 |
|
 PoliticsForum for discussing local and world politics and issues. All views are welcomed. Let your opinions be heard on current news and politics. All standard guidelines apply to this board, No Flaming, No Taunting, No Foul Language,No sexual innuendos,etc.. As politics can be a volatile subject, please consider how you would feel if your comment were directed toward yourself. Any post deemed to be in violation of guidelines will be deleted or edited without warning or notification. Any continued misbehavior will result in a ban or hidden status, so please play nice!!! *"Moderators are here for a reason. If a moderator (or Global Moderator or Fencer) requests that a discussion on a certain subject to cease - for whatever reason - please respect these wishes. Failure to do so may result in being hidden, or banned." この掲示板でメッセージを作成にはポーン会員以上の会員レベルが必要となりますので、あなたは作成権限が有りません。 モード: 誰でも投稿可能
<< < 368 369 370 371 372 373 374 375 376 377 > >> 25. １月 2009, 05:47:59 件名: Re: hey dan if u was president thou BadBoy7 (25. １月 2009, 05:48:32)に変更されました。 Artful Dodger: the bumper sticker said...if they outlaw guns then i will be an outlaw and they will have to pry the gun from my cold hands 25. １月 2009, 05:46:41 件名: hey dan Seriously I wonder how many president we would go through in a year if the commander in chief had to lead the armed forces in battle at the front of the lines as they do in tv movies with the leader leading the charge...think about that he has the power to send our men and women over to war and to kill and get killed BUT he is never there leading the charges 25. １月 2009, 05:46:00 件名: Re: hey dan if u was president thou  Foxy Lady: I've never owned a gun but I saw a bumber sticker I really liked (ok, I do own a pellet gun and I shoot at the racoons butts when they come in my back yard). Wanna hear what the bumper sticker said? 25. １月 2009, 05:45:41 件名: Re: hey dan if u was president thou  Foxy Lady: ROFL.......... 25. １月 2009, 05:43:55 件名: Re: hey dan if u was president thou  Artful Dodger: Oohhhhhhhhhhhhh puleassse don't go there. 25. １月 2009, 05:41:44 件名: Re: hey dan if u was president thou BadBoy7:  Wanna hear my views on gun control?  25. １月 2009, 05:39:36 件名: hey dan if u was president thou the only cabinet you would have is a GUN CABINET  25. １月 2009, 05:37:17 件名: Re: Papa Zoom (11. １０月 2011, 15:48:08)に変更されました。 Bernice: Thing is, I actually like Obama. :) (update) but I no longer do...along with thousands of others who have seen his true colors. He's and incompetent loser and proof that the Peter principle is true. 25. １月 2009, 05:32:51 件名: Re: Bernice: I just wish people would argue their case on its merits and remain consistent. Obama has the backing of the government in Afghanistan but because people see that war as necessary, when innocent people are killed it's considered differently. I don't get the double standard. 25. １月 2009, 05:30:04 pppptoooooooeeeeeee........now that the dummy spitting is finished, lets carry on ROFLMBO 25. １月 2009, 05:28:43 件名: Re: coan.net: This is the problem with these kinds of discussions. It was said that Bush is a war criminal. Then you support it by asking a question on whether Hitler could be considered a war criminal for his actions (because he had the backing of his government). But his government was very different for one. And Hitler invaded countries that were no threat to anyone. He had treaties with them and yet he attacked them anyway. He bombed cities relentlessly. He didn't go for military targets, he bombed cities and infrastructures. Then he ordered his soldiers to kill everyone. He did this with the backing of the government (because he was a dictator). If Bush is a war criminal, then so are all the democrats and republicans that gave approval for the war. It's not a stretch to suggest you were comparing Bush with Hitler since that is exactly what you did. Otherwise, why bring him up? 25. １月 2009, 05:23:17 件名: Re:  Artful Dodger: Ok Czuch... I did not compare Bush with Hitler. I was simply pointing out that just because ones own country backs a war DOES NOT MAKE IT RIGHT. Tuesday & anastasia: Now I remember why I stopped in the fellowship political boards - everyone nit-picks and starts to put words in my mouth. I think I'm done also. Artful Dodger: Sorry that I started - please just ignore my comments below. I will stay out of the rest of the conversations also. 25. １月 2009, 05:19:52 件名: Re: coan.net: Comparing Bush to Hitler is just such a cheap comparison. Bush never ordered the murder of millions of people (as a matter of policy, that is exactly what Hitler did). Bush attacked an outlaw government after 18 years of defiance, murder, and invasion of allies. How many more years of actively pursuing weapons programs were we to tolerate? As for the statement, how it can not be a lie, but yet a distortion? What facts were distorted? 25. １月 2009, 05:19:46 件名: Re: Tuesday: I'm finished posting on this board. I'm with you on this one...enough already 25. １月 2009, 05:12:35 件名: Re: Artful Dodger: Well I'm not sure how the Clinton administration could be blamed when they did not act upon it. So question - is Hitler a war criminal? I mean he acted with the backing of his countries administration & politicians? (like the Bush administration acted with the backing of Congress.) [POINT: Just because someone's own country "backs" killing does not make it right.] I know bringing this up will bring up how this organization is broken - but I still believe any elective war against another country should be backed by the UN. (not just a group of friendly countries). Let me back up a minute: I see 2 types of wars. First is a war that is started in retaliation for an attack. War on terror & invasion of Afghanistan was in retaliation for 9/11. Attack of Japan was in retaliation for Pearl Harbor. War with Germany was in retaliation for them declaring war against the US after Japan started the war with the US. Second - Elective war. This is a war which is started as a pre-emptive strike. THE ONLY TIME in my eyes that an elective war should be started again is with the backing of the UN - which not just the views of 1 country is taking into account - but the views of many countries. ======= You ask about the president lying in the statement. Well I don't see that statement as a lie - I mean the attack was ordered - was joined by British forces - used the reasoning for attacking weapons program - was a pre-emtive to protect the US. So no, I don't think the statement you wrote is a lie. I believe many facts were distorted and the facts that did not agree with the war plan were labeled as not reliable - and the Bush administration led many to believe the war in Iraq was part of the war on Terror, where in reality it was a second war. 25. １月 2009, 05:01:50 件名: Re: coan.net: I see. So the fact that the Clinton administration, including Al Gore, and other members of his administration called for military action against Saddam (well before Bush came along) and the fact that they all claimed a connection to terrorism and the fact that they all claimed over and over about WMD, just because Bush acts upon those facts, with the backing of congress, democrats and republicans, the war is somehow "elective?" And that in and "elective" war, it's not ok to kill innocent women and children but in a correct war, it's ok to kill innocent women and children. Yeah, that sounds like a liberals way of thinking. So tell me BBW, was the president lying when he said the following: "Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors. Their purpose is to protect the national interest of the United States, and indeed the interests of people throughout the Middle East and around the world. Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons." 25. １月 2009, 04:54:42 件名: Re: Artful Dodger: The war in Afghanistan was part of the war on terror, the hunt for Bin Laden - a war that most of the world agreed with the Bush administration in starting. There are innocent people killed there, but most see that as part of a just war - a war that was not elective, but a war that was started in retaliation for the attack against America. The war in Iraq was an elective war that the Bush administration started - a war that most of the world did not agree with - so when innocent people get killed there, it is easy to see why some would blame the Bush Administration for this - since this was a war that should have never been started (as some would see it). If the Obama administration starts a new elective war and innocent people get killed, then yes - I can see people wanted put the war criminal name to Obama. 25. １月 2009, 04:43:40 I see, Bush is a war criminal because because when he killed women and children he was the President longer. But If you're new at the Presidency, you can kill innocent women and children and get a pass. So how long can Obama be responsible for the killing of innocent women and children before he can be accused of war crimes? He's killed 5 so far (according to liberal logic) so how long can this go on before people on the left start to call him on it? 25. １月 2009, 04:32:39 Papa Zoom (25. １月 2009, 04:33:27)に変更されました。 