Quote from Rush Limbaugh's appearance on CBS evening news... - Page 4 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 09-12-2006, 10:04 PM   #46
Refugee
 
Westport's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 2,151
Local Time: 03:14 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by trevster2k
Relatively speaking, it is or at least was a handful of fanatics. Out of the hundreds of millions, perhaps over a billion Muslims, the majority of the Muslim population is not out to destroy America, this the problem with the strategy. It just reinforces the extremists argument of an evil America. Instead of reducing the number of people who are willing to listen to the crazy talk, it is having an opposite effect. Even these so called "home grown terrorist cells" are probably young Arab men who have been disenfranchised from society whether it be through perceived mistreatment or racism or just feeling left out. For whatever reason, they connect with the radical teachings of extreme Islam and meet others with the same mind set. Somewhere along the way, they dicuss possible methods of harming society. I think it is similar to the thinking of a young bullyed kid in schools who feels like an outsider and then goes out shooting people. Is it right, of course not. Millions and millions of people around the world disagree with US foreign policy but don't want to kill anyone over it. Yes, there are millions of Muslims out there who may hate the US right now, but are they all willing to go join a suicide squad, nope, I didn't see all the US citizens joining the military after 9/11 despite the rage within the society. Talk and action are two different things. You don't have to look any further than politicians to see that.

So what fuels this willingness to hate a country so much you are willing to kill yourself to kill others? Again, nothing in the present US policy in the "war on terror" is even considering this. All we hear is "they hate freedom" and now how they want totatalitarian Islamist regimes, well, again the US presently supports dictatorships in the Middle East so this whole argument doesn't even hold water. The problem with the Bush administration is that it is taking an extremely complex issue and simplifying it and thinking that throwing weapons at it will solve it or by taking out individuals will solve it. This simply won't work.

Actually, it is likely that the present policies have taken what was once a tiny group of outcasts and given them a stronger voice and sympathy amongst the general Muslim population. The US has invaded and occupied two Muslim countries. If the average Muslim citizen in the Middle East is as ill-informed or ambivalent about international policies as the average North American citizen then it is easy to see them developing a hatred for the US. Is this helping decrease or increase terrorism? Also, this climate of fear and Bush saying the US is safer but still not safe is almost laughable. We in North America have no idea what it is like to live in fear. We don't have foreign soldiers driving around our neighbourhoods in military vehicles with live weapons drawn or have overhead flights by foreign jets which could blow up a nearby target at any time. People in Afghanistan, Iraq and Lebanon are susceptible to any propaganda thrown their way due to the circumstances under which they are living. They feel totally vulnerable to the US. People are seeing the US as the aggressors, not defenders. Comments by the President such as "we fight them over there so we don't have to fight them here" is a perceived arrogance and a disregard for the civilian populations in the other countries. These things just add up to make people fear the US not sympathize with it.

In regards to reducing dependency on oil, where do you think the money for the funding of Islamic terrorists is coming from? Oil producing countries, it is their bankroll. Take it away, and you take away much of their economic power just as freezing the assets of suspected terrorist groups has diminished the abillities of these groups to fund themselves.

I don't think the "terrorists" will win. Taking away the root causes of extremist beliefs isn't done overnight. It also requires humility and goodwill and consistent policies towards other countries. If US policy is to condemn and have no ties with Communists, then China should be in the same boat as Cuba and North Korea. But no, economics trumps human rights and politics in this case. Same thing for the soft gloves treatment of Saudi Arabia. This just confuses people as to what does the US want? Dictators or no dictators, communism or no?

I don't think they want want the entire world to be ruled under their laws of Allah. Who knows what they want? Bin Laden keeps changing his statements to reflect current situations in the Middle East. Now, Al Qaeda says it will concentrate on the Middle East and Israel. Check out the book The Looming Tower: Al Qaeda and the Road to 9/11. I haven't read it yet but it discusses the motivations of Al Qaeda. The reasons given by Bush for Islamist terrorists are his reasons, not the real reasons. We don't know their true motivations but it does involve not having the US in the Middle East. Also, I feel pretty sure that the radical Imams might be telling their students " Do you think that the US wants the entire world to be ruled under their laws of God?" Probably.

