The official Election Day 2006 thread!

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
80sU2isBest said:


What? No mention of Clinton's ATF, which spear-headed the whole David Koresh fiasco, which ended in the deaths of dozens of innocent men, women and children?

Or how about Reno authorizing the feds' illegal armed entry of the house of Elian Gonzales on Easter weekend, pointing a gun in the child's face, and taking him crying and screaming away from the only people he knew in the entire USA - no mention of that?

Or how about Clinton sending troops to Somalia on a "peace-keeping" mission, not allowing them to fire back. How about those 12 soldiers that were killed there and dragged through the streets. How about the fact that Clinton did not retaliate for that?

You're looking at the Clinton Admin through Rose-colored glasses; there's no doubt about that.

I was talking about one of the POSITIVE Action that President Clinton did.......there's stuff I DEF disagreed about. in his actions over the years.
I was highing a postive contrast between how CLINTON"s FEMA probably would have handled Huricaine Katrina, NOT debating his negatives - since that wasn't the point of my particular conversation. to Butterscotch.
 
It is indeed a beautiful day. Congratulations to all who gave their time, money and enthusiasm to secure this victory. As my friend in Italy said, "the world breathes easier tonight".
 
I'm Ready said:

You're welcome. Reading over my post I made some dumb mistakes like the President will have to work with the President, but you got the gist.

It was an ungodly hour of the morning.:wink:
 
80s do you actually believe it was in the best interest of Elian Gonzalez, the child, to be taken away from his immediate family?

I grew up in a Communist state. Parents there loved their children just as much. And I found it loathsome to suggest that he should be taken from his own father, who loved him and provided him with a loving home, in the name of political ideology. What a terrifying concept.
 
anitram said:
80s do you actually believe it was in the best interest of Elian Gonzalez, the child, to be taken away from his immediate family?

I grew up in a Communist state. Parents there loved their children just as much. And I found it loathsome to suggest that he should be taken from his own father, who loved him and provided him with a loving home, in the name of political ideology. What a terrifying concept.

There were reports that the father didn't see Elian much when he lived in Cuba. His mother died trying to get him to freedom in America. If I recall correctly, the US offered the Father amnesty here in the states, which he turned down. That father was being selfish; any good father would wanted freedom for his son, even if it meant he could never see him again. Or maybe it was Castro pulling the Dad's strings.

Besides, what Reno ordered - an armed entry of the house was illegal. Armed entry is not permitted by the Feds unless there is imminent and reasonable fear of danger. The relatives hadn't rpovided any reason for those Feds to fear their lives were in danger.
 
Last edited:
What a very ethnocentric view.

The father did have contact with Elian in Cuba - he was most certainly not estranged. Elian's mother committed an illegal act by taking the child out of jurisdiction which nearly killed him. She most certainly did not have clean hands nor did she act in his best interest.

"Freedom" in America. What an ethnocentric view. I'm just glad nobody thought to liberate me from the loving home of my parents for freedom in America. And guess what? We turned out to be just as upstanding as everyone else, more educated than your average American, and so on. Despite the horrid selfishness of our parents for keeping us in Communism.
 
anitram said:
What a very ethnocentric view.

Not ethnocentric at all. It's a freedom-loving view. If the boy had been taken to any free country to get him away from an oppressive government headed by an insane dictator, I would have supported the relatives wanting to keep him, not just America.

Viva La Freedom!

anitram said:
The father did have contact with Elian in Cuba - he was most certainly not estranged.

So you say, but there are other reports which say the opposite, as well.

anitram said:
She most certainly did not have clean hands nor did she act in his best interest.

She was acting in his best interests.

anitram said:
Despite the horrid selfishness of our parents for keeping us in Communism.

Your parents probably weren't acting from selfishness by keeping you in Communism. They probably had no choice - as you know, Communist countries don't like it when people try to leave.

However, in Elian's case, the child was already over here, in the care of loving relatives. The dad didn't say "wow, my child is experiencing a free life right now"...he said "I must bring my child back home to me, no matter that he will have to grow up under the rule of an oppressive communist dictator". I call that selfishness.
 
anitram said:
80s do you actually believe it was in the best interest of Elian Gonzalez, the child, to be taken away from his immediate family?

