Mrs. Pigpen
Is this off-topic? I understood that this thread pertains to who we are voting for and why. Foreign policy decisions, and the reasons for those decisions seem pretty pertinent to me. And history certainly doesn't back your argument here. The US was actually adverse to going to war until it was attacked. The US didn't have troops positioned in France awaiting invasion, and I rather think we'd have experienced a third world war by now if we'd preemptively invaded Germany to change its leadership before it went into blitzkrieg.
Well to tell you the truth I don't mind talking about it, however while discussing what Id consider to be a "sub topic" of any given subject, Ive had mods give notices that the topic is being derailed, and I've seen that happen with other posters as well. The moderating here is strict at times, so I try not to go as far with sub-topics as I once did. Given your a mod I suppose its alright, again like I said I don't mind discussing the issue at all. I dedicated a post over 40 pages long and with almost 100 links, to discuss the war. Remember? You should after having closed it
Now this nation has taken preventative measures before without being struck at home first, even in WW2, the war your referring to. We didn't get attacked by Germany on our soil, we got attacked by Japan. In retrospect the situation was somewhat similar to this one in that we went to deal with the Third Reich in Germany to prevent any further spread of terror that Hitler had proved he was capable of, but he never attacked the U.S. on our soil. Who knows just maybe there were some people at that time who believed what you do about Iraq today, maybe there were people saying..........
"hmmm we got attacked by Japan, so why do we get involved with Hitler and Germany? Sure Germany and Japan are allies, but isn't our presence in Germany premature given they didn't attack us?"
I can just imagine people having thought such things, if only I had a time machine, the things I would find Ironic and familiar would be quite easy to find indeed. Funny when you think about it. The most significant difference between Saddam's Iraq, and Hitlers Germany, was scale. Hitlers abilities obviously far exceeded Saddam's, other than that they were both men with the will for violence, they were both men with superiority complexes, and they were both men who had actively demonstrated their desire and ability to spread death and terror, and in both cases we invaded after the fact they had demonstrated their willingness to kill countless innocent people. There is no spin in that, its the truth, its history. I get the feeling many people have not read the stories about Saddam that I and many others have. There was never a need for the bush administration to paint a picture of Saddam that was horrific and frightening, Saddam did that on his own.
Stick with it until....? There are consequences to staying too. Weighing those consequences, I am in favor of leaving. Furthermore, if the population we are ostensibly "committed to" wants us gone, who are we to argue?
Im not so sure how true that is or not, I know that there are many that want us out of Iraq due to how bush handled this war overall, but how many exactly we will never know accurately. Polls such as these always vary, sometimes so significantly that two completely different conclusions could be drawn. I recently demonstrated this to DTOM with contrasting polls on the very same subject from what I remember. Take a look........
http://blogs.wsj.com/informedreader/2007/1...-known-unkowns/
The quote below is from the link above............
Hmm ok, two polls conducted the same year, on the same issue giving results that differed by a whopping 45%. Thats interesting wouldn't ya say?
I don't know who coined the phrase "easy for politicians to cherry-pick results" but right on. This is just the type of thing I love to expose. Now supposing Ron Paul were to tell you what the popular opinion is in Iraq, what type of poll would he choose to reveal? Would he be a man and explain the complexities of the situation, or tell the American people what they expect, and in some cases even want to hear? Well Id say thats something to think about.
What stopped him was that he got annihilated and kicked out of Kuwait. We didn't have to do a thing after that. Were he to attempt this again, we could always go back. We wasted valuable resources and undermined our security by sitting out in Saudi and flying 24/7 over Iraqi airspace for over a decade. Billions and billions of waste, while also enraging Muslims who didn't wish to have us parked in Mecca. Our Middle East foreign policy post-Gulf war is not laudable at all.
We didn't have to do a thing after that? Well tell me what you have to reveal to me that shows me he grew a heart after 1991, or that he lost his ability to rally support for his dictatorship after 1991. You wanted to get specific about this, so we might as well. Now supposing you had the time to read that very long post of mine, which I understand wasn't for everyone, but if you read the section in regards to Saddam you would know the genocide and death he was responsible for. I wanted my sources in that post to be honest, and informative, and in it I explain everything I know of Saddam, what he was responsible for, and why he was still a threat after 1991. I was very specific about it, so as a kind gesture from one poster to another I encourage you to give it a look over, if you haven't. I turned the Saddam section into its own post here............
http://www.americasdebate.com/forums/index...mp;#entry230730
Or if you think I'm the type to tell tales, you can look up Operation Desert Fox, which occurred in 1998, and find out about why we were striking Iraqi air bases at that time, its interesting stuff.
No, that's not it. Ron Paul wants to see a change in the direction of our foreign policy, which started before Bush. He has remained absolutely consistent on this point. He sees the current direction for the fiasco it is.
I never claimed that he was inconsistent, only wrong. I don't believe in his overall premise on foreign policy. He takes an overall negative tone on taking an active military role in the world, which is often necessary. The thing is I know that his criticisms are on our foreign policies even before bush came into power. Ive heard him make the criticisms of former policies, What I suggested is that the stance he takes with bush is a popular one to the left, whether or not he always had the same position.
Right now people need a finger to point and a person to blame, when the truth is this war is bigger than any one man, sure bush messed up, I say it all the time. This however is being used, used, and used again to rally campaign support. Now I don't take the same position on everyone, I consider myself fair. Ever notice that Ive left Obama out of most of the types of accusations I throw at Ron Paul?
Obama doesn't believe in this war at all, and while I disagre with him on that and always will, I respect his position because I get a sense of integrity from this man. I get the feeling he says what he does because its what he truly believes. Now while Ron Paul may believe in what he preaches as well he additionally does more blaming than just about anyone ive seen, and to tell us all something everyone knows by now if not living in a cave of course, I know that the failure we have seen in this war has been largely bushes fault. I want to hear somebody talk more about themselves, and what they're going to do rather than playing this burnt out blame Republicans or conservatives for anything and everything card to get the support of all the Cruisingram's in the world and no offense to Cruisingram, but a part of me almost believes a Conservative must have stole his Car, and with a screen name like his that cant be good.
Yes, obviously if Bush had been successful he'd have a lot more support and his adversaries would have less support. Leaders are responsible for the decisions they make. We do elect them for that purpose.
Yes but other Republicans running for president had nothing to do with how the Bush administration decided to fight this war, thats the whole point. This is misplaced fear, through typical labeling. "If one republican is a failure fighting a war, all others will be as well, just like that." People should be more willing to separate the word "war" from the word "failure" they don't go hand in hand like white on rice you know. This war has failed under one presidency, which also happened to be one of the poorest in modern history, there were obvious decisions which were made throughout this war which all help to explain the difficult time we've had in Iraq.
Dontreadonme
No net, I've provided you with something your posts have consistantly lacked, context and nuance. Well, that and the other side of the story, the side that doesn't come from the MNC-I press release page. You lack the same in your posts about Huckabee. You state that you support him because 'he wants to win the war, and he comes off as genuine.' Is your standard for a candidate really that shallow?
Nonsense, you know that I've consistently told the side of the story that your fixated on. I have criticized bush, I have called this war a mess, again and again. You know this, and you know I could pull this up in quotes as well. But nice description of You if anything.
Another flaw in your arguments is the premise that we will definitely, no matter what, by god, win in Iraq. So in your mind, everybody who doesn't agree with you, doesn't support winning. Nice framing, I think you should quit video games and go into politics.
Aww come on now lets not be bitter what do ya say? However my only response to a comment like that is back what you say. If thats how you want to be, quote me saying at any time, ever on this entire site, that we will definitely, no matter what, win in Iraq. I'm afraid your going to come up short on that one. Also I support winning the war, so if someone doesn't believe what I do ((That we shout try and win)) It means they don't want to win, or that they don't think we can win. I'm not condemning that, and Ive never humbled my opinion above others. Anything else?
Who has defiled our Constitution and been responsible for more lives lost, Bush or AQ?
AQ, because you cant pin the thousands of Iraqi and Afghan civilian deaths, caused mostly by insurgents including AQ, on one man thousands of miles away.
Thats ridiculous, the situation is more complex than you let on, as usual. Bushes bad strategies have lead to a war lasting much longer than would have been necessary, in turn he does hold a certain amount of blame. Here's where your spin comes in however, George bush did not go to war in Iraq with the sole intent of killing people, AQ on 9/11 came here to do just that, nothing else. Kill innocent non combatant civilians on purpose.
You know how much that says to me right there? It says you believe the president is a Mass murderer no better than Bin Laden himself. Unbelievable.
Oops, lol
QUOTE
QUOTE
I'm going to try and make this short since this is OT but again look at history. Did taking an active role in WW2 do nothing? Even the wars that were seen as failures at the very least showed that if you attack us we will attack you, and if you take advantage of those who cant defend themselves, consider that there is a good chance you will have to deal with us.
Is this off-topic? I understood that this thread pertains to who we are voting for and why. Foreign policy decisions, and the reasons for those decisions seem pretty pertinent to me. And history certainly doesn't back your argument here. The US was actually adverse to going to war until it was attacked. The US didn't have troops positioned in France awaiting invasion, and I rather think we'd have experienced a third world war by now if we'd preemptively invaded Germany to change its leadership before it went into blitzkrieg.
Well to tell you the truth I don't mind talking about it, however while discussing what Id consider to be a "sub topic" of any given subject, Ive had mods give notices that the topic is being derailed, and I've seen that happen with other posters as well. The moderating here is strict at times, so I try not to go as far with sub-topics as I once did. Given your a mod I suppose its alright, again like I said I don't mind discussing the issue at all. I dedicated a post over 40 pages long and with almost 100 links, to discuss the war. Remember? You should after having closed it
Now this nation has taken preventative measures before without being struck at home first, even in WW2, the war your referring to. We didn't get attacked by Germany on our soil, we got attacked by Japan. In retrospect the situation was somewhat similar to this one in that we went to deal with the Third Reich in Germany to prevent any further spread of terror that Hitler had proved he was capable of, but he never attacked the U.S. on our soil. Who knows just maybe there were some people at that time who believed what you do about Iraq today, maybe there were people saying..........
"hmmm we got attacked by Japan, so why do we get involved with Hitler and Germany? Sure Germany and Japan are allies, but isn't our presence in Germany premature given they didn't attack us?"
I can just imagine people having thought such things, if only I had a time machine, the things I would find Ironic and familiar would be quite easy to find indeed. Funny when you think about it. The most significant difference between Saddam's Iraq, and Hitlers Germany, was scale. Hitlers abilities obviously far exceeded Saddam's, other than that they were both men with the will for violence, they were both men with superiority complexes, and they were both men who had actively demonstrated their desire and ability to spread death and terror, and in both cases we invaded after the fact they had demonstrated their willingness to kill countless innocent people. There is no spin in that, its the truth, its history. I get the feeling many people have not read the stories about Saddam that I and many others have. There was never a need for the bush administration to paint a picture of Saddam that was horrific and frightening, Saddam did that on his own.
QUOTE
QUOTE
Lastly if you make a commitment that involves the lives of countless thousands, and the fate of a nation, be prepared to stick by that commitment. This is not a video game, you just dont hit the off switch when things don't go your way without consequences.
Stick with it until....? There are consequences to staying too. Weighing those consequences, I am in favor of leaving. Furthermore, if the population we are ostensibly "committed to" wants us gone, who are we to argue?
Im not so sure how true that is or not, I know that there are many that want us out of Iraq due to how bush handled this war overall, but how many exactly we will never know accurately. Polls such as these always vary, sometimes so significantly that two completely different conclusions could be drawn. I recently demonstrated this to DTOM with contrasting polls on the very same subject from what I remember. Take a look........
http://blogs.wsj.com/informedreader/2007/1...-known-unkowns/
The quote below is from the link above............
QUOTE
In Iraq, poorly phrased questions make it especially easy for politicians to cherry-pick results. For instance, Matthew Warshaw, a senior manager at Virginia-based polling company D3 Systems Inc., says , in general, many Iraqis tell pollsters they want the U.S. to leave Iraq but that they also fear the violence that could follow, ťan attitude that sometimes leads to apparently contradictory results. A poll by D3 in January 2005 found that only 35% of Iraqis wanted the U.S. out within six months. A similar poll by the British government, which was leaked that September, showed that more than 80% of Iraqis opposed the presence of coalition troops.
Hmm ok, two polls conducted the same year, on the same issue giving results that differed by a whopping 45%. Thats interesting wouldn't ya say?
I don't know who coined the phrase "easy for politicians to cherry-pick results" but right on. This is just the type of thing I love to expose. Now supposing Ron Paul were to tell you what the popular opinion is in Iraq, what type of poll would he choose to reveal? Would he be a man and explain the complexities of the situation, or tell the American people what they expect, and in some cases even want to hear? Well Id say thats something to think about.
QUOTE
QUOTE
Ok fair enough, I see what your getting at. Thing is that I don't believe the first gulf war ever ended. In 1991 we gave the Saddam regime an unprecedented blow, but we failed to take out the one responsible for building that empire into what it was. Throughout the 90's Bill Clinton responded to continued aggression from that regime, including an assassination plot to kill former president Bush. As well as Saddam's ongoing desire to develop WMD as well as delivery systems for those WMD. Genocide had continued in Iraq, and Saddam had already demonstrated that he was willing to use anything at his disposal to rule that part of the world. So the difference here is that we were already dealing with someone who had proved his will, and ability to spread terror.
So what stopped Saddam from repeating what he did in the late 80's - early 90's?
So what stopped Saddam from repeating what he did in the late 80's - early 90's?
