(07-27-2009 08:57 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(07-27-2009 08:31 AM)Artifice Wrote:  The UAV program is

This is the type of stuff we should have been doing all along. And we should have finished the job in Afghanistan.

Your streak is alive too.

(07-27-2009 08:31 AM)Artifice Wrote:  The UAV program is

This is the type of stuff we should have been doing all along. And we should have finished the job in Afghanistan.

Agreed.
I would add to the end of your last sentence, "before we went to Iraq."
Shrub's decision to do otherwise is why we are stuck with Obama today, not to mention Reid and Pelosi leading the two houses of congress.
For that reason alone, Shrub was a terrible president.

way to just ignore reality and the story above so you can bash "booooosh" err "Shrub" along with the disenginous and politically movitvated leftist posters on the board

I'm no fan of Shrub, and I don't mean the term derisively as much as I do because it's an easy way to avoid the awkward Bush I/Bush II or other such designations.

At the same time I don't care for him and I don't believe history will judge him favorably.
He is the reason we have Obama, and that alone makes him a disaster.
Obama's whole election strategy was based on, "I'm not Bush." He really had very little else to offer.
You can agree or not, or like it or not, but that's the way I see it.

(07-27-2009 09:22 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I'm no fan of Shrub, and I don't mean the term derisively as much as I do because it's an easy way to avoid the awkward Bush I/Bush II or other such designations.

At the same time I don't care for him and I don't believe history will judge him favorably.
He is the reason we have Obama, and that alone makes him a disaster.
Obama's whole election strategy was based on, "I'm not Bush." He really had very little else to offer.
You can agree or not, or like it or not, but that's the way I see it.

dumb*** Bush would work too. :)

(07-27-2009 09:22 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I'm no fan of Shrub, and I don't mean the term derisively as much as I do because it's an easy way to avoid the awkward Bush I/Bush II or other such designations.

At the same time I don't care for him and I don't believe history will judge him favorably.
He is the reason we have Obama, and that alone makes him a disaster.
Obama's whole election strategy was based on, "I'm not Bush." He really had very little else to offer.
You can agree or not, or like it or not, but that's the way I see it.

That debate will ultimately split along partisan lines. But let me say this (and you'll be the only one who will listen to me) - Kerry offered me NOTHING as a voter. The entire neocon agenda was pretty much the antithesis to my views, but even then I couldn't pull the trigger on Kerry. I voted Libertarian. To me, Kerry was the proverbial empty suit that gets assigned to Obama.

Obama said some things that piqued my interest, and in comparison to his predecessor... I know you dont like his policies, but he had more to offer an independent/fence sitter. Kerry seriously ran the "not Bush" campaign. If you go back to the debates, Obama had very strong opinions on issues and plans of attack. Kerry didn't.

Kerry was the Democrat party smirking derisively at Bush and figuring that it would coast into the White House.

Obama was the party trying to get back on message (love or hate the message).

You must have watched an entirely differant campaign than me.

(07-27-2009 10:28 AM)Paul M Wrote:  You must have watched an entirely differant campaign than me.

No. He watched the same one. You were just drunk all the time because you knew you Righties were going to get thier asses kicked.

I don't drink. Wrong again.

(07-27-2009 09:22 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  At the same time I don't care for him and I don't believe history will judge him favorably.
He is the reason we have Obama, and that alone makes him a disaster.
Obama's whole election strategy was based on, "I'm not Bush." He really had very little else to offer.
You can agree or not, or like it or not, but that's the way I see it.

partial truth, its really the ebb and flow of Politics and the fact the Dems/Left control the Bull horns and play a large role in shaping opinions and assumptions. Dishonestly in many cases and fully exposing themselves for what it was right now with Obama.

Churchill was hated and threw out of office by the Brits, still a great leader. Truman was hated and threw out of office by us, good leader though and history treating favorably overall. Lincoln hated, George Washington hated at the time, John Adams hated...and on and on.

Truth gets vindicated over time, but in the short run perceptions and national Mood swings dictate the flow of things

all that said, the narrative(though collapsing right now which is good news) is for the MSM/left to make: "Bush = Hoover" and "Obama = FDR"...most of that though is due to the political mandate in Washingto that has existed for decades now for "Affordable Housing". On foreign policy, after the emotions die down and reality sets in, is where he will hang his hat historically. Just wait till some classified stuff gets released, years down the road.

(07-27-2009 10:23 AM)Artifice Wrote:  I voted Libertarian.

Who really beleives this?

the guy who derides the "free market", Business, the Tax system as it currently is, supports the Death Tax....defends Obamacare proposals and so forth, links to wild Conspiracy theories at DailyKos about Trig Palin(to hurt an actual fiscal conservative, ie. "libertarian"). All the faux outrage over every Anti-Terror measure Bush ever used, Comparing Bush to Hitler historicaly(Yes this happened in some long winded, idiotic post), but now that Obama is not overturning the Patriot Act, is increasing Renditions and on and on, yet there is no Outrage at Obama, who is actually in power right now diong these things and has huge Dem majorities to boot.