Right now, security is supposedly extremely tight on airlines. But it's possible to smuggle liquids aboard a plane using a plastic case similar to a Mr. Freezie container taped to your leg. Unless you are physically searched, the machine wouldn't pick it up. How about under a fake piece of skin like makeup artists use? What would the security response be if there is an attack on a US subway, bus or train? The economic effects would be incredibly draining. Are there enough resources to have the security for those modes of travel to make citizens feel "safe'? What if they poison a water supply, or commerical products like Coke or powdered milk or medicine? Then what the response be. Are authorities even thinking about their contingency plans for such scenarios? If I can think it up, I'm sure they can. Do you ban all Muslims and people of Middle Eastern descent from the airline industry including groundcrews and catering services whom may have access to planes? What if a nuke was detonated in the mainland US by a terrorist? Whom would you attack if you don't know where the nuke was acquired? Having said that, I do think that having a heightened security is a good thing and people are more aware of suspicious activity, maybe even too suspicious in some instances, but this has created another obstacle for extremists to overcome.

I think that if the present administration believes that its' solution is the only effective one, then don't expect any of your soldiers to return home soon. If the US had stayed in Afghanistan and built up their nation with a competent Afghan military, eliminated the warlords, reconstructed civilian services and constructed a strong border to prevent the Taliban from crossing back and forth from Pakistan and allowing a stable national government which could speak without the fear of assassination, then I would have some faith in this administration but alas that didn't happen. Also, fatwas from guys in hiding don't justify a policy of coming out guns a blazing. Ann Coulter has said some outrageous things like ""[Canadians] better hope the United States does not roll over one night and crush them. They are lucky we allow them to exist on the same continent." or " We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity" and she probably has a pretty large following too. The extremists are probably using her quotes too.


-------------

Even these so called "home grown terrorist cells" are probably Young Arab men who have been disenfranchised from society whether it be through perceived mistreatment or racism or just feeling left out.

-------------
**Yes, they are disenfranchised from society but by their own choosing. They have 20% of the world's population but look at the following numbers and explain to me why they haven't intergrated into modern society....

Nobel Prizes:

Literature:
1988 - Najib Mahfooz

Peace:
1978 - Mohamed Anwar El-Sadat
1994 - Yaser Arafat:
1990 - Elias James Corey
1999 - Ahmed Zewa

Economics:
(none)

Medicine:
1960 - Peter Brian Medawar
1998 - Ferid Mourad

****************************************************

The Global Jewish population is approximately 14,000,000, or about 0.02% of the world population. They have received the following Nobel Prizes:

Literature:
1910 - Paul Heyse
1927 - Henri Bergson
1958 - Boris Pasternak
1966 - Shmuel Yosef Agnon
1966 - Nelly Sachs
1976 - Saul Bellow
1978 - Isaac Bashevis Singer
1981 - Elias Canetti
1987 - Joseph Brodsky
1991 - Nadine Gordimer World

Peace:
1911 - Alfred Fried
1911 - Tobias Michael Carel Asser
1968 - Rene Cassin
1973 - Henry Kissinger
1978 - Menachem Begin
1986 - Elie Wiesel
1994 - Shimon Peres
1994 - Yitzhak Rabin