I wonder if the liberals in congress will now call for an investigation of the Obama administration for war crimes? (much like they are trying to do for the Bush administration) Or will the incident below just be ignored because they will either link it to Bush or just excuse it away. After all, women and children were killed and Obama is the Commander in Chief? Any liberals care to comment? KABUL, Afghanistan - The U.S. coalition in Afghanistan opened an investigation into an overnight raid early Saturday that American commanders say killed 15 armed militants but that two Afghan officials say killed 11 civilians. A detailed U.S. statement said multiple teams of militants fired on the coalition forces during a raid against a Taliban commander early Saturday in the eastern province of Laghman. The U.S. said a woman carrying a rocket-propelled grenade was among the 15 killed. "We know the people who were killed were shooting at us," said Col. Greg Julian, the top U.S. spokesman in Afghanistan. "The people who were killed today were running around, maneuvering against our forces, and we killed them." But Sayed Ahmad Safi, the spokesman for Laghman's governor, said that government intelligence reports indicated 11 of the dead were civilians, including three children and two females. Two of the dead were militants, he said. 25. １月 2009, 01:24:01 件名: Government isn't the solution, they are the problem. More is coming 24. １月 2009, 05:29:12 件名: Re: Bernice: We had a dog like that too. Refused to pee outside when it rained. And I live in a State where it rains all winter ! lol I wonder if the dog in question will go to a shrink? 24. １月 2009, 05:26:04 件名: Re: Artful Dodger: I have a similar dog...Bear is a shih-tzu....he is depressed at the moment because he had to have a bath today LOL.....he HATES water....he won't even go outside for a pee if it is raining.... but clinically depressed? hahahahaha 24. １月 2009, 04:56:53 件名: Re: Bernice: The headline cracks me up. How does a poodle get depressed? Poodle:" I'm feeling kinda down today. I didn't get my doggie treat like I'm supposed to. I think I'll bite Chirac."  24. １月 2009, 04:34:07 Former French President Chirac hospitalised after mauling by his clinically depressed poodle a clinically depressed poodle? 24. １月 2009, 02:39:37 件名: Re: Bernice: Interesting. Hard to now what to believe. Here's another story. From Fox. lol http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,262960,00.html and http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,261542,00.html And Kevin McCullough calls Daivd Hicks a "dunderhead." What was he doing in Afganistan? Don't know but I wasn't there. But Davie was. And it's unlikely he was just there for an afternoon stroll. It makes more sense that he was aiding the enemy. http://kevinmccullough.townhall.com/blog/2007/2007/04/page5 24. １月 2009, 02:08:24 well the women lippers arent so pleased with their president....they want more women to men ratio in the Obama regime! what ever happened to "the right person for the right job"? 24. １月 2009, 01:13:41 Because I know you can't believe everything you read, I have no idea if this is true, but.....? http://www.smh.com.au/news/World/David-Hicks-affidavit/2004/12/10/1102625527396.html 24. １月 2009, 00:51:45 件名: Re: BadBoy7 (24. １月 2009, 01:15:51)に変更されました。 Artful Dodger: I know u prefer lighted matches stuck under ur toe nails 24. １月 2009, 00:39:05 件名: Re: Bernice: If true it's an injustice. But terrorists don't wear name tags so I give the benefit of the doubt to the US. As for "torture" if they had to eat my cooking they could call it torture. I don't know what people mean when they say "torture." I always think of ripping out fingernails or slicing off fingers. Loud music just doesn't seem to be so bad. My kids listened to loud music all the time. Yes it was torture for me but not on the level of having my skin peeled off my body or my fingernails yanked out.  24. １月 2009, 00:35:26 件名: Re: I couldn't resist,fair and balanced?
A few months ago Chris Wallace chewed out the hosts of a daytime Fox show (not sure which one) for "bashing" Obama. Some of those shows do that or at least, have done that. When the hard news programs go that direction, I'll switch the channel. That said, I highly recommend the clip. You will get a huge laugh out of it. Somehow John Stewart is able to make Fox always look bad and in some cases I find it difficult to disagree with his assessment. My favorite is the question about the second swearing in: Obama didn't have his hand on the Bible. So is he really the president. Duh, it's the Chief Justice swearing Obama in. The dudes the president already.