Yeah, this guy voted "Libertarian". Now you could convince me you voted John Birch/Rothbard Anarchist minded Libertine, they have always danced with the Socialist throughout history, ironically enough. and anyone with half a lick of a Political IQ, realizes that the Libertarian Party isn't a real governing political party, but instead a Philosophical debating society(Hint: They could not do virtually none of what they talk about doing if they ever had to actually Govern)


but in Truth, you've stated you reject that absolute truth exist as a philosophical Foundation(postmodernism - Either/Or Logic) as a starting point, and do so as an absolute Truth(violating the Law of Non-Contradiction). Which is reason enough to realize you aren't an honest person, which we all know you are well studied in Lawyer speak(trying to influence debate via Rhetoric, taking false positions thinking it appeals to Moderate readers to influence, etc.)
In short, just as with the Soviets who also rejected Truth, there is absolutely no reason to "Trust" you, so these claims are meaningless outside of Verification. "Trust but Verify" as Ronald Reagan always said about the similarly philosophically grounded Soviets.



/long over due

(07-27-2009 10:58 AM)GGniner Wrote:  

(07-27-2009 10:23 AM)Artifice Wrote:  I voted Libertarian.

Who really believes this?

Not me.

(07-27-2009 11:01 AM)Rebel Wrote:  

(07-27-2009 10:58 AM)GGniner Wrote:  

(07-27-2009 10:23 AM)Artifice Wrote:  I voted Libertarian.

Who really believes this?

Not me.

I don't know, I could see Artifice voting Libertarian before Reb ......

(07-27-2009 08:51 AM)GGniner Wrote:  so the key was getting rid of Musharraf?

Wonder what the political situation "on the street"is looking like now, and if his fears were correct or what?

Al-Qaeda has been in shambles and throughly defeated for the most part for awhile now. The ideology and its like-minded groups still live on though.

The key was "getting Musharraf out of the way".

We had to give him prior notice of attacks. The ISI, the Paki Intelligence Service, is loaded with AQ and Taliban sympathizers. In fact, the ISI CREATED the Taliban. Anything we told him of course, leaked, and the target wasn't there when the Drone arrived.

(07-27-2009 11:24 AM)uhmump95 Wrote:  

(07-27-2009 11:01 AM)Rebel Wrote:  

(07-27-2009 10:58 AM)GGniner Wrote:  

(07-27-2009 10:23 AM)Artifice Wrote:  I voted Libertarian.

Who really believes this?

Not me.

I don't know, I could see Artifice voting Libertarian before Reb ......

I'm on record supporting many social issues that are aligned with libertarians and democrats. Artiface, however, well, his history of posting shows nothing that would appear libertarian. Nothing.

Just because I rarely inject myself into social debates does not mean I don't have opinions about social issues. It means that many rarely effect me personally. Fiscally and militarily? I don't think it's a secret as to which way I lean.

(07-27-2009 10:58 AM)GGniner Wrote:  

(07-27-2009 10:23 AM)Artifice Wrote:  I voted Libertarian.

Who really beleives this?

Funny, I remember telling you and everyone else when I voted for Bednarik and talking with Rusty Sheridan (Libertarian candidate) about it on the Niner board. Everyone on there knows I did it as a none of the above vote (and have done that 3 out of the last 4 elections), but as per usual for you, you invent conspiracies, make up or distort facts, and continue to formulate all of your thinking in binary fashion, and even worse, take pride in it. If it's not what you think, it's wrong. ******* hysterical.

I know you're too chicken **** to log back on there, but I betcha my original posts are still there, even from the '04 election.

Oh wait, I went back in time and falsified it, along with my birth certificate.

(07-27-2009 11:01 AM)Rebel Wrote:  

(07-27-2009 10:58 AM)GGniner Wrote:  

(07-27-2009 10:23 AM)Artifice Wrote:  I voted Libertarian.

Who really believes this?

Not me.

Well, I am shocked. Shocked.

(07-27-2009 11:24 AM)uhmump95 Wrote:  

(07-27-2009 11:01 AM)Rebel Wrote:  

(07-27-2009 10:58 AM)GGniner Wrote:  

(07-27-2009 10:23 AM)Artifice Wrote:  I voted Libertarian.

Who really believes this?

Not me.

I don't know, I could see Artifice voting Libertarian before Reb ......

I did. I really could give two ***** about politics until right around the Iraq invasion. That set me off.

I would not have thought Musharraf was as big of a roadblock to strikes against AQ in Pakistan.

And good on Obama for continuing an aggresive GWOT against the Taliban and AQ.

Outside of some what seem to be silly diplomatic blunders (with some minor repurcussions of course) President Obama's physical FP decisions have been mainly strong and thankfully not very left-wing.

(Aside about Musharraf. His brother is/was a doctor who lived in Naperville, IL close to my old office. His neighborhood was a full time collection of Naperville SWAT, supplemented at times by the FBI, Diplomatic Security Service, the Capital Police (Denny Hastert was Speaker of the House at that time and lived in Yorkville, which is just down the road)Illinois State Police and other various and assundry State and Federal level law enforcement. There was once a rumor that Musharraf himself was in town after a doctor's visit to say hello to the bro, but I don't know that reality - all I remember is a lot of police, and an article here and there in the papers about neighbors complaining about all the police presence, and how traffic kept being diverted in the neighborhood.)

Interesting article, thanks for posting. I too didn't think that Musharraf would be that much of a roadblock. I think Al Qaida in Afghanistan has the same problem as in Iraq - they make too many enemies with their policies and violence. Makes it much easier for the US to get intelligence. And many of the Taliban never agreed with Bin Laden regarding his terrorist attacks around the world, though the important ones, like Mullah Omar, did.