What stopped him was that he got annihilated and kicked out of Kuwait. We didn't have to do a thing after that. Were he to attempt this again, we could always go back. We wasted valuable resources and undermined our security by sitting out in Saudi and flying 24/7 over Iraqi airspace for over a decade. Billions and billions of waste, while also enraging Muslims who didn't wish to have us parked in Mecca. Our Middle East foreign policy post-Gulf war is not laudable at all.
We didn't have to do a thing after that? Well tell me what you have to reveal to me that shows me he grew a heart after 1991, or that he lost his ability to rally support for his dictatorship after 1991. You wanted to get specific about this, so we might as well. Now supposing you had the time to read that very long post of mine, which I understand wasn't for everyone, but if you read the section in regards to Saddam you would know the genocide and death he was responsible for. I wanted my sources in that post to be honest, and informative, and in it I explain everything I know of Saddam, what he was responsible for, and why he was still a threat after 1991. I was very specific about it, so as a kind gesture from one poster to another I encourage you to give it a look over, if you haven't. I turned the Saddam section into its own post here............
http://www.americasdebate.com/forums/index...mp;#entry230730
Or if you think I'm the type to tell tales, you can look up Operation Desert Fox, which occurred in 1998, and find out about why we were striking Iraqi air bases at that time, its interesting stuff.
QUOTE
QUOTE
You look at a poor president, one of the poorest in modern history, then you criticize him as you should, and just as I do. However where you and so many others have misplaced there criticism is at other Republicans in support of the war. You think to yourself this war has been a failure, its a failure because of Republican George Bush, and therefore republicans all stand for the same thing, well so long as they support winning the war that is.
Ron Paul is the hero to the left because he spites bush, thats it.
Ron Paul is the hero to the left because he spites bush, thats it.
No, that's not it. Ron Paul wants to see a change in the direction of our foreign policy, which started before Bush. He has remained absolutely consistent on this point. He sees the current direction for the fiasco it is.
I never claimed that he was inconsistent, only wrong. I don't believe in his overall premise on foreign policy. He takes an overall negative tone on taking an active military role in the world, which is often necessary. The thing is I know that his criticisms are on our foreign policies even before bush came into power. Ive heard him make the criticisms of former policies, What I suggested is that the stance he takes with bush is a popular one to the left, whether or not he always had the same position.
Right now people need a finger to point and a person to blame, when the truth is this war is bigger than any one man, sure bush messed up, I say it all the time. This however is being used, used, and used again to rally campaign support. Now I don't take the same position on everyone, I consider myself fair. Ever notice that Ive left Obama out of most of the types of accusations I throw at Ron Paul?
Obama doesn't believe in this war at all, and while I disagre with him on that and always will, I respect his position because I get a sense of integrity from this man. I get the feeling he says what he does because its what he truly believes. Now while Ron Paul may believe in what he preaches as well he additionally does more blaming than just about anyone ive seen, and to tell us all something everyone knows by now if not living in a cave of course, I know that the failure we have seen in this war has been largely bushes fault. I want to hear somebody talk more about themselves, and what they're going to do rather than playing this burnt out blame Republicans or conservatives for anything and everything card to get the support of all the Cruisingram's in the world and no offense to Cruisingram, but a part of me almost believes a Conservative must have stole his Car, and with a screen name like his that cant be good.
QUOTE
QUOTE
It would be so interesting to see how far Hillary or Ron Paul would have gotten, if this war was already won, and Bush was actually a successful president. Think about it, you know what I think? Theres nothing unique about either one of these candidates, just like many candidates before them, they fill your heads with promises of change, and a better America.
Yes, obviously if Bush had been successful he'd have a lot more support and his adversaries would have less support. Leaders are responsible for the decisions they make. We do elect them for that purpose.
Yes but other Republicans running for president had nothing to do with how the Bush administration decided to fight this war, thats the whole point. This is misplaced fear, through typical labeling. "If one republican is a failure fighting a war, all others will be as well, just like that." People should be more willing to separate the word "war" from the word "failure" they don't go hand in hand like white on rice you know. This war has failed under one presidency, which also happened to be one of the poorest in modern history, there were obvious decisions which were made throughout this war which all help to explain the difficult time we've had in Iraq.
Dontreadonme
QUOTE
QUOTE(net2007 Today @ 04:25 AM )
You give a substantial amount of focus and emphasis on only the facts that help you to project that this war is unwinable, while you brush off everything else as insignificant. Ive seen you do it, Ive even quoted you doing it.
No net, I've provided you with something your posts have consistantly lacked, context and nuance. Well, that and the other side of the story, the side that doesn't come from the MNC-I press release page. You lack the same in your posts about Huckabee. You state that you support him because 'he wants to win the war, and he comes off as genuine.' Is your standard for a candidate really that shallow?
Nonsense, you know that I've consistently told the side of the story that your fixated on. I have criticized bush, I have called this war a mess, again and again. You know this, and you know I could pull this up in quotes as well. But nice description of You if anything.
QUOTE
QUOTE
No they don't, you see thats a spin. Most of them support winning the war but their policies all vary, as well as their approaches. There are literaly hundreds of varied strategies one could use, so fighting the war does not mean "No Change"
Another flaw in your arguments is the premise that we will definitely, no matter what, by god, win in Iraq. So in your mind, everybody who doesn't agree with you, doesn't support winning. Nice framing, I think you should quit video games and go into politics.
Aww come on now lets not be bitter what do ya say? However my only response to a comment like that is back what you say. If thats how you want to be, quote me saying at any time, ever on this entire site, that we will definitely, no matter what, win in Iraq. I'm afraid your going to come up short on that one. Also I support winning the war, so if someone doesn't believe what I do ((That we shout try and win)) It means they don't want to win, or that they don't think we can win. I'm not condemning that, and Ive never humbled my opinion above others. Anything else?
QUOTE
QUOTE
Or as you vaguely put it have been "Democrat or Republican" I don't believe a single one of our presidents on either side was a nut case out to take advantage of the weak.
Who has defiled our Constitution and been responsible for more lives lost, Bush or AQ?
AQ, because you cant pin the thousands of Iraqi and Afghan civilian deaths, caused mostly by insurgents including AQ, on one man thousands of miles away.
Thats ridiculous, the situation is more complex than you let on, as usual. Bushes bad strategies have lead to a war lasting much longer than would have been necessary, in turn he does hold a certain amount of blame. Here's where your spin comes in however, George bush did not go to war in Iraq with the sole intent of killing people, AQ on 9/11 came here to do just that, nothing else. Kill innocent non combatant civilians on purpose.
You know how much that says to me right there? It says you believe the president is a Mass murderer no better than Bin Laden himself. Unbelievable.
QUOTE
BTW....Kayos is spelled Chaos. That was my point.
Oops, lol
QUOTE(net2007 Yesterday @ 11:07 PM )
Nonsense, you know that I've consistently told the side of the story that your fixated on. I have criticized bush, I have called this war a mess, again and again. You know this, and you know I could pull this up in quotes as well.
Your acceptance of the down sides in Iraq have consisted solely of, and I quote, "things are a mess" and "mistakes have been made". You were not the poster writing of the complexities of the militia vs. government situation, nor of the role religion and the Imams are playing. Your 'telling' of the other side of the story has been without context, without nuance and without depth. And so far, none of the mainstream Republican candidates have profferred any solution to those problems.
QUOTE
Here's where your spin comes in however, George bush did not go to war in Iraq with the sole intent of killing people, AQ on 9/11 came here to do just that, nothing else. Kill innocent non combatant civilians on purpose.
OBL voluntarily and intentionally decided to attack or facilitate the attacks on 9/11, agreed? OBL can be held responsible for the deaths of over 3,000 Americans, agreed? Bush voluntarily and intentionally invaded Iraq, where almost 4,000 American deaths have occurred, agreed? So why isn't Bush to be held responsible for those deaths? Nowhere did I equate Bush and OBL, I simply brought to bear the things they should be held responsible for. Not to mention the assault on the Constitution, in a frenzied knee jerk reaction to 9/11. Who pushed the Patriot Act through?
QUOTE
This is misplaced fear, through typical labeling. "If one republican is a failure fighting a war, all others will be as well, just like that." People should be more willing to separate the word "war" from the word "failure" they don't go hand in hand like white on rice you know.
When the candidates pursue a continuance of the same foreign policy, they go hand in hand. Concerning whether or not Iraqi's want us to leave, don't limit yourself to the polls, look at the actions and words of the Iraqi Parliment. Put yourself in the shoes of an Iraqi, and watch western infidels invade your nation, set themselves up in all of the former tyrants palaces, and attempt to rule the nation as a colonial master, with western values. Wouldn't you want them to leave?
Tell us this, as a Huckabee supporter, what would win him the votes of dissaffected and dissatisfied conservatives? What separates him from Bush, who has acted like anything but a conservative? What does Huckabee offer in the way of consitutionaly sanctioned policies?
QUOTE(Dontreadonme @ Jan 6 2008, 05:11 PM) 
OBL voluntarily and intentionally decided to attack or facilitate the attacks on 9/11, agreed? OBL can be held responsible for the deaths of over 3,000 Americans, agreed? Bush voluntarily and intentionally invaded Iraq, where almost 4,000 American deaths have occurred, agreed? So why isn't Bush to be held responsible for those deaths? Nowhere did I equate Bush and OBL, I simply brought to bear the things they should be held responsible for. Not to mention the assault on the Constitution, in a frenzied knee jerk reaction to 9/11. Who pushed the Patriot Act through?
Not that I like splitting hairs, but let us not forget the other elected officials that voted to go to war and have not voted to end it. Including those that voted for the war that are on the Intelligence committee that see the same intel the president gets to see. The Commander in Cheif does not get to go to war on a whim. He may have pushed the Patriot Act through, but he did not pass it. As long as congress is held to the same standard, especially since they have the ability to stop the war today. Every elected official, including Bush, that has been in office since 2003 and have not consistantly stood up against the war should be held accountable, if accountability is required.
Dontreadonme
Your acceptance of the down sides in Iraq have consisted solely of, and I quote, "things are a mess" and "mistakes have been made". You were not the poster writing of the complexities of the militia vs. government situation, nor of the role religion and the Imams are playing. Your 'telling' of the other side of the story has been without context, without nuance and without depth. And so far, none of the mainstream Republican candidates have profferred any solution to those problems.
Thats not true, and Ill prove it for you. You want to hear more than a slap on the wrist dont you? I don't use short, non thorough sound bites just to establish myself as someone willing to critisise a war that he supports, to pass off as reasonable. If I say something Its because I believe it, I've been very detailed about exactly what I think went wrong and why. Ok ready for a more detailed Bush criticism in regards to the war? This is me on this site Oct 17 2007.................
Me again.........
Now I've additionally stated to you directly that even after the success the surge has seen, that we have a long way to go, and I never said there still aren't flaws in Bushes overall strategy, nor have I said this war will be won without a doubt. Be prepared when you put words in my mouth, that you can back what you claim. I have a habit of puling quotes. By the way the text above was from my WOT post, let me know if you want the link again to see me critisise Bushes war policies even more
you.....
OBL voluntarily and intentionally decided to attack or facilitate the attacks on 9/11, agreed?
Agreed
OBL can be held responsible for the deaths of over 3,000 Americans, agreed?
Agreed mostly, although he couldn't have done it alone, others share that responsibility with him of course.
Bush voluntarily and intentionally invaded Iraq, where almost 4,000 American deaths have occurred, agreed?
Agreed
So why isn't Bush to be held responsible for those deaths? Nowhere did I equate Bush and OBL, I simply brought to bear the things they should be held responsible for. Not to mention the assault on the Constitution, in a frenzied knee jerk reaction to 9/11. Who pushed the Patriot Act through?
I agreed with everything basically but your conclusion. Sure bush invaded Iraq, as a result 4000 American soldiers are now dead. Here's the thing, Bush did not invade Iraq so he could kill those 4000 American soldiers. There is the flaw in your ideology, OBL however wanted nothing more than to kill as many innocent people as possible on 9/11. If Bush, or any other president who initiated a war, could push a button and stop terrorism, without anyone dying they would do It. If OBL had a special button it would be to set off a 500 kiloton fusion thermonuclear bomb at both Washington D.C. and in New York.
We all know that the "easy button" doesn't exist, ((that sounded like a freakin Walgreen's commercial)) lol We all know that, and therefore we also know if a president considers war he is considering putting additional American lives at steak. Its one of the unfortunate sacrifices of war, but this does not make our president at all comparable to Bin Laden. He holds responsibility for it to an extent, Ive seen him crying mourning the death of an American soldier he never even knew. You probably missed that one didn't you? Well sorry for sounding patriotic or rational on you there soldier. Our president is not comparable to a terrorist who kills because he likes to see people die. Sometimes I just don't believe my ears anymore, I swear I don't. In all honesty It makes me sad when I hear people make such comparisons, and im not saying it to strike at you or be sarcastic, it really does make me sad realizing some of the things people believe.
When the candidates pursue a continuance of the same foreign policy, they go hand in hand. Concerning whether or not Iraqi's want us to leave, don't limit yourself to the polls, look at the actions and words of the Iraqi Parliment. Put yourself in the shoes of an Iraqi, and watch western infidels invade your nation, set themselves up in all of the former tyrants palaces, and attempt to rule the nation as a colonial master, with western values. Wouldn't you want them to leave?
Tell us this, as a Huckabee supporter, what would win him the votes of disaffected and dissatisfied conservatives? What separates him from Bush, who has acted like anything but a conservative? What does Huckabee offer in the way of constitutionally sanctioned policies?
If I was spoon fed propaganda then I don't know what Id believe, hell I've seen people here in the States spoon fed propaganda and spins, let alone trying to imagine what its like for Iraqis, some of whom really don't know who their friends and enemies are. I'm not in a position to answer that, but I will say that if I knew what I know now, and knew how many fine American soldiers, men and women alike, really want nothing more than to make their country a better place, then id welcome us with smiles and even hugs man.
Regarding Huckabee I'll get into that for you sometime this week, the Republicans are about to debate and I don't want to miss it. If not tomorrow, then by Friday, I'm going to be quite busy this week, but probably before Friday I tell you what I think separates the two.
QUOTE
QUOTE(net2007 Yesterday @ 11:07 PM )
Nonsense, you know that I've consistently told the side of the story that your fixated on. I have criticized bush, I have called this war a mess, again and again. You know this, and you know I could pull this up in quotes as well.
Your acceptance of the down sides in Iraq have consisted solely of, and I quote, "things are a mess" and "mistakes have been made". You were not the poster writing of the complexities of the militia vs. government situation, nor of the role religion and the Imams are playing. Your 'telling' of the other side of the story has been without context, without nuance and without depth. And so far, none of the mainstream Republican candidates have profferred any solution to those problems.
Thats not true, and Ill prove it for you. You want to hear more than a slap on the wrist dont you? I don't use short, non thorough sound bites just to establish myself as someone willing to critisise a war that he supports, to pass off as reasonable. If I say something Its because I believe it, I've been very detailed about exactly what I think went wrong and why. Ok ready for a more detailed Bush criticism in regards to the war? This is me on this site Oct 17 2007.................
QUOTE
Obviously something hasn't been working regarding how we are handling Iraq's failure to meet important benchmarks, this is extremely important and we need to do everything we can to change that, afteral what good are our military successes there, if they are not met with political steps forward with Iraq?
Another thing is if I were president fighting a war like this I'd do everything in my power to make sure the American public as well as those throughout the middle east know exactly what I'm doing and why I'm doing it. We shouldn't be in a situation where Americans are confused, and some Iraqis even think we are their to harm them. While this is certainly not entirely his fault, making frequent public statements that are sincere and to the point would be something Id really focus on. Heck some Americans think our primary reason for going into Iraq, was WOMD. It was listed as a major concern but as I've shown, our main objective from the start of the war was to take out Saddam and stabilize the region. Miscommunication such as that has worked against him.
Beyond Communication, you have a bit of stubbornness and an unusual amount of loyalty for those who in some cases have made poor decisions and thats another thing thats come back on him. I really don't understand why he stuck with Rumsfeld for as long as he did, the approach he used lead to continued failure thought the years. Other things like his support for the recently failed immigration reform bill which was neither pleasing those in favor or against amnesty for illegals, really had me wondering what he was thinking.
To put it shortly George Bush is far from the shining example of the best Republican leader. At least in my view, but he is not the Anti-Christ either.
Another thing is if I were president fighting a war like this I'd do everything in my power to make sure the American public as well as those throughout the middle east know exactly what I'm doing and why I'm doing it. We shouldn't be in a situation where Americans are confused, and some Iraqis even think we are their to harm them. While this is certainly not entirely his fault, making frequent public statements that are sincere and to the point would be something Id really focus on. Heck some Americans think our primary reason for going into Iraq, was WOMD. It was listed as a major concern but as I've shown, our main objective from the start of the war was to take out Saddam and stabilize the region. Miscommunication such as that has worked against him.
Beyond Communication, you have a bit of stubbornness and an unusual amount of loyalty for those who in some cases have made poor decisions and thats another thing thats come back on him. I really don't understand why he stuck with Rumsfeld for as long as he did, the approach he used lead to continued failure thought the years. Other things like his support for the recently failed immigration reform bill which was neither pleasing those in favor or against amnesty for illegals, really had me wondering what he was thinking.
To put it shortly George Bush is far from the shining example of the best Republican leader. At least in my view, but he is not the Anti-Christ either.
Me again.........
QUOTE
Even more interesting to me is whats listed under the Bush Administration at that same site, toward the end of the Clinton administration we had 1,403,858 active troops according to that site, what happens under the Bush administration is only a marginal increase in active troops by about 14,000. I'm under the impression that although the numbers above do not include the reserve troops, that the smaller our active forces are, the smaller our reserve is as well in general. So my point in bringing up these figures is to ask an important question. Now Bill Clinton may have made a mistake in reducing our overall forces too much when others before him had already done what was probably the necessary downsizing after the war in Vietnam, but my question is why after 9/11 did we not see a drastic buildup in the number of troops in our military in preparation for initiating our war against terror?
The answer to that is there are those who said we didn't need to go into Iraq or Afghanistan with the amount we went into Iraq in Desert Storm, primarily Bush and former secretary of defense Donald Rumsfeld, buts lets be realistic here in remembering that our success has been rather limited based on this plan that was focused on for too long, in my opinion. To further explain this lets talk about Donald Rumsfeld and the Rumsfeld doctrine. Former Secretary of defense Donald Rumsfeld creator of the infamous Rumsfeld doctrine believed that our military was bulky and ineffective due to its size. He believed that we should use small nimble ground forces, and substitute that with overwhelming air support.
The answer to that is there are those who said we didn't need to go into Iraq or Afghanistan with the amount we went into Iraq in Desert Storm, primarily Bush and former secretary of defense Donald Rumsfeld, buts lets be realistic here in remembering that our success has been rather limited based on this plan that was focused on for too long, in my opinion. To further explain this lets talk about Donald Rumsfeld and the Rumsfeld doctrine. Former Secretary of defense Donald Rumsfeld creator of the infamous Rumsfeld doctrine believed that our military was bulky and ineffective due to its size. He believed that we should use small nimble ground forces, and substitute that with overwhelming air support.
Now I've additionally stated to you directly that even after the success the surge has seen, that we have a long way to go, and I never said there still aren't flaws in Bushes overall strategy, nor have I said this war will be won without a doubt. Be prepared when you put words in my mouth, that you can back what you claim. I have a habit of puling quotes. By the way the text above was from my WOT post, let me know if you want the link again to see me critisise Bushes war policies even more
QUOTE
Here's where your spin comes in however, George bush did not go to war in Iraq with the sole intent of killing people, AQ on 9/11 came here to do just that, nothing else. Kill innocent non combatant civilians on purpose.
you.....
OBL voluntarily and intentionally decided to attack or facilitate the attacks on 9/11, agreed?
Agreed
OBL can be held responsible for the deaths of over 3,000 Americans, agreed?
Agreed mostly, although he couldn't have done it alone, others share that responsibility with him of course.
Bush voluntarily and intentionally invaded Iraq, where almost 4,000 American deaths have occurred, agreed?
Agreed
So why isn't Bush to be held responsible for those deaths? Nowhere did I equate Bush and OBL, I simply brought to bear the things they should be held responsible for. Not to mention the assault on the Constitution, in a frenzied knee jerk reaction to 9/11. Who pushed the Patriot Act through?
I agreed with everything basically but your conclusion. Sure bush invaded Iraq, as a result 4000 American soldiers are now dead. Here's the thing, Bush did not invade Iraq so he could kill those 4000 American soldiers. There is the flaw in your ideology, OBL however wanted nothing more than to kill as many innocent people as possible on 9/11. If Bush, or any other president who initiated a war, could push a button and stop terrorism, without anyone dying they would do It. If OBL had a special button it would be to set off a 500 kiloton fusion thermonuclear bomb at both Washington D.C. and in New York.
We all know that the "easy button" doesn't exist, ((that sounded like a freakin Walgreen's commercial)) lol We all know that, and therefore we also know if a president considers war he is considering putting additional American lives at steak. Its one of the unfortunate sacrifices of war, but this does not make our president at all comparable to Bin Laden. He holds responsibility for it to an extent, Ive seen him crying mourning the death of an American soldier he never even knew. You probably missed that one didn't you? Well sorry for sounding patriotic or rational on you there soldier. Our president is not comparable to a terrorist who kills because he likes to see people die. Sometimes I just don't believe my ears anymore, I swear I don't. In all honesty It makes me sad when I hear people make such comparisons, and im not saying it to strike at you or be sarcastic, it really does make me sad realizing some of the things people believe.
QUOTE
QUOTE
This is misplaced fear, through typical labeling. "If one republican is a failure fighting a war, all others will be as well, just like that." People should be more willing to separate the word "war" from the word "failure" they don't go hand in hand like white on rice you know.
When the candidates pursue a continuance of the same foreign policy, they go hand in hand. Concerning whether or not Iraqi's want us to leave, don't limit yourself to the polls, look at the actions and words of the Iraqi Parliment. Put yourself in the shoes of an Iraqi, and watch western infidels invade your nation, set themselves up in all of the former tyrants palaces, and attempt to rule the nation as a colonial master, with western values. Wouldn't you want them to leave?
Tell us this, as a Huckabee supporter, what would win him the votes of disaffected and dissatisfied conservatives? What separates him from Bush, who has acted like anything but a conservative? What does Huckabee offer in the way of constitutionally sanctioned policies?
If I was spoon fed propaganda then I don't know what Id believe, hell I've seen people here in the States spoon fed propaganda and spins, let alone trying to imagine what its like for Iraqis, some of whom really don't know who their friends and enemies are. I'm not in a position to answer that, but I will say that if I knew what I know now, and knew how many fine American soldiers, men and women alike, really want nothing more than to make their country a better place, then id welcome us with smiles and even hugs man.
Regarding Huckabee I'll get into that for you sometime this week, the Republicans are about to debate and I don't want to miss it. If not tomorrow, then by Friday, I'm going to be quite busy this week, but probably before Friday I tell you what I think separates the two.
QUOTE(net2007 Today @ 03:57 AM )
Ok ready for a more detailed Bush criticism in regards to the war?
I'm sorry, I thought you were going to provide something detailed. I re-read your numbingly long post on the GWOT, which you persist Iraq is a part of, and it is filled with many, many........many words, but when it comes to being intellectually honest about the failures in Iraq, it falls.....flat.
QUOTE
I tell you what I think separates the two.
I'm not just interested in what separates Huckabee from Bush, what are his selling points? Unless you are implying that he's the candidate of choice because he's not Bush.
Dontreadonme
I'm sorry, I thought you were going to provide something detailed. I re-read your numbingly long post on the GWOT, which you persist Iraq is a part of, and it is filled with many, many........many words, but when it comes to being intellectually honest about the failures in Iraq, it falls.....flat.
Your welcome to any opinion you wish but everything I figured would require a leap of faith in belief for anyone, I provided a creditable link for. With almost 100 links total. Your idea that it was just a bunch of words was to be expected from you. You no doubt disagre with the overall message of that post, and therefore would be prone to criticize it which I welcome, however I was quick in distinguishing fact from opinion, and had links to back up nearly every fact, if you disagre with my overall conclusions, Oh well. Like I said no surprise there, I disagre with many of yours as well. Most recently you, a soldier, comparing our president to a terrorist which you did in just the last couple days.
I'm not just interested in what separates Huckabee from Bush, what are his selling points? Unless you are implying that he's the candidate of choice because he's not Bush.
Ok regarding Huckabee I just want to make it clear that he is not the only Republican candidate I support, although he is the one I personally like the most, I also like McCain, and even Guliani to an extent.
Now first of all like McCain Mike Huckabee is critical of many of Bushes war strategies, yet he supports winning the war and facing other terrorist threats in the future with strong military presence when necessary. I agree with him here, but he differs from bush in many aspects. For example Bush says to our allies "your either with us or against us" Huckabee much like myself has directly spoke out against that kind of mentality, calling it "polarizing". Huckabee has said that having someone support you 80% of the way is better than them not supporting you at all, and bush sends out the wrong kind of message when he says such things.
Apart from war related issues if you look at his stance on immigration it pretty much mirrors my own beliefs. Huckabee says that he wants to secure the boarder ASAP, and stop the flow of illegals into this country with an iron fist. Now additionally he says that he wants to send illegals in this country back to Mexico, and if they are not criminals they could then get in line to become citizens legally. His only exception to this are the children of Illegal immigrants who he believes should at least be given the option to stay, because they should not be punished for a crime their parents committed. Although this is controversial, I have agreed with this before I even knew Huckabee felt the same way. The reality is that most families would want to stick together and they would take their children with them anyway, but he wants to provide the families with children born in the U.S. with the option to decide what is best for their children. I consider that humane, and rational. Those children afteral are not responsible for a crime that was committed before they were born.
Now when you get past certain key political issues beyond anything what separates Mike from someone like Bush the most is his demeanor and personality. I see Bush as a divider , in a similar way Hillary is. Bush has been one of the worst presidents in history at communicating with the American people, with communicating with other countries, and with communicating with the opposing political party. Communication is one of the best overall ways to get noticed, and rally support which often times can make all the difference regardless of policy. Mike Huckabee has had a surge in popularity primarily for this reason. He's talking more about his campaign than others compared to him. He has increasingly been seen as the down to earth Republican candidate, who will sooner remind you of the guy you worked with, rather than the guy who laid you off. So this is what it has boiled down to overall.
He is about to take 3rd in New Hampshire which is a particuarly tough state for him, that a month ago nobody figured he would be competing in at all. I believe just before what happened in Iowa, Ron Paul was figured to be the candidate to come in third there. I think his image is catching on and that the key to his success will be many of the southern states where he is already seen as the front runner. There is a good chance he could be the Republican choice for next November, but the race is still very much undecided overall. If he doesn't get the nomination, I'm hoping McCain does, because McCain shares many of his qualities.
John McCain seems to be the winner tonight in New Hampshire, and they haven't yet called the democratic race their yet. Because of how the democratic race is conducted it usually takes longer than the Republican race come to find out. Its between Obama and Hillary though.
QUOTE
QUOTE(net2007 Today @ 03:57 AM )
Ok ready for a more detailed Bush criticism in regards to the war?