24. １月 2009, 00:14:56 Bernice (24. １月 2009, 00:17:27)に変更されました。 australia had a man released and he returned (David Hicks) went to jail for about 6-9 months in low security and is now a model citizen, has gone back to university and is leading a normal life......he WAS a case of being in the wrong place at the wrong time..........I havent googled him but feel free to do so. I think he converted to become a muslim and this is what "buried " him so to speak.....he also was tortured in Guantanamo Bay, altho the USA deny that fact, but..................? 24. １月 2009, 00:07:12 件名: Re: You mean like accidentally going into Iraq during a war???? Artful Dodger: is Obama more concerned with the reputation of the US (closing Gitmo will go a long way in improving our image) or about keeping our country safe? I think it is both....I think he announced the closing to make everyone feel good about the US, but he left himself some wiggle room by stating that it would be done in accordance with national security and other concerns.... 23. １月 2009, 23:52:49 件名: I couldn't resist,fair and balanced? 23. １月 2009, 23:51:45 件名: You mean like accidentally going into Iraq during a war???? Czuch: Good point. I don't know that I've ever gotten a good explanation on this one. I think the entire situation is far more complex than most of us realize. Not sure where I heard this but the question was asked, is Obama more concerned with the reputation of the US (closing Gitmo will go a long way in improving our image) or about keeping our country safe? I do know of former terriorists that are no longer committing acts of terror but are in fact, exposing Islam as a religion of hate and intolerance. But these terrorists weren't changed because of some government program. They found a greater reason to abondon Islam and embrace a belief that makes far more sense to them. ;) 23. １月 2009, 23:45:45 件名: Re: Closing Gitmo coan.net: Well, the Bush administration has already released many of the gitmo prisoners, the ones who were the least threats, and many of them have gone back to their old ways already... also, why would they release some, and then still keep others who were "just in the wrong place at the wrong time"???? Anyway, I dont buy that either, really, just in the wrong place at the wrong time??? You mean like accidentally going into Iraq during a war???? 23. １月 2009, 22:43:41 件名: Re: here's one Charles Martel: Excellent example of the problems the US will face if they release any detainee. 23. １月 2009, 22:40:19 件名: here's one 23. １月 2009, 22:39:48 件名: Re: Closing Gitmo Jim Dandy: I'm sure I will have plenty of opportunity to do just that. I'll just pretend he is Bush making the decisions and ask myself what the liberal left would say, and then I go from there.  23. １月 2009, 22:35:12 件名: Re: Closing Gitmo Artful Dodger: It will give you more credability when you pounce on his policies later  23. １月 2009, 22:27:15 件名: Re: Closing Gitmo Jim Dandy: See, I'm not totally unreasonable. 23. １月 2009, 22:26:15 件名: Re: Closing Gitmo Artful Dodger: I second that emotion  23. １月 2009, 22:00:58 件名: Re: Closing Gitmo coan.net: You may well be right. It will be interesting to see how this plays out now that Obama is in charge. I have confidence that he will take into consideration the ongoing threat against the US. I don't expect Obama to cave in to radical pressures but to do what is both right and in the best interest of the security of the US. I know that Obama favors closing Gitmo in large part because of the negative view the world has on the US for what they percieve as injustices at Gitmo. Even if none of what's percieved were true, perception is a large part of their reality and Obama is dedicated to changing the world's opinion on the US. That is a good thing if properly balanced with the realities of the kind of enemy we have detained.
23. １月 2009, 19:50:27 件名: Closing Gitmo This is one of the examples of a bad situation that has happened (Gitmo has held without trial - some people for over 5 years.. some as long as 7 or 8 years) The extreme answer is to close gitmo. The CORRECT answer would be process the captured in a TIMELY MANOR and deal with them. Some of the men held at Gitmo was just in the wrong place at the wrong time - they are not a threat (well were not - maybe now since they have been held in the same areas as extremist for the past many years.. enough to probable get a little brainwashed and pissed at the US for such a long detainment). Anyway, for some even, the US wants to release them and send them back home, but their home country will not accept them. And who would want to accept someone who 5-8 years ago was not a threat, but again - has been held in close contact with extremist who may have altered their view? Anyway, this situation is something that should have been solved MANY years ago. It is a shame that Bush let it go this long and made it a problem that Obama will have to sort out. I think "Closing" was too harsh of a direction to go - where as "dealing & processing ALL people held within 6 months" would have been a MUCH better way to go. ... and then if there are extremist which are too "bad" to do anything with, they can stay at Gitmo - but others who are not will hopefully be finally released. But what do I know - I've only said for the past 4 years they needed to do something with the people being held and not just hold them indefinitely. 23. １月 2009, 17:55:04 件名: Re: Czuch: I know that there have been some terrorists released and they went back to their terrorist activities and killed Americans. I'll see if I can find any specifics on that. This idea of a trial by civil court is terribly misguided. They were caputured on the battlefield, good enough for me. << < 368 369 370 371 372 373 374 375 376 377 > >> |
日時
オンライン友達
気に入り掲示板
同好会
今日のアドバイス
|
|
管理人: 
Jim Dandy: Two things: first, that is the funniest thing I've seen in a long time. No one does it better than John. Second, isolated clips don't mean much in a larger context. You know what you get with Rush and you know what you get with Hannity. So those aren't good examples. OTOH, there were some soundbites that truly had my head shaking.
著作権 © 2002 - 2025 Filip Rachunek. 上へ |