law enforcement issue. It's akin to going after a hitman and thinking you solved the problem with the killings and the mafia. The reason getting Osama wasn't, and should have never been, a top priority is because he's just their leader....now. This isn't a group that has elections and shifts left or right. They have their own doctrine and it's to kill infidels. He dies, someone else steps up to the plate. Then what? According to this "doctrine" he didn't do anything so we can do nothing until he does. I prefer to be proactive over being reactive. Less Americans tend to be killed that way. You know, a Constitutionally-mandated charge of the President of the United States.

georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:

Rebel Wrote:

georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:

Rebel Wrote:I believe another factor was getting off of the Gold Standard, or Bretton Woods system, at the time.

Wuh-wuh-WHAT?! I thought you weren't a Ron Paul supporter ...

Gold standard, federal bank-backed, Bretton Woods, .....none of it'll matter if we have nukes making everything glow.

Would you support a Presidential candidate who advocated going and getting terrorists no matter where they hide, but no more unconstitutional undeclared wars and no more nation building?

I’m a firm believer in the Doctrine of “S**** Happens.” .

Making “S**** Happen” to solve National Security issues is a hell of a lot cheaper than a multi-billion dollar wars and nation building. If we can solve the problem by making “S**** Happen,” I’m all for it.

I don’t really care if you have to torture a jihadi, wiretap some terrorist’s satellite phone, intercept some terrorist’s email, or wire a mosque with electronic surveillance. if it gives you the actionable intelligence necessary to stage a direct action strike (or air strike) to take out a threat….and make “S*** Happen”... go for it..

I just want a President that will sign the necessary paperwork, sign the necessary ‘findings” and “hunting licenses” to get the job done…. And to back these guys up 110% who have their asses on a line in case something goes wrong.

IMO opinion, Obama won’t do that.

WMD Owl Wrote:I just want a President that will sign the necessary paperwork, sign the necessary ‘findings” and “hunting licenses” to get the job done…. And to back these guys up 110% who have their asses on a line in case something goes wrong.

IMO opinion, Obama won’t do that.

The problem is that Bush didn't do that either. When he and Cheney and Rumsfeld had the chance, they tried to cover their own @$$e$ instead of backing the troops. They figured the American public wouldn't support the kind of war that needed to be fought, so they sold them the war they would buy and hoped it would be enough. And when it wasn't, the sh*t flowed downhill, bigtime.

We've made a huge mistake by treating this whole affair as a law enforcement action. It started with Clinton and democrat dogma, but Bush had plenty of opportunities to change it and didn't. If you're going to be able to use evidence in court to get a criminal conviction, you damn well better make sure it was done by the numbers. But when you're trying to keep the Twin Towers standing, you do it any way you can. It's sad how many opportunities to prevent 9/11 were lost by complying with procedures designed to preseve the admissibility of evidence in case we wanted to try the terrorists afterwards. In case nobody noticed, they're dead, there's no need to try them. And if we'd acted on the evidence and captured them beforehand, but knew we wouldn't be able to get the evidence in to convict them, well, accidents have a way of happening, sometimes at the most opportune times. And who could fault an officer for shooting and killing someone who legitimately threatened him or her.

We decided unilaterally to give the terrorists Geneva Convention rights, when they don't actually fit any of the Geneva categories--they are not uniformed combatants and they are not innocent civilians. That is one problem we should have addressed way before now--convening the world's nations to work out just how we should all treat irregular terrorists.

We brought a bunch of the folks we captured to Gitmo where the supreme court has now said they come under US constitutional protections. I think somebody must have thought that Gitmo could escape supreme court purview, but it didn't. Another bad legal opinion.