I'm sorry, I thought you were going to provide something detailed. I re-read your numbingly long post on the GWOT, which you persist Iraq is a part of, and it is filled with many, many........many words, but when it comes to being intellectually honest about the failures in Iraq, it falls.....flat.
Your welcome to any opinion you wish but everything I figured would require a leap of faith in belief for anyone, I provided a creditable link for. With almost 100 links total. Your idea that it was just a bunch of words was to be expected from you. You no doubt disagre with the overall message of that post, and therefore would be prone to criticize it which I welcome, however I was quick in distinguishing fact from opinion, and had links to back up nearly every fact, if you disagre with my overall conclusions, Oh well. Like I said no surprise there, I disagre with many of yours as well. Most recently you, a soldier, comparing our president to a terrorist which you did in just the last couple days.
QUOTE
QUOTE
I tell you what I think separates the two.
I'm not just interested in what separates Huckabee from Bush, what are his selling points? Unless you are implying that he's the candidate of choice because he's not Bush.
Ok regarding Huckabee I just want to make it clear that he is not the only Republican candidate I support, although he is the one I personally like the most, I also like McCain, and even Guliani to an extent.
Now first of all like McCain Mike Huckabee is critical of many of Bushes war strategies, yet he supports winning the war and facing other terrorist threats in the future with strong military presence when necessary. I agree with him here, but he differs from bush in many aspects. For example Bush says to our allies "your either with us or against us" Huckabee much like myself has directly spoke out against that kind of mentality, calling it "polarizing". Huckabee has said that having someone support you 80% of the way is better than them not supporting you at all, and bush sends out the wrong kind of message when he says such things.
Apart from war related issues if you look at his stance on immigration it pretty much mirrors my own beliefs. Huckabee says that he wants to secure the boarder ASAP, and stop the flow of illegals into this country with an iron fist. Now additionally he says that he wants to send illegals in this country back to Mexico, and if they are not criminals they could then get in line to become citizens legally. His only exception to this are the children of Illegal immigrants who he believes should at least be given the option to stay, because they should not be punished for a crime their parents committed. Although this is controversial, I have agreed with this before I even knew Huckabee felt the same way. The reality is that most families would want to stick together and they would take their children with them anyway, but he wants to provide the families with children born in the U.S. with the option to decide what is best for their children. I consider that humane, and rational. Those children afteral are not responsible for a crime that was committed before they were born.
Now when you get past certain key political issues beyond anything what separates Mike from someone like Bush the most is his demeanor and personality. I see Bush as a divider , in a similar way Hillary is. Bush has been one of the worst presidents in history at communicating with the American people, with communicating with other countries, and with communicating with the opposing political party. Communication is one of the best overall ways to get noticed, and rally support which often times can make all the difference regardless of policy. Mike Huckabee has had a surge in popularity primarily for this reason. He's talking more about his campaign than others compared to him. He has increasingly been seen as the down to earth Republican candidate, who will sooner remind you of the guy you worked with, rather than the guy who laid you off. So this is what it has boiled down to overall.
He is about to take 3rd in New Hampshire which is a particuarly tough state for him, that a month ago nobody figured he would be competing in at all. I believe just before what happened in Iowa, Ron Paul was figured to be the candidate to come in third there. I think his image is catching on and that the key to his success will be many of the southern states where he is already seen as the front runner. There is a good chance he could be the Republican choice for next November, but the race is still very much undecided overall. If he doesn't get the nomination, I'm hoping McCain does, because McCain shares many of his qualities.
John McCain seems to be the winner tonight in New Hampshire, and they haven't yet called the democratic race their yet. Because of how the democratic race is conducted it usually takes longer than the Republican race come to find out. Its between Obama and Hillary though.
QUOTE(net2007 @ Jan 9 2008, 04:13 AM)
Most recently you, a soldier, comparing our president to a terrorist which you did in just the last couple days.
No net, I said that Bush could easily be compared to a "nut case out there who will take advantage of the weak". After you spun that to mean I compared him to a terrorist, I responded with the obvious fact that Bush has damaged the US through his anti-Constitutional policies AND been responsible for more American deaths than AQ. When did I call Bush terrorist? I mean in writing, not in your mind.......
Your previous 'criticism' of Bush was feeling based and not very substantitive. "We shouldn't be in a situation where Americans are confused"? Not exactly filled with barbs and arrows from someone who has earlier stated that this has been one of the worst administrations in recent history.
QUOTE
He has increasingly been seen as the down to earth Republican candidate, who will sooner remind you of the guy you worked with, rather than the guy who laid you off. So this is what it has boiled down to overall.
I agree with you that Huckabee is likeable. He seems genuine most times, and you'd want to invite him over for a barbeque. But that isn't the qualities I'm looking for in a leader. I'm not voting someone into office based on personality.
His support for Bush's war policy has been lacking in depth, as far as his vision goes. Of course the MSM has concentrated more on the "who supported the surge first" argument between he and Romney. It's clear the present policy in Iraq will not yield the stated goal of this administration, I'm still waiting for any Republican candidate besides Paul to come forth with something feasible and rational.
I like that he supports the Fair Tax, or at least a reform of the current tax structure, and that he would drill in ANWR, but quite frankly I haven't been able to discern what is lip service to appease the base, and what may be his actual vision. The 'front runners' appear to be trying to play 'who's more conservative'. I'm also wary of a candidate who has such an evangelical base of support.
At least Huckebee isn't the candidate who uttered "The United States military could stay in Iraq for maybe a hundred years and that would be fine with me". That would be the former maverick, John McCain.
After the event ended, I asked McCain about his "hundred years" comment, and he reaffirmed the remark, excitedly declaring that U.S. troops could be in Iraq for "a thousand years" or "a million years," as far as he was concerned. The key matter, he explained, was whether they were being killed or not: "It's not American presence; it's American casualties." U.S. troops, he continued, are stationed in South Korea, Japan, Europe, Bosnia, and elsewhere as part of a "generally accepted policy of America's multilateralism." There's nothing wrong with Iraq being part of that policy, providing the government in Baghdad does not object.
Link
Dontreadonme
No net, I said that Bush could easily be compared to a "nut case out there who will take advantage of the weak". After you spun that to mean I compared him to a terrorist, I responded with the obvious fact that Bush has damaged the US through his anti-Constitutional policies AND been responsible for more American deaths than AQ. When did I call Bush terrorist? I mean in writing, not in your mind.......
Your previous 'criticism' of Bush was feeling based and not very substantitive. "We shouldn't be in a situation where Americans are confused"? Not exactly filled with barbs and arrows from someone who has earlier stated that this has been one of the worst administrations in recent history.
Oh No, you made the comparisons which is exactly what you intended to do, I'm not stupid. This is what you said in just the last few days........
You Again......
Then again you say Bush could easily be compared to a "nut case out there who will take advantage of the weak" You have made the comparisons several times, and I don't make claims I'm not willing to back, unlike some aparently will do. Just own up to it, you compare our president to a terrorist. Its right there in your own words. Although you conveniently deny doing it. Its aparently not just one occasion either, you keep doing it. Sometimes its as vague as simply saying our president is comparable to a nut case out there who will take advantage of the weak, which is practically the definition of a terrorist, other times you have asked side by side questions on both Bin Laden, and our president at the same time to make comparisons that way. I wont say anything on anyone unless I have reason to, and I can back it. You made the comparisons, own up to it.
I agree with you that Huckabee is likeable. He seems genuine most times, and you'd want to invite him over for a barbeque. But that isn't the qualities I'm looking for in a leader. I'm not voting someone into office based on personality.
His support for Bush's war policy has been lacking in depth, as far as his vision goes. Of course the MSM has concentrated more on the "who supported the surge first" argument between he and Romney. It's clear the present policy in Iraq will not yield the stated goal of this administration, I'm still waiting for any Republican candidate besides Paul to come forth with something feasible and rational.
I like that he supports the Fair Tax, or at least a reform of the current tax structure, and that he would drill in ANWR, but quite frankly I haven't been able to discern what is lip service to appease the base, and what may be his actual vision. The 'front runners' appear to be trying to play 'who's more conservative'.
At least Huckebee isn't the candidate who uttered "The United States military could stay in Iraq for maybe a hundred years and that would be fine with me". That would be the former maverick, John McCain.
After the event ended, I asked McCain about his "hundred years" comment, and he reaffirmed the remark, excitedly declaring that U.S. troops could be in Iraq for "a thousand years" or "a million years," as far as he was concerned. The key matter, he explained, was whether they were being killed or not: "It's not American presence; it's American casualties." U.S. troops, he continued, are stationed in South Korea, Japan, Europe, Bosnia, and elsewhere as part of a "generally accepted policy of America's multilateralism." There's nothing wrong with Iraq being part of that policy, providing the government in Baghdad does not object.
Link
Well personality is not the only reason I like Huckabee, but it is important. Personality can do a lot to hurt or help a president in foreign affairs, and regarding how well he can promote ideas. I gave examples of policies which I agree with of his, and additionally the fair tax sounds like a plausible idea which I also support. Much funding has gone into research on the fair tax, it is a creditable and well established concept. So its also things like this that gives him my support.
I respect your position on McCain as well but I disagree with it in general. The war seems to be a large determining factor for you just as it is with me, but you have to understand that none of these front runners are bush. McCain has criticized Bush and Rumsdeld from the get go, just as I have. He does not agree with how this war has been fought nor does Huckabee, and they have made specific statements on ideas which they both considered mistakes.
Support for the war, is not support for the status quo.
QUOTE
QUOTE(net2007 @ Jan 9 2008, 04:13 AM)
Most recently you, a soldier, comparing our president to a terrorist which you did in just the last couple days.
No net, I said that Bush could easily be compared to a "nut case out there who will take advantage of the weak". After you spun that to mean I compared him to a terrorist, I responded with the obvious fact that Bush has damaged the US through his anti-Constitutional policies AND been responsible for more American deaths than AQ. When did I call Bush terrorist? I mean in writing, not in your mind.......
Your previous 'criticism' of Bush was feeling based and not very substantitive. "We shouldn't be in a situation where Americans are confused"? Not exactly filled with barbs and arrows from someone who has earlier stated that this has been one of the worst administrations in recent history.
Oh No, you made the comparisons which is exactly what you intended to do, I'm not stupid. This is what you said in just the last few days........
QUOTE
OBL voluntarily and intentionally decided to attack or facilitate the attacks on 9/11, agreed? OBL can be held responsible for the deaths of over 3,000 Americans, agreed? Bush voluntarily and intentionally invaded Iraq, where almost 4,000 American deaths have occurred, agreed? So why isn't Bush to be held responsible for those deaths? Nowhere did I equate Bush and OBL, I simply brought to bear the things they should be held responsible for. Not to mention the assault on the Constitution, in a frenzied knee jerk reaction to 9/11. Who pushed the Patriot Act through?
You Again......
QUOTE
Who has defiled our Constitution and been responsible for more lives lost, Bush or AQ?
Then again you say Bush could easily be compared to a "nut case out there who will take advantage of the weak" You have made the comparisons several times, and I don't make claims I'm not willing to back, unlike some aparently will do. Just own up to it, you compare our president to a terrorist. Its right there in your own words. Although you conveniently deny doing it. Its aparently not just one occasion either, you keep doing it. Sometimes its as vague as simply saying our president is comparable to a nut case out there who will take advantage of the weak, which is practically the definition of a terrorist, other times you have asked side by side questions on both Bin Laden, and our president at the same time to make comparisons that way. I wont say anything on anyone unless I have reason to, and I can back it. You made the comparisons, own up to it.
QUOTE
QUOTE
He has increasingly been seen as the down to earth Republican candidate, who will sooner remind you of the guy you worked with, rather than the guy who laid you off. So this is what it has boiled down to overall.
I agree with you that Huckabee is likeable. He seems genuine most times, and you'd want to invite him over for a barbeque. But that isn't the qualities I'm looking for in a leader. I'm not voting someone into office based on personality.
His support for Bush's war policy has been lacking in depth, as far as his vision goes. Of course the MSM has concentrated more on the "who supported the surge first" argument between he and Romney. It's clear the present policy in Iraq will not yield the stated goal of this administration, I'm still waiting for any Republican candidate besides Paul to come forth with something feasible and rational.
I like that he supports the Fair Tax, or at least a reform of the current tax structure, and that he would drill in ANWR, but quite frankly I haven't been able to discern what is lip service to appease the base, and what may be his actual vision. The 'front runners' appear to be trying to play 'who's more conservative'.
At least Huckebee isn't the candidate who uttered "The United States military could stay in Iraq for maybe a hundred years and that would be fine with me". That would be the former maverick, John McCain.
After the event ended, I asked McCain about his "hundred years" comment, and he reaffirmed the remark, excitedly declaring that U.S. troops could be in Iraq for "a thousand years" or "a million years," as far as he was concerned. The key matter, he explained, was whether they were being killed or not: "It's not American presence; it's American casualties." U.S. troops, he continued, are stationed in South Korea, Japan, Europe, Bosnia, and elsewhere as part of a "generally accepted policy of America's multilateralism." There's nothing wrong with Iraq being part of that policy, providing the government in Baghdad does not object.
Link
Well personality is not the only reason I like Huckabee, but it is important. Personality can do a lot to hurt or help a president in foreign affairs, and regarding how well he can promote ideas. I gave examples of policies which I agree with of his, and additionally the fair tax sounds like a plausible idea which I also support. Much funding has gone into research on the fair tax, it is a creditable and well established concept. So its also things like this that gives him my support.
I respect your position on McCain as well but I disagree with it in general. The war seems to be a large determining factor for you just as it is with me, but you have to understand that none of these front runners are bush. McCain has criticized Bush and Rumsdeld from the get go, just as I have. He does not agree with how this war has been fought nor does Huckabee, and they have made specific statements on ideas which they both considered mistakes.