Physics:
1905 - Adolph Von Baeyer
1906 - Henri Moissan
1907 - Albert Abraham Michelson
1908 - Gabriel Lippmann
1910 - Otto Wallach
1915 - Richard Willstaetter
1918 - Fritz Haber
1921 - Albert Einstein
1922 - Niels Bohr
1925 - James Franck
1925 - Gustav Hertz
1943 - Gustav Stern
1943 - George Charles de Hevesy
1944 - Isidor Issac Rabi
1952 - Felix Bloc h
1954 - Max Born
1958 - Igor Tamm
1959 - Emilio Segre
1960 - Donald A. Glaser
1961 - Robert Hofstadter
1961 - Melvin Calvin
1962 - Lev Davidovich Landau
1962 - Max Ferdinand Perutz
1965 - Richard Phillips Feynman
1965 - Julian Schwinger
1969 - Murray Gell-Mann
1971 - Dennis Gabor
1972 - William Howard Stein
1973 - Brian David Josephson
1975 - Benjamin Mottleson
1976 - Burton Richter
1977 - Ilya Prigogine
1978 - Arno Allan Penzias
1978 - Peter L Kapitza
1979 - Stephen Weinberg
1979 - Sheldon Glashow
1979 - Herbert Charle s Brown
1980 - Paul Berg
1980 - Walter Gilbert
1981 - Roald Hoffmann
1982 - Aaron Klug
1985 - Albert A. Hauptman
1985 - Jerome Karle
1986 - Dudley R. Herschbach
1988 - Robert Huber
1988 - Leon Lederman
1988 - Melvin Schwartz
1988 - Jack Steinberger
1989 - Sidney Altman
1990 - Jerome Friedman
1992 - Rudolph Marcus
1995 - Martin Perl
2000 - Alan J. Heeger

Economics:
1970 - Paul Anthony Samuelson
1971 - Simon Kuznets
1972 - Kenneth Joseph Arrow
1975 - Leonid Kantorovich
1976 - Milton Friedman
1978 - Herbert A. Simon
1980 - Lawrence Robert Klein
1985 - Franco Modigliani
1987 - Robert M. Solow
1990 - Harry Markowitz
1990 - Merton Miller
1992 - Gary Becker
1993 - Robert Fogel

Medicine:
1908 - Elie Metchnikoff
1908 - Paul Erlich
1914 - Robert Barany
1922 - Otto Meyerhof
1930 - Karl Landsteiner
1931 - Otto Warburg
1936 - Otto Loewi
1944 - Joseph Erlanger
1944 - Herbert Spencer Gasser
1945 - Ernst Boris Chain
1946 - Hermann Joseph Muller
1950 - Tadeus Reichstein
1952 - Selman Abra ham Waksman
1953 - Hans Krebs
1953 - Fritz Albert Lipmann
1958 - Joshua Lederberg
1959 - Arthur Kornberg
1964 - Konrad Bloch
1965 - Francois Jacob
1965 - Andre Lwoff
1967 - George Wald
1968 - Marshall W. Nirenberg
1969 - Salvador Luria
1970 - Julius Axelrod
1970 - Sir Bernard Katz
1972 - Gerald Maurice Edelman
1975 - Howard Martin Temin
1976 - Baruch S. Blumberg
1977 - Roselyn Sussman Yalow
1978 - Daniel Nathans
1980 - Baruj Benacerraf
1984 - Cesar Milstein
1985 - Michael Stuart Brown
1985 - Joseph L. Goldstein
1986 - Stanley Cohen [& Rita Levi-Montalcini]
1988 - Gertrude Elion
1989 - Harold Varmus
1991 - Erwin Neher
1991 - Bert Sakmann
1993 - Richard J. Roberts
1993 - Phillip Sharp
1994 - Alfred Gilman
1995 - Edward B. Lewis

--------

**But...

--------

For whatever reason, they connect with the radical teachings of extreme Islam and meet others with the same mind set. Somewhere along the way, they discuss possible methods of harming society.

--------

**That's an interesting choice.

---------

I think it is similar to the thinking of a young bullyeyed kid in schools who feels like an outsider and then goes out shooting people.

**But if you had punched that kid in the nose and built his town a school...maybe, just maybe he won't grow up to be a bully. Maybe that works, maybe it doesn't.

-----------

Is it right, of course not. Millions and millions of people around the world disagree with US foreign policy but don't want to kill anyone over it. Yes, there are millions of Muslims out there who may hate the US right now, but are they all willing to go join a suicide squad, nope, I didn't see all the US citizens joining the military after 9/11 despite the rage within the society. Talk and action are two different things.

**The difference is US citizens are not asked to join suicide squads that send airplanes into buildings and we are not broadcasting intentions and desires to kill millions of Muslims. These suicide squads were being formed pre-9/11.

----------

So what fuels this willingness to hate a country so much you are willing to kill yourself to kill others?

**Israel. The largest fuel. Israel in the Middle East is their biggest reason for their hatred. Always has been. Our support of Israel is fuel number two. Followed by our freedoms, our rights for women...

------------

We in North America have no idea what it is like to live in fear.


**Really? That is not true. I would beg to differ. It may be different but we know fear. Very much so. You fear what you can't see. We fear for our children. I feared an attack for years preceeding 9/11. And then I worked in the tallest building West of the Mississippi for four years after 9/11. The Library Tower that was listed as the target for the West coast terrorism strike. Every day there was a lot of fear. Driving into downtown, looking at the skyline, looking at that building, going through 3 levels of security checkpoints, riding up in the elevator, thinking about airplanes, thinking about car bombs. But for all Americans living in American cities, there is one thing that hangs over our heads and that is a flash of light. A dirty bomb. It is the same thing when I travel for work: Boston, Washington, D.C., New York, San Francisco...there is a immense amount of fear out there. There is great fear in the things that you can't see but can imagine. That is terrorism. Do you not believe that our children are fearful?




----------------------

The reasons given by Bush for Islamist terrorists are his reasons, not the real reasons. We don't know their true motivations but it does involve not having the US in the Middle East.

**And not having Israel in the Middle East for that matter.
-------------------

Are there enough resources to have the security for those modes of travel to make citizens feel "safe'?

**No. There can never be enough security. There needs to be more.

---------------------

What if they poison a water supply, or commerical products like Coke or powdered milk or medicine? Then what the response be. Are authorities even thinking about their contingency plans for such scenarios?

**Yes. And I don't know the response but if it is done once...it will be done again and I'll need a room up in Canada. With a wife and four kids...maybe a few rooms.
-----------------------
If I can think it up, I'm sure they can. Do you ban all Muslims and people of Middle Eastern descent from the airline industry including ground crews and catering services whom may have access to planes?

**Yes. I have a very creative imagine and can create all kind of things in my head. Limited profiling will most likely be coming but not until after the next major successful attack.
-------------------------


What if a nuke was detonated in the mainland US by a terrorist? Whom would you attack if you don't know where the nuke was acquired?


**If a nuke was detonated in the mainland US and millions were killed we would be looking at the potential collapse of our country and I honestly don't know what we would do. We would want to make someone accountable and would probably consider the annihilation of Tehran. I really don't know. I would prefer that we bomb their desert and publish a list of global targets that would be destroyed if it happened again. I hope it is something that will never happen. What would you do?

----------
I think that if the present administration believes that its' solution is the only effective one, then don't expect any of your soldiers to return home soon.

**I don't.


__________________
__________________

__________________
Westport is offline  
Old 09-12-2006, 10:39 PM   #47
Refugee
 
Westport's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 2,151
Local Time: 03:14 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by yolland

Could you elaborate a little on what sort of response it is that you prefer? You say that you like Bush's attitude and that he's approaching this "with definition," but then you also say you're not happy with the handling of Iraq, which would seem to be the standout exemplar of Bush's "attitude" to date--what is that you're not happy with, and what do you think should be changed about it? When you say "these countries have failed to evolve on their own," which ones do you mean? Iraq? Iran? Pakistan? Lebanon? Syria? Saudi Arabia? Afghanistan? Which of those do you believe pose the most danger, and what is your solution for responding to their failures to evolve? Do you believe they have no motivations of their own to prevent substate terrorist actors from gaining possession of nuclear weapons and using their territories as a launching pad for them? Or were you more thinking in terms of an attack carried out from here--in which case what is your preferred pre-emptive solution for that?

Bush should have been a lot more aggressive from the outset. He should have sent more troups initially to Afghanistan and Tora Bora and then more to Iraq. There is strength in numbers. There should have been a post-Iraq plan. But I appreciate the idea and vision of a democracy in the Middle East and I've always thought that this would take a very, very long time. I am surprised that we haven't lost a lot more soldiers. I have always believed that the best plan in discouraging terrorism would involve intelligence and working with other countries but would also involve working on the inside and building out. I have never believed this was about weapons of mass destruction though it is interesting to watch the ineptitude of the United Nations. I appreciate that Bush recognized Iran as a real threat to the world and to the longer term stablility to the Middle East and they are most likely the reason why we are in Iraq. Want to know and keep an eye on the biggest supporter of terrorism (Iran) and infiltrate it? Land in their backyard. Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush...most of what is going on is happening behind the scenes, we (the general public) will never know or have a clue about and what we do hear and put out there and what they (and what we) put out there is always manipulated. Wag the dog...question today's attack of the U.S. Embassy in Damascus....there could be other motivations there. Like it or not our governments have never been open books. And I do think the p.r. of the Bush administration is just awful. I believe that his speechwriters need speechwriters. And he needs to lip sync....he's the worst speaker. But like it or not, agree with him or not, you know where he stands. And I respect the guy for being our president during this time and he is far from perfect but neither am I. I wouldn't wish that job on anyone.
-----------------------------
When you say "these countries have failed to evolve on their own," which ones do you mean? Iraq? Iran? Pakistan? Lebanon? Syria? Saudi Arabia? Afghanistan?

**Some more than others.
------------------------------
Which of those do you believe pose the most danger, and what is your solution for responding to their failures to evolve?

**Their failure to evolve is not our problem but it is our problem that a country such as Iran wants to support terrorism and threaten and acquire nuclear weapons. And if they go forward with their plans, Israel will probably make sure that it doesn't happen.

-----------------------------------
Do you believe they have no motivations of their own to prevent substate terrorist actors from gaining possession of nuclear weapons and using their territories as a launching pad for them?

**Sure there maybe people within those states that have motivations of prevention but I also believe that there are others that do not and see themselves as the David Koreshes of the Muslim world that would gladly go down in blaze of fire and take as many people as they possibly can with them.
-------------------------------
Or were you more thinking in terms of an attack carried out from here--in which case what is your preferred pre-emptive solution for that?

**I prefer the pre-emptive solution in a lot more ways that the post-solution of an attack. What we are doing is an attemptive preferred pre-emptive solution for an attack carried out here. In a lot of ways that means being a lot of things including the good cop and the bad cop. Strength, being in and rebuilding Iraq, keeping an eye on Iran, working with other countries, intelligence and not giving them a single thought that we, in the slightest way are going to put up with being attacked.
__________________

__________________
Westport is offline  
Old 09-13-2006, 01:48 AM   #48
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
AEON's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: California
Posts: 4,052
Local Time: 04:14 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Westport



Bush should have been a lot more aggressive from the outset. He should have sent more troups initially to Afghanistan and Tora Bora and then more to Iraq. There is strength in numbers. There should have been a post-Iraq plan.
I absolutely agree. Our weak approach was meant to appease the Left and it is only achieving the opposite. It has also caused far more US casualties than necessary.

The lesson of Vietnam was not that we should not have intervened, but that if you go to war - you fight to win.

500,000 coalition troops could quell the insurgency in weeks.
__________________
AEON is offline  
Old 09-13-2006, 02:09 AM   #49
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,667
Local Time: 05:14 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by AEON


I absolutely agree. Our weak approach was meant to appease the Left


Yeah it had nothing to with "this will be a quick and easy war" mentality from the right.

Revisionist history cracks me up.
__________________
BVS is online now  
Old 09-13-2006, 07:42 AM   #50
Blue Crack Addict
 
MrsSpringsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 24,979
Local Time: 06:14 AM
Yes I want to protect terrorists, Bin Laden is actually in my basement and I feed him Godiva chocolates every day

By MARY DALRYMPLE, Associated Press Writer

Republicans and Democrats tore into each over war policy Tuesday, set off by a presidential speech the White House insisted was nonpolitical. A GOP leader said Democrats seemed "more interested in protecting the terrorists" than shielding fellow Americans.

The Democrats contended the president had used a prime-time address commemorating the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks to make partisan arguments bolstering support for the Iraq war.