I think one of the greatest tragedies out of this whole thing is that we've taken 18 and 19 year old kids and given them weapons and put them out on streets where they don't know who are the good guys and who are the bad guys. If somebody makes a false move, they have a split second to act. If it's a bad guy and they don't shoot, they're dead. If it's a good guy and they do shoot, then we convene an 18-month inquiry and court-martial them. If it takes you 18 months to figure out whether I should have shot or not, then you have no right to criticize me. I didn't have 18 months to make my deicision. Case closed. Or at least it should be. But Bush and Rummy didn't want to fade the heat that came with backing the guys up.

Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:

WMD Owl Wrote:I just want a President that will sign the necessary paperwork, sign the necessary ‘findings” and “hunting licenses” to get the job done…. And to back these guys up 110% who have their asses on a line in case something goes wrong.

IMO opinion, Obama won’t do that.

The problem is that Bush didn't do that either. When he and Cheney and Rumsfeld had the chance, they tried to cover their own @$$e$ instead of backing the troops. They figured the American public wouldn't support the kind of war that needed to be fought, so they sold them the war they would buy and hoped it would be enough. And when it wasn't, the sh*t flowed downhill, bigtime.

The problem was Logistics. We had airbase rights in the ‘Stans to the north of Afghanistan, but didn’t have clean logistics. We had to go through Pakistan, where “officially” we didn’t operate and didn’t have troops. for political reasons.

We took out the Taliban with less than 2000 Green Berets and British SAS with laser designators and chased them to Tora Bora.

We didn’t have the manpower to close the backdoor from Tora Bora into Pakistan. The deliberate “reduction in footprint” in manpower deals from the Soviet invasion in 1979.

The theory was a mass concentration in foreign troops would cause a backlash from the Afghans, like in 1979.. So it was decided to keep the major troop concentrations at Bagram and Kandalar.

But what is going on at the Pak-Afghi frontier, I don’t want to speculate on. The drones see,m to be hitting targets.

I was actually commenting more with respect to the Iraq war, where nobody up the line has taken responsibility for anything that they could court-martial a corporal for instead.

WMD Owl Wrote:We took out the Taliban with less than 2000 Green Berets and British SAS with laser designators and chased them to Tora Bora.

I don't think we've ever had that many Green Berets in country. You do realize how many that is, right? Those airborne drops that were broadcasted were US Army Rangers.

Rebel Wrote:

WMD Owl Wrote:We took out the Taliban with less than 2000 Green Berets and British SAS with laser designators and chased them to Tora Bora.

I don't think we've ever had that many Green Berets in country. You do realize how many that is, right? Those airborne drops that were broadcasted were US Army Rangers.

That makes a big difference... 75th Rangers dropped in would make up a big majority... 5th SFG would maybe be 200

It's a shame that there's always some civil servant around to mess up what could be a well planned military operation. You can take your pick as to who the civilian civil servants were.

Make the decision to obtain an objective then let the ones tasked with the responsibility accomplish the mission.

BTW, I would STRONGLY support the removal of any enemy by what means necessary to accomplish the mission. Where did the policy of "No Assassinations " start? The idiots in Iran, Mullahs and their appointees, would be a great place to start.

All: This thread has everthing to do with Obama... Division and Controversy.

Uhmump95: If you go out looking to hire diversity then you will never hire the best. If you go out looking to hire the best, you will always hire diversity. I enjoy your post.

GrayBeard: I agree with your post. However you must acknowledge that there is still ALOT of racism in the workplace.

GTswagger: Where did you find the photos of my wife and former girlfriends?

Robert N: Does your mommy know your playing on the computer?

Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:

RobertN Wrote:

Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:

RobertN Wrote:Oh, and because of the Republicans, most families now HAVE to have 2 parents working just to survive.

Oh, really?
What did the Republicans do to bring this about? And when did they do it?

Part of it is the big business profits over the anything else.

OK, you say that's part of it. How did the republicans cause that? What, when, where, why, and how? And what are the other parts? And how did the republicans cause them? I'm asking for specifics here.

This is not a defense of republicans, certainly not George W Bush in any event. You may actually have some merit with your claim.

But I don't like broad generalities with no support. And so far, you haven't supported this one.

Destruction of the Union.