Support for the war, is not support for the status quo.
QUOTE(net2007 @ Jan 9 2008, 05:17 AM)
Oh No, you made the comparisons which is exactly what you intended to do
Ahhh.....so you can divine intent now? Listen, I don't know if english is your second language or if your just being argumentative for the sake of it, but my words were as clear as the spin you are attempting to place on them. And after all that, you still didn't tackle the question. No surprise, but it's probably best left for another thread.
QUOTE
I'm not stupid.
Yeah, I'm not even going to touch that one........
QUOTE
I respect your position on McCain as well but I disagree with it in general.
My stated position on McCain thus far had amounted to my posting of his statement on how many centuries he wouldn't mind staying in Iraq. What is your disagreement exactly?
QUOTE
Support for the war, is not support for the status quo.
When the mainstream candidates are not only supporting the present policies in Iraq, but actually falling over each other trying to be the candidate that supported the surge firstest and mostest.............thats' the status quo.
Dontreadonme
Ahhh.....so you can divine intent now? Listen, I don't know if english is your second language or if your just being argumentative for the sake of it, but my words were as clear as the spin you are attempting to place on them. And after all that, you still didn't tackle the question. No surprise, but it's probably best left for another thread.
There's the "he doesn't understand English" defense again. I came to the conclusion you were comparing Bush to a terrorist, because I understand English, not the other way around. There really is a characteristic in you that wants to take a position, then later deny or try and soften the position when criticized for having it. You know what you said, I know what you said. What more is there to talk about? What you meant? Well say what you mean, and mean what you say, thats my advice.
My stated position on McCain thus far had amounted to my posting of his statement on how many centuries he wouldn't mind staying in Iraq. What is your disagreement exactly?
I didn't hear that one specifically, and if he said it I'm not going to base my support of a candidate on one comment. I don't think anyone believes we will need to be in Iraq that long, and I hope thats not the case, it shouldn't be. John McCain is a true fighter, very patriotic, and he wants to win the war, and that I respect. He also gives me the impression that his position on the war is less political and more heartfelt and personal.
When the mainstream candidates are not only supporting the present policies in Iraq, but actually falling over each other trying to be the candidate that supported the surge firstest and mostest.............thats' the status quo.
No thats your opinion, get it right, and in my opinion its also a spin. The candidates do not support many decisions made by Bush yet support what the left, and Ron Paul want even less. Most of those individuals want to pull out and accept Iraq as a loss. This puts those who support the war in the difficult position of having to deal with a less than perfect president who at the very least does understand the importance of winning in Iraq. You want to conveniently put every candidate who supports the war in the same boat as Bush calling them advocates of the status quo. This helps you to depict them in a similar way you depict Bush, which works in your favor.
But in case you haven't realized, support for the war is no longer the status quo in America, it hasn't been for at least 3 years. People want out, and over half accept Iraq as a loss. That my friend today has become the status quo. The only thing that keeps us their is a presidency committed to staying true to what they committed to originally. If this administrations policies and promoting abilities were as solid as their commitments, they would be going down in history, but unfortunately thats not the case.
You will continue to put a negative spin on pro war candidates, just as you put a negative spin on everything we have achieved in the war itself. Trust me I've seen it before, with all due respect, your about as mysterious to me a wall of drying paint.
QUOTE
QUOTE(net2007 @ Jan 9 2008, 05:17 AM)
Oh No, you made the comparisons which is exactly what you intended to do
Ahhh.....so you can divine intent now? Listen, I don't know if english is your second language or if your just being argumentative for the sake of it, but my words were as clear as the spin you are attempting to place on them. And after all that, you still didn't tackle the question. No surprise, but it's probably best left for another thread.
There's the "he doesn't understand English" defense again. I came to the conclusion you were comparing Bush to a terrorist, because I understand English, not the other way around. There really is a characteristic in you that wants to take a position, then later deny or try and soften the position when criticized for having it. You know what you said, I know what you said. What more is there to talk about? What you meant? Well say what you mean, and mean what you say, thats my advice.
QUOTE
QUOTE
I respect your position on McCain as well but I disagree with it in general.
My stated position on McCain thus far had amounted to my posting of his statement on how many centuries he wouldn't mind staying in Iraq. What is your disagreement exactly?
I didn't hear that one specifically, and if he said it I'm not going to base my support of a candidate on one comment. I don't think anyone believes we will need to be in Iraq that long, and I hope thats not the case, it shouldn't be. John McCain is a true fighter, very patriotic, and he wants to win the war, and that I respect. He also gives me the impression that his position on the war is less political and more heartfelt and personal.
QUOTE
QUOTE
Support for the war, is not support for the status quo.
When the mainstream candidates are not only supporting the present policies in Iraq, but actually falling over each other trying to be the candidate that supported the surge firstest and mostest.............thats' the status quo.
No thats your opinion, get it right, and in my opinion its also a spin. The candidates do not support many decisions made by Bush yet support what the left, and Ron Paul want even less. Most of those individuals want to pull out and accept Iraq as a loss. This puts those who support the war in the difficult position of having to deal with a less than perfect president who at the very least does understand the importance of winning in Iraq. You want to conveniently put every candidate who supports the war in the same boat as Bush calling them advocates of the status quo. This helps you to depict them in a similar way you depict Bush, which works in your favor.
But in case you haven't realized, support for the war is no longer the status quo in America, it hasn't been for at least 3 years. People want out, and over half accept Iraq as a loss. That my friend today has become the status quo. The only thing that keeps us their is a presidency committed to staying true to what they committed to originally. If this administrations policies and promoting abilities were as solid as their commitments, they would be going down in history, but unfortunately thats not the case.
You will continue to put a negative spin on pro war candidates, just as you put a negative spin on everything we have achieved in the war itself. Trust me I've seen it before, with all due respect, your about as mysterious to me a wall of drying paint.
QUOTE(net2007 Today @ 07:54 AM )
I didn't hear that one specifically
I included the link in my last post.
QUOTE
He also gives me the impression that his position on the war is less political and more heartfelt and personal.
Yes, because we already concluded that you can divine intent regardless of what someone says.
QUOTE
You want to conveniently put every candidate who supports the war in the same boat as Bush calling them advocates of the status quo. This helps you to depict them in a similar way you depict Bush, which works in your favor.
Name one mainstream Republican candidate that supports an Iraq policy that is one iota different than Bush's. Bush's policy is the status quo. The mainstream Republican candidates are falling all over themselves trying to be the most supportive candidate of those policies. Voting for those candidates is voting for the status quo. Not to mention government size, constitutional protections, etc...
QUOTE
The only thing that keeps us their is a presidency committed to staying true to what they committed to originally. If this administrations policies and promoting abilities were as solid as their commitments, they would be going down in history, but unfortunately thats not the case.
Let me try my hand at divining intent......
What you're saying is that even if a policy decision turns out to be at the very least a mistake, we as a nation, should attempt to see it through to the bitter end, no matter how many lives or dollars are wasted?
QUOTE
You will continue to put a negative spin on pro war candidates, just as you put a negative spin on everything we have achieved in the war itself.
Well, I will continue to tell the other side of the story; you know........ the parts the cheerleadeing squad leaves out.
Dontreadonme
Name one mainstream Republican candidate that supports an Iraq policy that is one iota different than Bush's. Bush's policy is the status quo. The mainstream Republican candidates are falling all over themselves trying to be the most supportive candidate of those policies. Voting for those candidates is voting for the status quo. Not to mention government size, constitutional protections, etc...
Aww just one? That makes me have to whip out mr frown, see........
Well this shows that you generalize and categorize those which you never took the time to understand anyway. I'm surprised you say such things after having discussed one of these changes directly in another forum in regards to Fred Thompson's plans to further expand our military if he were president, well wait no I'm not surprised I take that back. I expect you to demonize and label anyone who supports the war, I have to be going soon but sometime today or tomorrow I'll illustrate how some candidates differ from bush in their future plans on Iraq, and on their past plans as well. Although it wont do you any good, because ive come to understand how you operate, links and substantiation mean little to you.
Let me try my hand at divining intent......
What you're saying is that even if a policy decision turns out to be at the very least a mistake, we as a nation, should attempt to see it through to the bitter end, no matter how many lives or dollars are wasted?
Im not saying anything like that, I simply gave a description of this presidency as I see it. However your description of the situation is not entirely accurate, this war is continuing to see improvements over what we saw earlier last year. You of course do your best to nullify this fact...................... continued below
Well, I will continue to tell the other side of the story; you know........ the parts the cheerleadeing squad leaves out.
I tell both sides of the story and my posting history is proof of it, Including in "The surge in Baghdad 2" forum when I debated with you so much about the war. You just dont like the stance I take so long as I support winning the war but Its because of people like you that this country is so confused. You try so hard to tell one side of the story, ya know the parts you just said the cheerleadeing squad leaves out? You also try hard to deem any successes made as insignificant, while simultaneously depicting war supporters as stubborn, war mongers, who want nothing but the status quo. You have done nothing but give me the impression that you have an agenda to spread as much negativity as possible in regards to the war, and you cant say that the opposite has ever been true of me. Well you do actually, you try to anyway, but I've never been the type to strike down anything and everyone who believes we should leave Iraq. The ones that are reasonable and rational I respect, even if their opinion is flat out opposite of mine. Alan Colmes I respect, Barack Obama I respect, many who don't support the war at all here on this site I respect as well. Its only when someone has demonstrated a truly slanted and one angled approach on issues like the war when I lose that respect.
QUOTE
QUOTE
You want to conveniently put every candidate who supports the war in the same boat as Bush calling them advocates of the status quo. This helps you to depict them in a similar way you depict Bush, which works in your favor.
Name one mainstream Republican candidate that supports an Iraq policy that is one iota different than Bush's. Bush's policy is the status quo. The mainstream Republican candidates are falling all over themselves trying to be the most supportive candidate of those policies. Voting for those candidates is voting for the status quo. Not to mention government size, constitutional protections, etc...
Aww just one? That makes me have to whip out mr frown, see........
Well this shows that you generalize and categorize those which you never took the time to understand anyway. I'm surprised you say such things after having discussed one of these changes directly in another forum in regards to Fred Thompson's plans to further expand our military if he were president, well wait no I'm not surprised I take that back. I expect you to demonize and label anyone who supports the war, I have to be going soon but sometime today or tomorrow I'll illustrate how some candidates differ from bush in their future plans on Iraq, and on their past plans as well. Although it wont do you any good, because ive come to understand how you operate, links and substantiation mean little to you. QUOTE
QUOTE
The only thing that keeps us their is a presidency committed to staying true to what they committed to originally. If this administrations policies and promoting abilities were as solid as their commitments, they would be going down in history, but unfortunately thats not the case.
Let me try my hand at divining intent......
What you're saying is that even if a policy decision turns out to be at the very least a mistake, we as a nation, should attempt to see it through to the bitter end, no matter how many lives or dollars are wasted?
Im not saying anything like that, I simply gave a description of this presidency as I see it. However your description of the situation is not entirely accurate, this war is continuing to see improvements over what we saw earlier last year. You of course do your best to nullify this fact...................... continued below
QUOTE
QUOTE
You will continue to put a negative spin on pro war candidates, just as you put a negative spin on everything we have achieved in the war itself.
Well, I will continue to tell the other side of the story; you know........ the parts the cheerleadeing squad leaves out.
I tell both sides of the story and my posting history is proof of it, Including in "The surge in Baghdad 2" forum when I debated with you so much about the war. You just dont like the stance I take so long as I support winning the war but Its because of people like you that this country is so confused. You try so hard to tell one side of the story, ya know the parts you just said the cheerleadeing squad leaves out? You also try hard to deem any successes made as insignificant, while simultaneously depicting war supporters as stubborn, war mongers, who want nothing but the status quo. You have done nothing but give me the impression that you have an agenda to spread as much negativity as possible in regards to the war, and you cant say that the opposite has ever been true of me. Well you do actually, you try to anyway, but I've never been the type to strike down anything and everyone who believes we should leave Iraq. The ones that are reasonable and rational I respect, even if their opinion is flat out opposite of mine. Alan Colmes I respect, Barack Obama I respect, many who don't support the war at all here on this site I respect as well. Its only when someone has demonstrated a truly slanted and one angled approach on issues like the war when I lose that respect.
QUOTE(net2007 @ Jan 9 2008, 04:22 PM)
Well this shows that you generalize and categorize those which you never took the time to understand anyway.
So now you can divine how much time I spend reading about candidates?
QUOTE
I'm surprised you say such things after having discussed one of these changes directly in another forum in regards to Fred Thompson's plans to further expand our military if he were president,
Thompson supporting an increase in the military, an increase that the DoD is already attempting to fulfill, is a change from the status quo? That Thompson wants to increase the military to continue pursuing Bush's Iraq policy is a break from the status quo?
QUOTE
Im not saying anything like that, I simply gave a description of this presidency as I see it.
Oh yes, its right there in your own words. You know what you said, I know what you said. What more is there to talk about? What you meant? Well say what you mean, and mean what you say, thats my advice.
Wow net, this divining intent gimmick is easy. All I have to do is take what you say, and say it really means what I want you to have said. Genius!
Of course that's the hallmark of immature debate, prevelant on so many of the flame fest boards
QUOTE
I tell both sides of the story and my posting history is proof of it,
Incorrect.
QUOTE
You just dont like the stance I take so long as I support winning the war but Its because of people like you that this country is so confused.
I don't like this administrations policies regarding Iraq. And the policies of the mainstream Republican candidates, as they are one and the same. You and your stance on the same are irrelevant in that regard. It's nice to know that people like me confuse the American populace. What a self embarrassing and intellectually devoid statement. I suppose if we only had Republican mouthpieces to listen to, we wouldn't be so gosh darn confused with all those annoying facts, would we? If only we were as unbiased and judicious as you are net.