I grew up in a Communist state. Parents there loved their children just as much. And I found it loathsome to suggest that he should be taken from his own father, who loved him and provided him with a loving home, in the name of political ideology. What a terrifying concept.

Well, did you ever consider how Elian's mother would answer that question?
 
A woman who would take a 5 year old child into open water in essentially a dinghy boat, without informing or consulting his other legal guardian, and expose that child to a high risk of foreseeable harm is not acting in the child's best interest. She was criminally negligent.

If this was an American mother who did that and it went before American courts, she would lose custody immediately and rightfully so.

And as for this:

Your parents probably weren't acting from selfishness by keeping you in Communism. They probably had no choice - as you know, Communist countries don't like it when people try to leave.

Wrong. I lived in one where you could leave. So I guess you should have come and liberated me.
 
Last edited:
80sU2isBest said:


What? No mention of Clinton's ATF, which spear-headed the whole David Koresh fiasco, which ended in the deaths of dozens of innocent men, women and children?

Or how about Reno authorizing the feds' illegal armed entry of the house of Elian Gonzales on Easter weekend, pointing a gun in the child's face, and taking him crying and screaming away from the only people he knew in the entire USA - no mention of that?

Or how about Clinton sending troops to Somalia on a "peace-keeping" mission, not allowing them to fire back. How about those 12 soldiers that were killed there and dragged through the streets. How about the fact that Clinton did not retaliate for that?

You're looking at the Clinton Admin through Rose-colored glasses; there's no doubt about that.
George Bush sent the Marines into Somalia, the withdrawl of troops following the incident was a bad call; it proved to the Jihadists that their idea the USA is a paper tiger was right and shaped the strategy of incremental provocation to September 11 and the goals of the groups in Iraq and Afghanistan today.

I don't disagree with any particular point of the post but Bush hasn't done to much better - there needed to be a legal framework for dealing with illegal combatants and terrorists caught outside of the country (although worth pointing out rendition was carried out on Islamic terrorists under Clinton) - get on to dealing with the bastards without having a backlog of unresolved legal issues.

The criticisms of big government policies and anti-freedom laws that are made against Clinton can just as validly be made against Bush, and under two party systems the lowest common denominator rule ensures they will hang around.
 
Last edited:
anitram said:
A woman who would take a 5 year old child into open water in essentially a dinghy boat, without informing or consulting his other legal guardian, and expose that child to a high risk of foreseeable harm is not acting in the child's best interest. She was criminally negligent.

If this was an American mother who did that and it went before American courts, she would lose custody immediately and rightfully so.


Of course, because Cuba is no different from the United States, and no one in their right mind would ever have any reason to leave Cuba, right?

I really don't know much about the specific situation of Elian, but I think it would be a bit naive to presume that every Cuban that has put their 5 year old child onto a boat and into the difficult circumstances of fleeing Cuba, did not have a legitamite reason to do so.
 
najeena said:
It is indeed a beautiful day. Congratulations to all who gave their time, money and enthusiasm to secure this victory. As my friend in Italy said, "the world breathes easier tonight".

:yes:

I'm not only happy for Us in the USA, I am happy for the whole world.
:( :sigh: We have a lot of damage to undo. But the changes that will help bring the changes here & then into the larger world - the work begins now. : )

and thanks for your thanks

najeen--- I don't know if you ever saw on-line the "i'm sorry" website from us Americans that came online within days of the 2004 USA election.....but there were many of us.
 
Last edited:
redhotswami said:
hahaha i remember the we're sorry web site!!!! ah that was fun. i wonder if he reps will do the same in retaliation after this election.

No of course we won't. Why would we apologize to the world? Most of the world loves the election results. Especially the terrorists.

In fact, the Iraq Al Qaeda leader wants to thank the American people for putting the Dems in power:

Leader of al-Qaida in Iraq :macdevil: mocks Bush By CHRISTOPHER BODEEN, Associated Press Writer

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061111/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq

BAGHDAD, Iraq - A new recording Friday attributed to the leader of al-Qaida in Iraq mocked President Bush as a coward whose conduct of the war was rejected at the polls, challenging him to keep U.S. troops in the country to face more bloodshed.