"I wonder if they are more interested in protecting the terrorists than protecting the American people," said House Majority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio. "They certainly do not want to take the terrorists on and defeat them."
__________________
MrsSpringsteen is offline  
Old 09-13-2006, 09:54 AM   #51
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Macfistowannabe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Ohio
Posts: 4,129
Local Time: 07:14 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511
you know what's striking me about the turn debate has taken on FYM? how anti-Islamic it is becoming.
Some have a lot of trouble separating good and evil. There are Muslims who have condemned 9/11 wholeheartedly, most notably from Islamic anti-terror organizations. There are Muslims who condemned 9/11 half-heartedly, such as the CAIR - apparently the Islamic version of the ACLU. And there are Muslims who want Islamic Jihad to prevail. We saw thousands of these fanatics cheering all over the Middle East on 9/11. Most of us realized it was a declaration of war against the United States and Western Civilization itself.

I love how Russ Feingold and other legislators pretend to support the First Amendment one minute, and the next minute, they're out trying to control our language when we condemn the results of radical Islamic theofascism. What I've seen on FYM is posters needlessly condemning Christians for the crime of showing up at the voting polls. I say the real threat of theocracy lies in the hands of the Jihadists who act on their words when they chant Death to America, kidknap news reporters, behead American soldiers, attack the civilian population, hide behind women and children, beat their wives, attack Israel, attack Europe, attack Canada, and pass their hateful ideology on to their children.

Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511
i am genuinely concerned about the following comments:

[q]vermin in holy robes[/q]
Why the concern?

They pose as followers of a religion, but the night before 9/11, they hit the strip clubs. What's that tell me? It tells me that either these are people who care more about blowing up innocent people than their religion, or that their brand of Islam is going to get us all killed if we don't do something about it. They pose as a religious sect, when it's really a fanatical political movement to destroy America, Israel, and Europe.

[q]hey plea for anyone but Arabs to be searched at our airports, [/q]If we let ONE Jihadist on another airplane, we lose loved ones. I understand that it might hurt someone's feelings if they're falsely accused. Fine. But the pain will be much greater the day we allow 9/11 to happen again because we were too spineless to prevent it.

So if we care about our homeland security, how are we going to hunt down terrorists?

Was Al Gore searched because of...
Psychological profiling?
Random profiling?

In any event, he didn't seem to mind too much.

And out of these pictures, if you were in charge of our security, who would you want searched?



__________________
Macfistowannabe is offline  
Old 09-13-2006, 10:16 AM   #52
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,483
Local Time: 06:14 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Westport
There should have been a post-Iraq plan.


but do you realize how massive this is? this doesn't deserve a sentence in a list of complaints. it is THE BIGGEST complaint. they invaded a country and HAD NO POST WAR PLAN!!!! how gobsmackingly stupid is that? and Rumsfeld threatened to fire anyone who actually did come up with a post war plan!!!!

that's HUGE!

and this PROVES that they were never, ever serious to begin with. they were never cared about democracy until it became the only thing left to justify the invasion. they simply wanted to go into Iraq, knock him out, install Ahmed Chalabi or another friendly exile, and then get out quickly in time for the 2004 election and send a message to Tehran and Damascus that, look out mothefuckers, we can do the same to you.

too bad reality blew up in their faces.

if you truly believe we are under seige by those who would detonate a nuke on the East River, then you have absolutely no justification for believing that Bush and Co. are at all competent enough to effectively prosecute this war.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 09-13-2006, 10:18 AM   #53
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,483
Local Time: 06:14 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by AEON


I absolutely agree. Our weak approach was meant to appease the Left and it is only achieving the opposite.


no.

it was meant to sell the war to a frightened but skeptical american public.

NOTHING to do with "the left," which was against the war from the outset (not counting who's usually dubbed the high priestess of the Left, HRC, who is still pro-war).
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 09-13-2006, 10:23 AM   #54
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Macfistowannabe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Ohio
Posts: 4,129
Local Time: 07:14 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by MrsSpringsteen
"I wonder if they are more interested in protecting the terrorists than protecting the American people," said House Majority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio. "They certainly do not want to take the terrorists on and defeat them." [/B]
We'd be on the same page if I hadn't passed the "wondering" stages long ago.
__________________
Macfistowannabe is offline  
Old 09-13-2006, 10:30 AM   #55
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Macfistowannabe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Ohio
Posts: 4,129
Local Time: 07:14 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511




no.

it was meant to sell the war to a frightened but skeptical american public.

NOTHING to do with "the left," which was against the war from the outset (not counting who's usually dubbed the high priestess of the Left, HRC, who is still pro-war).
No.

The vote to authorize the War in Iraq was given bipartisan support.

THE SENATE

YEAs ---77
Allard (R-CO)
Allen (R-VA)
Baucus (D-MT)
Bayh (D-IN)
Bennett (R-UT)
Biden (D-DE)
Bond (R-MO)
Breaux (D-LA)
Brownback (R-KS)
Bunning (R-KY)
Burns (R-MT)
Campbell (R-CO)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Carnahan (D-MO)
Carper (D-DE)
Cleland (D-GA)
Clinton (D-NY)
Cochran (R-MS)
Collins (R-ME)
Craig (R-ID)
Crapo (R-ID)
Daschle (D-SD)
DeWine (R-OH)
Dodd (D-CT)
Domenici (R-NM)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Edwards (D-NC)
Ensign (R-NV)
Enzi (R-WY)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Fitzgerald (R-IL)
Frist (R-TN)
Gramm (R-TX)
Grassley (R-IA)
Gregg (R-NH)
Hagel (R-NE)
Harkin (D-IA)
Hatch (R-UT)
Helms (R-NC)
Hollings (D-SC)
Hutchinson (R-AR)
Hutchison (R-TX)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kerry (D-MA)
Kohl (D-WI)
Kyl (R-AZ)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Lieberman (D-CT)
Lincoln (D-AR)
Lott (R-MS)
Lugar (R-IN)
McCain (R-AZ)
McConnell (R-KY)
Miller (D-GA)
Murkowski (R-AK)
Nelson (D-FL)
Nelson (D-NE)
Nickles (R-OK)
Reid (D-NV)
Roberts (R-KS)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Santorum (R-PA)
Schumer (D-NY)
Sessions (R-AL)
Shelby (R-AL)
Smith (R-NH)
Smith (R-OR)
Snowe (R-ME)
Specter (R-PA)
Stevens (R-AK)
Thomas (R-WY)
Thompson (R-TN)
Thurmond (R-SC)
Torricelli (D-NJ)
Voinovich (R-OH)
Warner (R-VA)

NAYs ---23
Akaka (D-HI)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Boxer (D-CA)
Byrd (D-WV)
Chafee (R-RI)
Conrad (D-ND)
Corzine (D-NJ)
Dayton (D-MN)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feingold (D-WI)
Graham (D-FL)
Inouye (D-HI)
Jeffords (I-VT)
Kennedy (D-MA)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Murray (D-WA)
Reed (D-RI)
Sarbanes (D-MD)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Wellstone (D-MN)
Wyden (D-OR)


THE HOUSE

---- YEAS 296 ---

Ackerman
Aderholt
Akin
Andrews
Armey
Bachus
Baker
Ballenger
Barcia
Barr
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bentsen
Bereuter
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop
Blagojevich
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Boozman
Borski
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Bryant
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Carson (OK)
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Clement
Coble
Collins
Combest
Cooksey
Cox
Cramer
Crane
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cubin
Culberson
Cunningham
Davis (FL)
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal
DeLay
DeMint
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Dicks
Dooley
Doolittle
Dreier
Dunn
Edwards
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
Engel
English
Etheridge
Everett
Ferguson
Flake
Fletcher
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Fossella
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Gephardt
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Goss
Graham
Granger
Graves
Green (TX)
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Grucci
Gutknecht
Hall (TX)
Hansen
Harman
Hart
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hill
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoeffel
Hoekstra
Holden
Horn
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Isakson
Israel
Issa
Istook
Jefferson
Jenkins
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Kanjorski
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
Kennedy (RI)
Kerns
Kind (WI)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Lampson
Lantos
Latham
LaTourette
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Lucas (OK)
Luther
Lynch
Maloney (NY)
Manzullo
Markey
Mascara
Matheson
McCarthy (NY)
McCrery
McHugh
McInnis
McIntyre
McKeon
McNulty
Meehan
Mica
Miller, Dan
Miller, Gary
Miller, Jeff
Moore
Moran (KS)
Murtha
Myrick
Nethercutt
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Osborne
Ose
Otter
Oxley
Pascrell
Pence
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Phelps
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Pombo
Pomeroy
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Quinn
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Reynolds
Riley
Roemer
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Rothman
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Sandlin
Saxton
Schaffer
Schiff
Schrock
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherman
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shows
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Skeen
Skelton
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Souder
Spratt
Stearns
Stenholm
Sullivan
Sununu
Sweeney
Tancredo
Tanner
Tauscher
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Thune
Thurman
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Toomey
Turner
Upton
Vitter
Walden
Walsh
Wamp
Watkins (OK)
Watts (OK)
Waxman
Weiner
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Wexler
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Wynn
Young (AK)
Young (FL)



---- NAYS 133 ---

Abercrombie
Allen
Baca
Baird
Baldacci
Baldwin
Barrett
Becerra
Blumenauer
Bonior
Brady (PA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Carson (IN)
Clay
Clayton
Clyburn
Condit
Conyers
Costello
Coyne
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Duncan
Eshoo
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Frank
Gonzalez
Gutierrez
Hastings (FL)
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hostettler
Houghton
Inslee
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kaptur
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kleczka
Kucinich
LaFalce
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lofgren
Maloney (CT)
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McKinney
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Millender-McDonald
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moran (VA)
Morella
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pastor
Paul
Payne
Pelosi
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Sawyer
Schakowsky
Scott
Serrano
Slaughter
Snyder
Solis
Stark
Strickland
Stupak
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Velazquez
Visclosky
Waters
Watson (CA)
Watt (NC)
Woolsey
Wu



---- NOT VOTING 3 ---

Ortiz
Roukema
Stump
__________________
Macfistowannabe is offline  
Old 09-13-2006, 10:58 AM   #56
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,483
Local Time: 06:14 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Macfistowannabe
No.

The vote to authorize the War in Iraq was given bipartisan support.


and most members of Congress now regret their vote, and would never have voted if they had realized how manipulated the intelligence was as well as known that the administration had NO POST WAR PLAN.

also, it's important to note that it wasn't an authorization to go to war, it was an authorization to go to war if further diplomatic efforts failed. that's a lawyerly distinction, but it's important to make it clear that it wasn't as simple as an yes or no vote on whether or not to invade Iraq.

and i don't care if it was bipartisan. it was still a stupid, stupid, stupid thing to do.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 09-13-2006, 10:59 AM   #57
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,483
Local Time: 06:14 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Macfistowannabe
We'd be on the same page if I hadn't passed the "wondering" stages long ago.


this is an unconscionable thing to say.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 09-13-2006, 11:31 AM   #58
Blue Crack Addict
 
verte76's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: hoping for changes
Posts: 23,331
Local Time: 11:14 AM
I agree, this is a disturbing trend here. I'm not wondering why there aren't any Muslims here these days. There may be some Muslim lurkers but I'll be damned if they're going to post.
__________________
verte76 is offline  
Old 09-13-2006, 11:36 AM   #59
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 09:14 PM
A disturbing trend

How so?
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 09-13-2006, 12:08 PM   #60
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,483
Local Time: 06:14 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by A_Wanderer
A disturbing trend

How so?


some people in here feel free to say things about Muslims, or to make sweeping generalizations about all Islamic groups (even the radical ones) that we would never allow about any other race or ethnicity or religion. think of the fits that are thrown, and then the endless redefinitions and explaining-of-onesself, when a term like "Christianist" is used.

some are not according Muslims, and Islam, the same respect they would demand.

i fully support the use of the word "Islamist." i am fine with calling Islamist terror what it is, i am fine, even, with Islamofascism. but i do think that care needs to be taken to make distinctions and avoid the sweeping language we've seen in several threads, as well as the newly sweeping language that's been tossed out into the American political arena in this new election season (which is perfectly reflected in some of these posts).



(sorry, didn't mean to answer for Verte)
__________________

__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:14 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com