Here are the positions of the Republican candidates on Iraq, as outlined by the NY Times
Thompson: Voted in 2002 to authorize invasion, still supportive; in favor of troop increase; against a timetable for troop withdrawal. Says he would like to see troops coming out of Iraq only "as a part of a success scenario." Says that the United States is making "substantial progress" and that Iraq "is a front in a much larger war."
Romney: Supportive of decision to invade; in favor of troop increase; against a timetable for troop withdrawal. "It is critical for us to remember that Iraq has to be considered in the context of what's happening in the Middle East and throughout the world. There is a global jihadist effort. Violent, radical jihadists want to replace all the governments of the moderate Islamic states, replace them with a caliphate. And to do that, they also want to bring down the West, in particular us."
Giuliani: Supportive of decision to invade; in favor of troop increase; against a timetable for troop withdrawal. "I think it's quite appropriate to go back and explain, 'Well, I might have done it this way, or I might have done it with more troops, or I might have done it some other way.' But here's the reality of it: We're at war. And we're at war because they're at war with us. They want to come here and kill us so we've got to put Iraq in the context of a much broader picture than just Iraq."
Huckabee: Supportive of decision to invade; was tentatively in favor of troop increase; against a timetable for troop withdrawal. Will not withdraw troops from Iraq "any faster than Gen. David Petraeus, the top American commander there, recommends." Says the Iraqi government has to take on responsibilities for security. Against dividing Iraq into three regions."
McCain: Voted in 2002 to authorize invasion, still supportive; in favor of troop increase; against a timetable for troop withdrawal. "I have no Plan B. ... I cannot give you a good alternative because if I had a good alternative, maybe we could consider it now. Every alternative that I know of that is keyed to a date for withdrawal, which that would dictate, is chaos in the region. And genocide."
Paul: Voted in 2002 against authorizing invasion, still opposed; opposed troop increase; withdraw all troops immediately. "They say that the main reason for staying now, after given numerous reasons, we're supposed to stay now, because if we leave there will be chaos. My argument is there's plenty of chaos right there now, and a lot of Americans are being killed. And it was never in our national security interest to go over there."
One of six candidates speaks of change. The remaining five speak as if the words were coming out of Bush's mouth.
I presume you will update us all on the continuing successes in Iraq, in the appropriate forum.
QUOTE
Name one mainstream Republican candidate that supports an Iraq policy that is one iota different than Bush's. Bush's policy is the status quo.
You do realize this is what I've been warning about for the last how many years? I'll pull quotes from previous years if you doubt me. Once wars of aggression make inteventions of all sorts look mundane, as in ho-hum, gosh-golly, you prude. I'm starting to wonder if morality is relative as it would go a long way in explaining the current crop of suits.
The Times wins the no (fill on the blank)-sherlock award for achieving to notice what the visually impaired could see since 01. Unfortunately such restraint against intervention was called anti-americanism and now it is called real life. I'd venture further and say three-quarters of the democratic party are in this same destructive downward spiral as well. To be honest such warmongering reflects poorly on the country and by association the people - regardless if the people are supporting the policies or not. When I hear stuff like that out of the times, all I can say is, "You only noticed this now?"
I'd very much want to start a thread on whether or not people would agree if America is suffering from a psychological affliction. Unfortunately the rules will not prohibit it. Inflammatory or not, the question deserves to be asked.
Dontreadonme
So now you can divine how much time I spend reading about candidates?
Selective research, and selective reasoning, on your part. You very well may do research but your comments are often evidence that you hear what you want, and believe only what is consistent with your rational.
Thompson supporting an increase in the military, an increase that the DoD is already attempting to fulfill, is a change from the status quo? That Thompson wants to increase the military to continue pursuing Bush's Iraq policy is a break from the status quo?
Thats one thing he wants to do, I'm not a Fred Thompson fan per se, but his plan as far as military expansion goes, is additional expanding on top of what is currently in the works, you remember the report. Thats not a complete reflection of the full extent of his war strategy I'm guessing, its just one thing I read thanks to you If I remember right. I'm not sure what the extent of Freds plans are however because I'm not fully researched on that candidate, like I said I'm not a big fan of his.
Oh yes, its right there in your own words. You know what you said, I know what you said. What more is there to talk about? What you meant? Well say what you mean, and mean what you say, thats my advice.
Wow net, this divining intent gimmick is easy. All I have to do is take what you say, and say it really means what I want you to have said. Genius!
Of course that's the hallmark of immature debate, prevelant on so many of the flame fest boards
Then why did ya do it? lol I mean if taking my comment and reusing it is the hallmark of immature debate, why did you do it, then crack on yourself?
Incorrect.
Lol. INCORRECT!! This could be me and you in a long war debate..........
----------------------------------
ME: Do you agree that the war can be won?
YOU: No
YOU: The truth is yada yada yada
ME: No way dude
YOU: Yes way dude
ME: I say we should do this
YOU: I say you don't understand English
4 weeks later........
YOU: Shrimp is the food of the sea, you can have shrimp salad, shrimp gumbo, shrimp stew, shrimp and potatoes.................
ME: YES but Crawfish is the king of crustaceans man.
YOU: No way Dude
ME: Yes way dude
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LMAO, I'm sorry, but this is a trip right? You say down, I say up, and thats just the way its gonna be with some people on certain issues. Know one thing however, while I consider myself highly educated on this war, I put my opinion out there as an opinion. If we disagre, we disagre. However, It would be nice to see you stand by more of the things you say, when criticisms are given.
I don't like this administrations policies regarding Iraq. And the policies of the mainstream Republican candidates, as they are one and the same. You and your stance on the same are irrelevant in that regard. It's nice to know that people like me confuse the American populace. What a self embarrassing and intellectually devoid statement. I suppose if we only had Republican mouthpieces to listen to, we wouldn't be so gosh darn confused with all those annoying facts, would we? If only we were as unbiased and judicious as you are net.
Here are the positions of the Republican candidates on Iraq, as outlined by the NY Times
Thompson: Voted in 2002 to authorize invasion, still supportive; in favor of troop increase; against a timetable for troop withdrawal. Says he would like to see troops coming out of Iraq only "as a part of a success scenario." Says that the United States is making "substantial progress" and that Iraq "is a front in a much larger war."
Romney: Supportive of decision to invade; in favor of troop increase; against a timetable for troop withdrawal. "It is critical for us to remember that Iraq has to be considered in the context of what's happening in the Middle East and throughout the world. There is a global jihadist effort. Violent, radical jihadists want to replace all the governments of the moderate Islamic states, replace them with a caliphate. And to do that, they also want to bring down the West, in particular us."
Giuliani: Supportive of decision to invade; in favor of troop increase; against a timetable for troop withdrawal. "I think it's quite appropriate to go back and explain, 'Well, I might have done it this way, or I might have done it with more troops, or I might have done it some other way.' But here's the reality of it: We're at war. And we're at war because they're at war with us. They want to come here and kill us so we've got to put Iraq in the context of a much broader picture than just Iraq."
Huckabee: Supportive of decision to invade; was tentatively in favor of troop increase; against a timetable for troop withdrawal. Will not withdraw troops from Iraq "any faster than Gen. David Petraeus, the top American commander there, recommends." Says the Iraqi government has to take on responsibilities for security. Against dividing Iraq into three regions."
McCain: Voted in 2002 to authorize invasion, still supportive; in favor of troop increase; against a timetable for troop withdrawal. "I have no Plan B. ... I cannot give you a good alternative because if I had a good alternative, maybe we could consider it now. Every alternative that I know of that is keyed to a date for withdrawal, which that would dictate, is chaos in the region. And genocide."
Paul: Voted in 2002 against authorizing invasion, still opposed; opposed troop increase; withdraw all troops immediately. "They say that the main reason for staying now, after given numerous reasons, we're supposed to stay now, because if we leave there will be chaos. My argument is there's plenty of chaos right there now, and a lot of Americans are being killed. And it was never in our national security interest to go over there."
One of six candidates speaks of change. The remaining five speak as if the words were coming out of Bush's mouth.
I presume you will update us all on the continuing successes in Iraq, in the appropriate forum.
Successes or failures, either way I'll acknowledge what I believe the truth is. Before we even got into large war debates, ive been critical of every failure, and flawed policy Ive known of before I even met you here, and every time you mentioned the challenges we face today I was quick to say, yup thats certainly going to be a challenge, or that certainly is a problem. Where Ive parted with you is my willingness to point out how things truly have gotten better in prior months, and Ive showed many links along the way that showed where I was getting my info. Remember the link I gave you that showed literally dozens of different networks, and newspapers that can be considered both left and right wing sources, all reporting the massive changes being made?
Additionally regarding the candidates, I know that some of these candidates that support the war stray from Bush on this war in a number of areas. The biggest comparison that you have made between bush and others that support the war, is just that. The simple fact that they support the same war. You spoke nothing of specific policy when making your criticisms. Only sound bites, that prove that yes they support winning the war in the long haul. Other than that one other thing you pointed out is that they in fact supported Bush on the war in the past, and still do today. What your leaving out however is two things. First thing being that none of these candidates are currently president and therefore if they support winning the war they are only really left with two options.
Option one is, support funding, and fighting a war with a president that has made a number of mistakes. Or option two, join the many politicians in congress who will do what they can to see this war end. Now given they support wining the war, they have to do what they can to support it and our president, but so long as they are not president themselves, the most they can do is support the policies of the current administration even if they disagre with it in key areas,
as has been demonstrated by most of the candidates in support of the war. I know for a fact that Mike Huckabee, John McCain, Rudy Guliani, and Mitt Romney, have suggested policy changes and have disagreed with many of the policies in the past, but they were powerless to change the policies don't you understand that? For them it was either help lose the war by not supporting it at all, or support a president with a less than perfect plan.
Now I know this mostly from watching the candidates on MSNBC, CNN, and FOX News. My online research has been mostly to gather what I couldn't learn by watching the news. If you have been paying attention you should already know what I'm saying is the truth. However, if you really want I will go to their individual sites and pull this stuff up for you. Its bound to be there. I encouradge everyone to do fair and unbiased research, and really pay attention to all the candidates before jumping to conclusions, but if you need assistance you know I'll find the info for you, it only took a month on this site to realize people really like to see links, and ever since Ive been a link freak. By now I need a search browser for my firefox bookmark list, lol.
QUOTE
QUOTE(net2007 @ Jan 9 2008, 04:22 PM)
Well this shows that you generalize and categorize those which you never took the time to understand anyway.
So now you can divine how much time I spend reading about candidates?
Selective research, and selective reasoning, on your part. You very well may do research but your comments are often evidence that you hear what you want, and believe only what is consistent with your rational.
QUOTE
QUOTE
I'm surprised you say such things after having discussed one of these changes directly in another forum in regards to Fred Thompson's plans to further expand our military if he were president,
Thompson supporting an increase in the military, an increase that the DoD is already attempting to fulfill, is a change from the status quo? That Thompson wants to increase the military to continue pursuing Bush's Iraq policy is a break from the status quo?
Thats one thing he wants to do, I'm not a Fred Thompson fan per se, but his plan as far as military expansion goes, is additional expanding on top of what is currently in the works, you remember the report. Thats not a complete reflection of the full extent of his war strategy I'm guessing, its just one thing I read thanks to you If I remember right. I'm not sure what the extent of Freds plans are however because I'm not fully researched on that candidate, like I said I'm not a big fan of his.
QUOTE
QUOTE
Im not saying anything like that, I simply gave a description of this presidency as I see it.
Oh yes, its right there in your own words. You know what you said, I know what you said. What more is there to talk about? What you meant? Well say what you mean, and mean what you say, thats my advice.
Wow net, this divining intent gimmick is easy. All I have to do is take what you say, and say it really means what I want you to have said. Genius!
Of course that's the hallmark of immature debate, prevelant on so many of the flame fest boards
Then why did ya do it? lol I mean if taking my comment and reusing it is the hallmark of immature debate, why did you do it, then crack on yourself?
QUOTE
QUOTE
I tell both sides of the story and my posting history is proof of it,
Incorrect.
Lol. INCORRECT!! This could be me and you in a long war debate..........
----------------------------------
ME: Do you agree that the war can be won?
YOU: No
YOU: The truth is yada yada yada
ME: No way dude
YOU: Yes way dude
ME: I say we should do this
YOU: I say you don't understand English
4 weeks later........
YOU: Shrimp is the food of the sea, you can have shrimp salad, shrimp gumbo, shrimp stew, shrimp and potatoes.................
ME: YES but Crawfish is the king of crustaceans man.
YOU: No way Dude
ME: Yes way dude
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LMAO, I'm sorry, but this is a trip right? You say down, I say up, and thats just the way its gonna be with some people on certain issues. Know one thing however, while I consider myself highly educated on this war, I put my opinion out there as an opinion. If we disagre, we disagre. However, It would be nice to see you stand by more of the things you say, when criticisms are given.
QUOTE
QUOTE
You just dont like the stance I take so long as I support winning the war but Its because of people like you that this country is so confused.
I don't like this administrations policies regarding Iraq. And the policies of the mainstream Republican candidates, as they are one and the same. You and your stance on the same are irrelevant in that regard. It's nice to know that people like me confuse the American populace. What a self embarrassing and intellectually devoid statement. I suppose if we only had Republican mouthpieces to listen to, we wouldn't be so gosh darn confused with all those annoying facts, would we? If only we were as unbiased and judicious as you are net.
Here are the positions of the Republican candidates on Iraq, as outlined by the NY Times
Thompson: Voted in 2002 to authorize invasion, still supportive; in favor of troop increase; against a timetable for troop withdrawal. Says he would like to see troops coming out of Iraq only "as a part of a success scenario." Says that the United States is making "substantial progress" and that Iraq "is a front in a much larger war."