"We haven't had enough of your blood yet," taunted terror chieftain Abu Hamza al-Muhajir, identified as the speaker on the tape.

He gloated over Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld's resignation, claimed to have 12,000 fighters under his command who "have vowed to die for God's sake," and said his fighters will not rest until they blow up the White House and occupy Jerusalem.

It was impossible to verify the authenticity of the 20-minute recording, posted on a Web site used by Islamic militants. The CIA said technical analysis was being conducted on the tape.

Al-Muhajir, an Egyptian also known as Abu Ayyub al-Masri, boasted that al-Qaida in Iraq is moving toward victory faster than expected because of Bush's mistakes.

White House spokesman Tony Snow said the Bush administration had no comment on the tape.

The tape and its often far-fetched claims came as the U.S. military announced the deaths of five more service members in the 44-month-old conflict, which has grown increasingly unpopular at home. Twenty-six American service members have been killed in Iraq so far this month.

At least 59 Iraqi civilians were killed or found dead Friday as the violence threatens to spiral into all-out civil war. In one of the day's bloodiest incidents, a suicide bomber in an explosives-rigged car killed six Iraqi soldiers he had lured from behind a checkpoint.

Just hours earlier, Iraq's army said it captured the Egyptian leader of an al-Qaida cell in Anbar province, an insurgent stronghold.

The audio message appeared to be an attempt to exact maximum propaganda benefit from the results of Tuesday's midterm elections, in which the Republicans lost control of both houses of Congress, in part because of the war.

Al-Muhajir praised the American people for handing victory to the Democrats, saying: "They voted for something reasonable in the last elections."

He also said Bush was "the most stupid president" in U.S. history.

"We call on the lame duck not to hurry his escape the way the defense secretary did," al-Muhajir said in reference to Rumsfeld's resignation as Pentagon chief on Wednesday.

"Remain steadfast on the battlefield, you coward," said al-Muhajir, who took over leadership of al-Qaida in Iraq after Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was killed in a U.S. airstrike in June.

"We will not rest from our jihad (holy war) until we are under the olive trees of Rumieh and we have blown up the filthiest house — which is called the White House," al-Muhajir said.

The "olive trees of Rumieh" appeared to be a reference to the Mount of Olives in Jerusalem, or to Christendom as a continuation of the Roman empire.

Al-Muhajir also told Iraqi Sunnis to ally with a shadowy mini-state that militants claim to have established last month under a man identified as Abu Omar al-Baghdadi.

"I vow allegiance to you," he said, addressing al-Baghdadi as the "ruler of believers " and placing al-Qaida in Iraq fighters under his command.

Friday's civilian death toll was little changed from previous days. The United Nations estimates about 100 Iraqis die in violence each day, while Iraq's health minister on Thursday estimated up to 150,000 civilians had been killed in the war — about three times previously accepted estimates of 45,000-50,000.

At least 33 bodies were found Friday, most the victims of roving sectarian death squads that usually torture their victims before shooting them.

Among the latest victims was a Sunni imam, Akram Jassim, 60, gunned down at the front entrance to his mosque in Mosul, 225 miles northwest of Baghdad, said Brig. Abdul Kerim al-Jubori, a spokesman for the provincial police.

Meanwhile, Bush and his national security team will meet Monday with members of a blue-ribbon commission trying to devise a new course for the unpopular war.

The bipartisan Iraq Study Group, led by former Secretary of State James A. Baker III and former Democratic congressman Lee Hamilton of Indiana, is expected to report its recommendations before the end of the year.

Members of the group will have a joint conference at the White House with Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney and National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley.
 
Last edited:
The GOP can't blame the voters. The GOP blew it. Are we supposed to embrace raging incompetence because of what a few terrorists might say? Talk about world opinion dictating your policy.

And if and when the Democrats show the same incompetence, I'll vote to throw them out too. I'm kind of liking this voter accountability thing. This wasn't a victory for liberals or conservatives, this was a victory for moderates.
 
BonosSaint said:
The GOP can't blame the voters. The GOP blew it.