Romney: Supportive of decision to invade; in favor of troop increase; against a timetable for troop withdrawal. "It is critical for us to remember that Iraq has to be considered in the context of what's happening in the Middle East and throughout the world. There is a global jihadist effort. Violent, radical jihadists want to replace all the governments of the moderate Islamic states, replace them with a caliphate. And to do that, they also want to bring down the West, in particular us."
Giuliani: Supportive of decision to invade; in favor of troop increase; against a timetable for troop withdrawal. "I think it's quite appropriate to go back and explain, 'Well, I might have done it this way, or I might have done it with more troops, or I might have done it some other way.' But here's the reality of it: We're at war. And we're at war because they're at war with us. They want to come here and kill us so we've got to put Iraq in the context of a much broader picture than just Iraq."
Huckabee: Supportive of decision to invade; was tentatively in favor of troop increase; against a timetable for troop withdrawal. Will not withdraw troops from Iraq "any faster than Gen. David Petraeus, the top American commander there, recommends." Says the Iraqi government has to take on responsibilities for security. Against dividing Iraq into three regions."
McCain: Voted in 2002 to authorize invasion, still supportive; in favor of troop increase; against a timetable for troop withdrawal. "I have no Plan B. ... I cannot give you a good alternative because if I had a good alternative, maybe we could consider it now. Every alternative that I know of that is keyed to a date for withdrawal, which that would dictate, is chaos in the region. And genocide."
Paul: Voted in 2002 against authorizing invasion, still opposed; opposed troop increase; withdraw all troops immediately. "They say that the main reason for staying now, after given numerous reasons, we're supposed to stay now, because if we leave there will be chaos. My argument is there's plenty of chaos right there now, and a lot of Americans are being killed. And it was never in our national security interest to go over there."
One of six candidates speaks of change. The remaining five speak as if the words were coming out of Bush's mouth.
I presume you will update us all on the continuing successes in Iraq, in the appropriate forum.
Successes or failures, either way I'll acknowledge what I believe the truth is. Before we even got into large war debates, ive been critical of every failure, and flawed policy Ive known of before I even met you here, and every time you mentioned the challenges we face today I was quick to say, yup thats certainly going to be a challenge, or that certainly is a problem. Where Ive parted with you is my willingness to point out how things truly have gotten better in prior months, and Ive showed many links along the way that showed where I was getting my info. Remember the link I gave you that showed literally dozens of different networks, and newspapers that can be considered both left and right wing sources, all reporting the massive changes being made?
Additionally regarding the candidates, I know that some of these candidates that support the war stray from Bush on this war in a number of areas. The biggest comparison that you have made between bush and others that support the war, is just that. The simple fact that they support the same war. You spoke nothing of specific policy when making your criticisms. Only sound bites, that prove that yes they support winning the war in the long haul. Other than that one other thing you pointed out is that they in fact supported Bush on the war in the past, and still do today. What your leaving out however is two things. First thing being that none of these candidates are currently president and therefore if they support winning the war they are only really left with two options.
Option one is, support funding, and fighting a war with a president that has made a number of mistakes. Or option two, join the many politicians in congress who will do what they can to see this war end. Now given they support wining the war, they have to do what they can to support it and our president, but so long as they are not president themselves, the most they can do is support the policies of the current administration even if they disagre with it in key areas,
as has been demonstrated by most of the candidates in support of the war. I know for a fact that Mike Huckabee, John McCain, Rudy Guliani, and Mitt Romney, have suggested policy changes and have disagreed with many of the policies in the past, but they were powerless to change the policies don't you understand that? For them it was either help lose the war by not supporting it at all, or support a president with a less than perfect plan.
Now I know this mostly from watching the candidates on MSNBC, CNN, and FOX News. My online research has been mostly to gather what I couldn't learn by watching the news. If you have been paying attention you should already know what I'm saying is the truth. However, if you really want I will go to their individual sites and pull this stuff up for you. Its bound to be there. I encouradge everyone to do fair and unbiased research, and really pay attention to all the candidates before jumping to conclusions, but if you need assistance you know I'll find the info for you, it only took a month on this site to realize people really like to see links, and ever since Ive been a link freak. By now I need a search browser for my firefox bookmark list, lol.
If any Republicans are paying attention, Huckabee might have just alienated all potential voters except for the card carrying, fervent, bible thumping members of his 'base'. If this is modern conservatism, either he and his ilk have now truly perverted the meaning, or I'm simply not a conservative anymore.
"[Some of my opponents] do not want to change the Constitution, but I believe it's a lot easier to change the constitution than it would be to change the word of the living God, and that's what we need to do is to amend the Constitution so it's in God's standards rather than try to change God's standards," Huckabee said, referring to the need for a constitutional human life amendment and an amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman.
Huckabee often refers to the need to amend the constitution on these grounds, but he has never so specifically called for the Constitution to be brought within "God's standards," which are themselves debated amongst religious scholars. As a closing statement he asked the room of nearly 500 supporters to "pray and then work hard, and in that order," to help him secure a victory in Tuesday's GOP primary.
MSNBC
"[Some of my opponents] do not want to change the Constitution, but I believe it's a lot easier to change the constitution than it would be to change the word of the living God, and that's what we need to do is to amend the Constitution so it's in God's standards rather than try to change God's standards," Huckabee said, referring to the need for a constitutional human life amendment and an amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman.
Huckabee often refers to the need to amend the constitution on these grounds, but he has never so specifically called for the Constitution to be brought within "God's standards," which are themselves debated amongst religious scholars. As a closing statement he asked the room of nearly 500 supporters to "pray and then work hard, and in that order," to help him secure a victory in Tuesday's GOP primary.
MSNBC
QUOTE(Dontreadonme @ Jan 17 2008, 11:42 PM)
If any Republicans are paying attention, Huckabee might have just alienated all potential voters except for the card carrying, fervent, bible thumping members of his 'base'. If this is modern conservatism, either he and his ilk have now truly perverted the meaning, or I'm simply not a conservative anymore.
"[Some of my opponents] do not want to change the Constitution, but I believe it's a lot easier to change the constitution than it would be to change the word of the living God, and that's what we need to do is to amend the Constitution so it's in God's standards rather than try to change God's standards," Huckabee said, referring to the need for a constitutional human life amendment and an amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman.
Huckabee often refers to the need to amend the constitution on these grounds, but he has never so specifically called for the Constitution to be brought within "God's standards," which are themselves debated amongst religious scholars. As a closing statement he asked the room of nearly 500 supporters to "pray and then work hard, and in that order," to help him secure a victory in Tuesday's GOP primary.
MSNBC
"[Some of my opponents] do not want to change the Constitution, but I believe it's a lot easier to change the constitution than it would be to change the word of the living God, and that's what we need to do is to amend the Constitution so it's in God's standards rather than try to change God's standards," Huckabee said, referring to the need for a constitutional human life amendment and an amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman.
Huckabee often refers to the need to amend the constitution on these grounds, but he has never so specifically called for the Constitution to be brought within "God's standards," which are themselves debated amongst religious scholars. As a closing statement he asked the room of nearly 500 supporters to "pray and then work hard, and in that order," to help him secure a victory in Tuesday's GOP primary.
MSNBC
That was, I think, an incredible blunder to make this early on. Maybe if he lost a few more states and was slipping off of the front page, say something crazy like this and get some press again - but a lot of people still had this guy out front. All he had to do was sit back and let the other guys make the mistakes.
QUOTE(Dontreadonme @ Jan 17 2008, 10:42 PM)
If any Republicans are paying attention, Huckabee might have just alienated all potential voters except for the card carrying, fervent, bible thumping members of his 'base'. If this is modern conservatism, either he and his ilk have now truly perverted the meaning, or I'm simply not a conservative anymore.
"[Some of my opponents] do not want to change the Constitution, but I believe it's a lot easier to change the constitution than it would be to change the word of the living God, and that's what we need to do is to amend the Constitution so it's in God's standards rather than try to change God's standards," Huckabee said, referring to the need for a constitutional human life amendment and an amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman.
Huckabee often refers to the need to amend the constitution on these grounds, but he has never so specifically called for the Constitution to be brought within "God's standards," which are themselves debated amongst religious scholars. As a closing statement he asked the room of nearly 500 supporters to "pray and then work hard, and in that order," to help him secure a victory in Tuesday's GOP primary.
MSNBC
"[Some of my opponents] do not want to change the Constitution, but I believe it's a lot easier to change the constitution than it would be to change the word of the living God, and that's what we need to do is to amend the Constitution so it's in God's standards rather than try to change God's standards," Huckabee said, referring to the need for a constitutional human life amendment and an amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman.
Huckabee often refers to the need to amend the constitution on these grounds, but he has never so specifically called for the Constitution to be brought within "God's standards," which are themselves debated amongst religious scholars. As a closing statement he asked the room of nearly 500 supporters to "pray and then work hard, and in that order," to help him secure a victory in Tuesday's GOP primary.
MSNBC
Wow, a report on a republican from MSNBC woo hoo! lol, I can just picture that being a positive report, well in a parallel universe perhaps.
Huckabee is a religious man and while I don't agree with everything he says, that is true of any candidate. Every candidate I know of is human obviously, and every human has a set of morals and beliefs that vary from the next guy. Therefore if everyone were honest they would admit that each candidate says something they disagree with, even if that candidate were their favorite. Mike Huckabee and John McCain are the candidates im narrowed down to, Im not 100% sure on who I'm voting for yet.
In any case whoever it is you don't like in the republican party, which I wouldn't doubt is everyone but Ron Paul, its good to hear why. In regards to Mike Huckabee I figure if you believe that his religious stance is that much of a negative, perhaps you should consider that most of this nation is composed of Christians, and those who are non Christian such as myself do not in every case find a mans strong religious convictions to be a strong negative factor. The reason for that in my case is that I agree with many things Christians say, but on the bases of my own morals rather than a religion.
One example of many would be the fact that like a Christian I believe murder is wrong, in my case its because I consider it inhumane, rather than something thats going to jeopardize my eternal soul. Now to be honest with you on the issue of both gay marage and abortion I am actualy pro choice. On both issues I personaly consider it wrong to either have an abortion or marry another person of the same sex. However I am not everyone else, therefore what I consider to be right or wrong may vary well differ from what my neighbor believes. Therefore I believe some things should be left up to the individual to choose what is right or wrong for them. So this means that mike huckabee's position as a pro life candidte is actualy a possition I disagre with but it wasnt a determining factor that isolated me from noticing his many other qualities.
So for a candidate you probably never took the time to do anything but find criticisms on, id be careful what you consider to be factors that will isolate any given candidate, hes actually doing much better than he was ever expected to, and the only candidate that truly isolated himself from the Republican party was Ron Paul, and thats not my opinion, its a reflection of where he stands as a candidate as of now, and how poorly he predicted to do in most other states from this point on, and all this despite the money he has raised.
QUOTE(net2007 @ Jan 19 2008, 04:14 PM)
Wow, a report on a republican from MSNBC woo hoo! lol, I can just picture that being a positive report, well in a parallel universe perhaps.
What's your point? You admit in your last post to learning much about the candidates from the MSM, including specifically MSNBC. Did he say it or didn't he? If those are his words, it doesn't matter where the report comes from.
QUOTE
Huckabee is a religious man and while I don't agree with everything he says, that is true of any candidate. Every candidate I know of is human obviously, and every human has a set of morals and beliefs that vary from the next guy. Therefore if everyone were honest they would admit that each candidate says something they disagree with, even if that candidate were their favorite. Mike Huckabee and John McCain are the candidates im narrowed down to, Im not 100% sure on who I'm voting for yet.
Huckabee's statement is sadly more dangerous than anything coming out of the Democratic candidates pie-holes. To state that the US Constitution should be aligned with the standards presumably put forth by an invisible omnipotent Judeo-Christian guy in the sky, is Taliban-esque demogoguery.
QUOTE
In regards to Mike Huckabee I figure if you believe that his religious stance is that much of a negative, perhaps you should consider that most of this nation is composed of Christians, and those who are non Christian such as myself do not in every case find a mans strong religious convictions to be a strong negative factor.
The number of Christians in this nation is irrelevant. We are a Republic for all Americans, not just Christians.
QUOTE
So for a candidate you probably never took the time to do anything but find criticisms on,
There you go again.........
QUOTE
....id be careful what you consider to be factors that will isolate any given candidate, hes actually doing much better than he was ever expected to, and the only candidate that truly isolated himself from the Republican party was Ron Paul, and thats not my opinion, its a reflection of where he stands as a candidate as of now, and how poorly he predicted to do in most other states from this point on, and all this despite the money he has raised.
To each their own. If you want bigger government, vote Huckabee. If you want government/god in your bedroom or on your internet, vote Huckabee. If you believe that one set of morals and ethics should fit all, presuming they are your set, then vote Huckabee. If you want an imperial/colonial foreign policy while our nation sinks economically and domestically, vote Huckabee/McCain/Thompson/Guiliani/Romney.
QUOTE(net2007 @ Jan 3 2008, 09:29 PM)
1. Is fund raising overlooked as being as important as a candidates "character, likability, and policy"?
2. Will tonights winners in Iowa receive a boost in national polls?
3. Does success in the early states have an effect on the candidates longterm success in the primaries?
4. Who do you believe will win the primaries for both parties, and why?
5. Who would you most like to see win, and why?
6. Who is your favorite second tier candidate, and why? Do you think they have a chance of winning?
2. Will tonights winners in Iowa receive a boost in national polls?
3. Does success in the early states have an effect on the candidates longterm success in the primaries?
4. Who do you believe will win the primaries for both parties, and why?
5. Who would you most like to see win, and why?
6. Who is your favorite second tier candidate, and why? Do you think they have a chance of winning?
1.) I believe a candidate earns more money based on those qualities.
2.) It seems inevitable. Though the latest data is showing Mrs. Clinton sharpening her saw for a death-blow.
3.) We've seen Biden, Dodd, Richardson and now Hunter go the way of the dinosaur because of their inability to marshal forces in early states. As much as mainstream America may not like it, the early states make or break candidates. Perhaps John Edwards can pick up the issue in 2,012 under the guise of Three Americas: Those without health care, those with it, and those early-voter states.
4.) Mrs. Clinton is showing very well, and Romney is bumping it out.
5.) I would like to exercise my Fifth Amendment right concerning this question. I really don't care for the lot of them.
6.) Joe Biden, where did you go?
Dontreadonme
What's your point? You admit in your last post to learning much about the candidates from the MSM, including specifically MSNBC. Did he say it or didn't he? If those are his words, it doesn't matter where the report comes from.
Yes I do watch MSNBC a lot, which is why I know they are more critical of republicans and the war than its main competitors Fox news and CNN. Thats especially true of Keith Olbermans show Countdown. However Mike Huckabee did in a nutshell say what you claim, but it was very brief and what specific changes he would make he was not clear on. It was like 3 sentences that can be interpreted a number of ways.
Huckabee's statement is sadly more dangerous than anything coming out of the Democratic candidates pie-holes. To state that the US Constitution should be aligned with the standards presumably put forth by an invisible omnipotent Judeo-Christian guy in the sky, is Taliban-esque demogoguery.
The number of Christians in this nation is irrelevant. We are a Republic for all Americans, not just Christians.
Yes, and I couldn't agree more, but are you arguing that Mike Huckabee, because he is Christian and has Christian values, will enforce values which are strictly Christian rather than American? Will he represent only Christians, rather than America as a Nation? You cant prove that, in fact I can easily disprove that by pointing at his strong support for America in Iraq. In other words Christianity is a religion that was developed on the life of a man named Jesus Christ, who didn't believe in war, no matter what the justification was. Yet in times like these here is a Christian, like many others who believes in making a stand as a nation, because this is not the garden of eden, nor is it the time in which Jesus Christ grew up. Today its, you either stand firm and do what you can to help others or watch some evil dictatorship prey on the less fortunate. Mike Huckabee is an American running for president, not Jesus Christ dressed in a suit. Im not convinced he would make everything a religious matter and have seen nothing to convince me that is the case. Your position on him is negative just like it probably will be with every candidate who is not Ron Paul, and you will find a reason not to like any candidate who supports this war.
To each their own. If you want bigger government, vote Huckabee. If you want government/god in your bedroom or on your internet, vote Huckabee. If you believe that one set of morals and ethics should fit all, presuming they are your set, then vote Huckabee. If you want an imperial/colonial foreign policy while our nation sinks economically and domestically, vote Huckabee/McCain/Thompson/Guiliani/Romney.
And if you ever want to have a serious debate, back the numerous accusations you have with something more than rhetoric.
QUOTE
QUOTE(net2007 @ Jan 19 2008, 04:14 PM)
Wow, a report on a republican from MSNBC woo hoo! lol, I can just picture that being a positive report, well in a parallel universe perhaps.
What's your point? You admit in your last post to learning much about the candidates from the MSM, including specifically MSNBC. Did he say it or didn't he? If those are his words, it doesn't matter where the report comes from.
Yes I do watch MSNBC a lot, which is why I know they are more critical of republicans and the war than its main competitors Fox news and CNN. Thats especially true of Keith Olbermans show Countdown. However Mike Huckabee did in a nutshell say what you claim, but it was very brief and what specific changes he would make he was not clear on. It was like 3 sentences that can be interpreted a number of ways.
QUOTE
QUOTE
Huckabee is a religious man and while I don't agree with everything he says, that is true of any candidate. Every candidate I know of is human obviously, and every human has a set of morals and beliefs that vary from the next guy. Therefore if everyone were honest they would admit that each candidate says something they disagree with, even if that candidate were their favorite. Mike Huckabee and John McCain are the candidates im narrowed down to, Im not 100% sure on who I'm voting for yet.
Huckabee's statement is sadly more dangerous than anything coming out of the Democratic candidates pie-holes. To state that the US Constitution should be aligned with the standards presumably put forth by an invisible omnipotent Judeo-Christian guy in the sky, is Taliban-esque demogoguery.
QUOTE
QUOTE
In regards to Mike Huckabee I figure if you believe that his religious stance is that much of a negative, perhaps you should consider that most of this nation is composed of Christians, and those who are non Christian such as myself do not in every case find a mans strong religious convictions to be a strong negative factor.
The number of Christians in this nation is irrelevant. We are a Republic for all Americans, not just Christians.
Yes, and I couldn't agree more, but are you arguing that Mike Huckabee, because he is Christian and has Christian values, will enforce values which are strictly Christian rather than American? Will he represent only Christians, rather than America as a Nation? You cant prove that, in fact I can easily disprove that by pointing at his strong support for America in Iraq. In other words Christianity is a religion that was developed on the life of a man named Jesus Christ, who didn't believe in war, no matter what the justification was. Yet in times like these here is a Christian, like many others who believes in making a stand as a nation, because this is not the garden of eden, nor is it the time in which Jesus Christ grew up. Today its, you either stand firm and do what you can to help others or watch some evil dictatorship prey on the less fortunate. Mike Huckabee is an American running for president, not Jesus Christ dressed in a suit. Im not convinced he would make everything a religious matter and have seen nothing to convince me that is the case. Your position on him is negative just like it probably will be with every candidate who is not Ron Paul, and you will find a reason not to like any candidate who supports this war.
QUOTE
QUOTE
....id be careful what you consider to be factors that will isolate any given candidate, hes actually doing much better than he was ever expected to, and the only candidate that truly isolated himself from the Republican party was Ron Paul, and thats not my opinion, its a reflection of where he stands as a candidate as of now, and how poorly he predicted to do in most other states from this point on, and all this despite the money he has raised.
To each their own. If you want bigger government, vote Huckabee. If you want government/god in your bedroom or on your internet, vote Huckabee. If you believe that one set of morals and ethics should fit all, presuming they are your set, then vote Huckabee. If you want an imperial/colonial foreign policy while our nation sinks economically and domestically, vote Huckabee/McCain/Thompson/Guiliani/Romney.
And if you ever want to have a serious debate, back the numerous accusations you have with something more than rhetoric.
QUOTE(net2007 @ Jan 20 2008, 03:44 AM)
However Mike Huckabee did in a nutshell say what you claim, but it was very brief and what specific changes he would make he was not clear on. It was like 3 sentences that can be interpreted a number of ways.
Huckabee needed to be clearer for you? The desire to amend the US Constitution in order to align it with God's law was not clear enough for you?
QUOTE
Yes, and I couldn't agree more, but are you arguing that Mike Huckabee, because he is Christian and has Christian values, will enforce values which are strictly Christian rather than American?
Religious fundamentalists have a track record of codifying their morals. Sodomy and blues laws just to name two.
QUOTE
Will he represent only Christians, rather than America as a Nation? You cant prove that, in fact I can easily disprove that by pointing at his strong support for America in Iraq.
How is that disproving of anything? The Crusaders had their rationale too.
QUOTE
Your position on him is negative just like it probably will be with every candidate who is not Ron Paul, and you will find a reason not to like any candidate who supports this war.
And there you go again.......
QUOTE
And if you ever want to have a serious debate, back the numerous accusations you have with something more than rhetoric.
It's certainly not rhetoric.....it's not even news.
Dontreadonme
Huckabee needed to be clearer for you? The desire to amend the US Constitution in order to align it with God's law was not clear enough for you?
The US constitution is almost 5000 words worth of document, which mind you has already been amended dozens of times. To suggest that with three sentences you know exactly what Huckabee would do with something so complex is quite bold there Dontreadonme, many changes made to the Constitution have been suttle and minor, the idea that he is going to drastically change it from the ground up, is not something he said, and I really think your reading too much into such a short reference he made to the constitution. I heard the same thing you did, and what I didn't hear, were any real specifics, and neither did you, at least not from that.
How is that disproving of anything? The Crusaders had their rationale too.
There is certainly a religious element to Huckabee, however you seem to be suggesting he would be a president who would solely represent Christians, as if he would be Americas preacher rather than president.
It's certainly not rhetoric.....it's not even news.
So your accusations aren't even news? Well I know that.
QUOTE
QUOTE(net2007 @ Jan 20 2008, 03:44 AM)
However Mike Huckabee did in a nutshell say what you claim, but it was very brief and what specific changes he would make he was not clear on. It was like 3 sentences that can be interpreted a number of ways.
Huckabee needed to be clearer for you? The desire to amend the US Constitution in order to align it with God's law was not clear enough for you?
The US constitution is almost 5000 words worth of document, which mind you has already been amended dozens of times. To suggest that with three sentences you know exactly what Huckabee would do with something so complex is quite bold there Dontreadonme, many changes made to the Constitution have been suttle and minor, the idea that he is going to drastically change it from the ground up, is not something he said, and I really think your reading too much into such a short reference he made to the constitution. I heard the same thing you did, and what I didn't hear, were any real specifics, and neither did you, at least not from that.
QUOTE
QUOTE
Will he represent only Christians, rather than America as a Nation? You cant prove that, in fact I can easily disprove that by pointing at his strong support for America in Iraq.
How is that disproving of anything? The Crusaders had their rationale too.
There is certainly a religious element to Huckabee, however you seem to be suggesting he would be a president who would solely represent Christians, as if he would be Americas preacher rather than president.
QUOTE
QUOTE
And if you ever want to have a serious debate, back the numerous accusations you have with something more than rhetoric.
It's certainly not rhetoric.....it's not even news.
So your accusations aren't even news? Well I know that.
QUOTE
"[Some of my opponents] do not want to change the Constitution, but I believe it's a lot easier to change the constitution than it would be to change the word of the living God, and that's what we need to do is to amend the Constitution so it's in God's standards rather than try to change God's standards," Huckabee said, referring to the need for a constitutional human life amendment and an amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman.
The old saying "You can't legislate morals" was never more true than when applied to the Constitution. Aside from the 2 amendments enacting and repealing prohibition, all of the additional amendments (11-27) deal with procedural issues, expanding voting rights, and abolishing slavery. When you read it now, the prohibition amendment looks very out of place. Amendments for abortion and gay marriage would look equally silly - if anything, one would expect the next amendments to guarantee rights regardless of sexual orientation or gender, rather than curtail them.
---------------------------------
Century mark! Woohoo! And every one a winner....
QUOTE(Dontreadonme @ Jan 19 2008, 03:48 PM)
Huckabee's statement is sadly more dangerous than anything coming out of the Democratic candidates pie-holes. To state that the US Constitution should be aligned with the standards presumably put forth by an invisible omnipotent Judeo-Christian guy in the sky, is Taliban-esque demogoguery.
Care to turn up the rhetoric up a little more, DTOM? Comparing the desire for a Constitutional Amendment to ban abortion and define marriage to the Taliban?
That's quite a stretch. Aquilla
QUOTE(net2007 @ Jan 20 2008, 06:53 AM)
I heard the same thing you did, and what I didn't hear, were any real specifics, and neither did you, at least not from that.
Rational people don't even specifics in this case. To state publicly that you wish to change the secular document that governs this nation, this nation of all beliefs, races, and political persuasions; to change it to be in accordance with the Judeo-Christian's "God's" law, ought to scare the daylights out of every free thinking American. Religious based amendments have no place in the Constitution.
All Americans should be [and are] free to practice the religion of their choice, or none at all. Americans should not however, be governed under religious edicts.
QUOTE
So your accusations aren't even news? Well I know that.
Unsurprisingly, I presume you don't know that you missed the point. If Citizen X supports Sodomy laws, censoring "obscene" material, teaching Judeo-Christian creationism in public schools, invading sovereign nations and setting up colonial rule, etc....then out of the current crop of 'front-runners', Huckabee is their candidate.
QUOTE(Aquilla Today @ 09:06 AM )
Comparing the desire for a Constitutional Amendment to ban abortion and define marriage to the Taliban?
I don't consider it a stretch at all. Religious fundamentalism has no place in American government. I'm not saying that Southern Baptists are a step away from beheading unbelievers, but defining marriage on religious grounds is certainly more harmful than banning dancing or the cinema.
QUOTE(Dontreadonme @ Jan 20 2008, 01:28 AM)
I don't consider it a stretch at all. Religious fundamentalism has no place in American government. I'm not saying that Southern Baptists are a step away from beheading unbelievers, but defining marriage on religious grounds is certainly more harmful than banning dancing or the cinema.
I absolutely agree on this point. Denying a person the right to enter into a contract (marry) based on that person's sexual orientation is discrimination, plain and simple. I am amazed that more people don't recognize that, considering how often we have had to deal with racial discrimination. Codifying that discrimination in an amendment would be a giant step backwards for this country. And running on that platform should get you chased out of town, not votes.
QUOTE(JohnfrmCleveland @ Jan 19 2008, 10:07 PM)
QUOTE(Dontreadonme @ Jan 20 2008, 01:28 AM)
I don't consider it a stretch at all. Religious fundamentalism has no place in American government. I'm not saying that Southern Baptists are a step away from beheading unbelievers, but defining marriage on religious grounds is certainly more harmful than banning dancing or the cinema.
I absolutely agree on this point. Denying a person the right to enter into a contract (marry) based on that person's sexual orientation is discrimination, plain and simple. I am amazed that more people don't recognize that, considering how often we have had to deal with racial discrimination. Codifying that discrimination in an amendment would be a giant step backwards for this country. And running on that platform should