You're right, the GOP blew it. A good number of `em are a bunch of wimps who rode high and mighty promises and didn't live up to them.

BonosSaint said:
Are we supposed to embrace raging incompetence because of what a few terrorists might say?

Of course not, but it is telling, isn't it, that terrorists are happy the Dems are in power? I wouldn't exactly accept that as a complement, if I were the Donkey party.
 
Ahhh...I do love the sound of conservatives whining. :D
 
I'm sure this article is just one out of loads of different people who are happy with the election results. Regardless of if you're a terrorist, a prime minister, the united nations, whatever your position in your respective society...why wouldn't anyone be happy that now there are finally people in our gov't with different opinions who will bring balance to the president, a man who knowingly launched a pre-emptive strike under completely false pretext? I'd imagine there are loads of others besides terrorists who are celebrating.
 
indra said:
Ahhh...I do love the sound of conservatives whining. :D

It might be be whining if it weren't so indicative of how I truly feel. With the exception of my usual prolife concerns, the number one reason I voted Republican this time around is national security.
 
BonoVoxSupastar said:


This is a childish response reflective of the "wimps" you called out in the GOP. I expect better from you.:|

It's not a "childish response", and I backed it up with actuial evidence. Didn't you read the article? I am certain that the Libs being in control of the congress is a very bad thing for national security.
 
redhotswami said:
I'm sure this article is just one out of loads of different people who are happy with the election results. Regardless of if you're a terrorist, a prime minister, the united nations, whatever your position in your respective society...why wouldn't anyone be happy that now there are finally people in our gov't with different opinions who will bring balance to the president, a man who knowingly launched a pre-emptive strike under completely false pretext? I'd imagine there are loads of others besides terrorists who are celebrating.

Everyone wants people to be in power who will benefit them. The prolifers want people who are against abortion. Homosexuals want people who support Gay Rights. Etc. Etc.

Terrorists want people who will ease up on them by legislating hand-tying, limiting policies. It's that simple. There is no other reason a terrrorist would actually rejoice over who wins American elections. Do you think the terrorists would be happy if they thought the Dems were gonna kick the poop out of them? Of course not.
 
80sU2isBest said:




Terrorists want people who will ease up on them by legislating hand-tying, limiting policies. It's that simple. There is no other reason a terrrorist would actually rejoice over who wins American elections. Do you think the terrorists would be happy if they thought the Dems were gonna kick the poop out of them? Of course not.

and the Iranian terrorists hostage takers were all for Reagan and against Carter

so Reagan's 1980 win
was a win for the terrorists/ hostage takers/ Ayatollah, right?
 
80sU2isBest said:


It's not a "childish response", and I backed it up with actuial evidence. Didn't you read the article? I am certain that the Libs being in control of the congress is a very bad thing for national security.

Yeah I read it and it was rhetoric bullshit. Think what you want, time will only tell.
 
Last edited:
deep said:


and the Iranian terrorists hostage takers were all for Reagan and against Carter

so Reagan's 1980 win
was a win for the terrorists/ hostage takers/ Ayatollah, right?

You know what I remember about the hostage crisis? For 444 days of Carter's presidency, Iran held our hostages. They released them on what day? Reagan's inaguration - the day he took power.

Iran wanted Reagan to be president, my heiney.
 
BonoVoxSupastar said:


Yeah I read it and it was rhetoric bullshit. Think what you want, time will only tell.

And still no one has given me any other possible explanation for the reason Iraqi Al Qaeda are happy that the Dems are in power.
And there never will be another explanation because you all know I'm right. You may not agree with me that National Security will suffer under the Dems, but using your common sense, you know Al Qaeda agrees with me on that point, and that is why they rejoice over the Dems getting power.
 
80sU2isBest said:


You know what I remember about the hostage crisis? For 444 days of Carter's presidency, Iran held our hostages. They released them on what day? Reagan's inaguration - the day he took power.

Iran wanted Reagan to be president, my heiney.

I don't know if you are clueless or just ignorant of the facts in 1980

but, the Iranian revolutionaries were very happy with Reagan's election, they called Carter the great Satan.


Reagan went on to trade arms for hostages with them, too.

So Reagan was very good for the Ayatollah.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom