Top 9 reasons a Dem president couldn't handle the war against terrorists

[T-Bor]

I expect that you WONT be applying for Social Security right Red States ? I mean if you are so against it I guess when you are 65 you will just leave your checks sit right ?

Why should someone else finance my retirement?

Why should I fiance someone elses retirement?

 

[glockmail]

I expect that you WONT be applying for Social Security right Red States ? I mean if you are so against it I guess when you are 65 you will just leave your checks sit right ?

That's really a stupid position. Instead try this: if you culd opt out of social security in your 20's, would you do it? How about when you are 30, 40, or 50?

Do the math, T-Bor. The rate of return of SS money is negative for most Americans.

 

[red states rule]

I expect that you WONT be applying for Social Security right Red States ? I mean if you are so against it I guess when you are 65 you will just leave your checks sit right ?

SS will not be around when I am eligible. I have know that for years. I have planned my retirement on my own - as everyone should

Libs want to increase the tax on SS and yet not increase the benefits to those who will be paying the higher taxes

Liberal fairness in the form of the biggest pyramid scheme the world has ever know

 

[red states rule]

That's really a stupid position. Instead try this: if you culd opt out of social security in your 20's, would you do it? How about when you are 30, 40, or 50?

Do the math, T-Bor. The rate of return of SS money is negative for most Americans.

It is a measly 2% - if you live to collect it. If you die early guess who gets the money you have paid in?

The government

 

[LuvRPgrl]

doesn't it always seem that whenever conservatives get owned with their own words, they immediately claim that they were "tongue in cheek"?

or maybe you libs just dont have a sense of humour. If you couldnt see that it was a joke, I have nothing but pity for you.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

Again, you have failed to cite any sort of evidence supporting any sort of point of yours. I've already responded to that question the last several times you've asked it, like asking you to cite examples of these circumstances.

You never answered the question. If poverty, lack of education are contributors to terrorism, why is it other parts of the world have poverty and lack of education, but dont produce terrorists like the radical Islamo facists are?
Oh, and not to mention, Osama is hardly poor or uneducated.

I think you are just being a good consistent lib and refusing to admit there is evil in this world.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

A harsh lesson to learn. Capitalism alone does not work, but combined with socialism (safety net) it actually works. It still works to this day. America became an economic super power.

Oh yea, I see social security is doing so damn well. You do realize that our elected officials have been raiding the funds from SS to spend on other pet projects for years?

At least when you are with a corp. you can make some choices, govt doesnt allow any choices.

As for the safety net, we dont need it. Hell, we went through a great depression without one and people were not starving in the streets.

We won WWll in spite of FDR, not because of him.

 

[Annie]

Oh yea, I see social security is doing so damn well. You do realize that our elected officials have been raiding the funds from SS to spend on other pet projects for years?

At least when you are with a corp. you can make some choices, govt doesnt allow any choices.

As for the safety net, we dont need it. Hell, we went through a great depression without one and people were not starving in the streets.

We won WWll in spite of FDR, not because of him.

social security, medicare, medicaid, etc. None are doing well.

I'm not one for aruguing for total capitalism, but will say, the government is way into too many things it doesn't belong. Some might go to the states, most reside with the individual.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

Agreed...The article says why a Dem president wouldnt have worked..Well a republican president did not work either. What the hell is this guys point ?

So, lets see,
6 years, no terrorist attacks on our soil,
taliban defeated in Afghanastan
Saddan toppled and captured, and hung.
His evil kids are dead.
Iraq has democratic elections in numbers greater than we do here.
Iraq has a Constitution and a President instead of an evil dictator

Yea, President Bush has failed alright.

And dont start in on all the problems existing in Afghanastan and Iraq, we had those same problems going on when we got our independence. It took 13 years until we got the Constitution right, and there werent even any "insurgents" fighting against us.

 

[red states rule]

So, lets see,
6 years, no terrorist attacks on our soil,
taliban defeated in Afghanastan
Saddan toppled and captured, and hung.
His evil kids are dead.
Iraq has democratic elections in numbers greater than we do here.
Iraq has a Constitution and a President instead of an evil dictator

Yea, President Bush has failed alright.

And dont start in on all the problems existing in Afghanastan and Iraq, we had those same problems going on when we got our independence. It took 13 years until we got the Constitution right, and there werent even any "insurgents" fighting against us.

If Gore would have been President on 9-11, he would still to this day be looking for "a controlling legal authority" by which to respond

 

[glockmail]

It is a measly 2% - if you live to collect it. If you die early guess who gets the money you have paid in?

The government

Link to my earlier thread:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/showpost.php?p=505027&postcount=1

 

[red states rule]

Link to my earlier thread:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/showpost.php?p=505027&postcount=1

and they say the lottery is a waste of money.

 

[glockmail]

and they say the lottery is a waste of money.

At least you have a chance at the lottery, but more importantly the choice not to fund it.

 

[red states rule]

At least you have a chance at the lottery, but more importantly the choice not to fund it.

libs only want to give you a choice when it comes to murdering your unborn baby. In every other case, libs believe you are to stupid to make the correct decisions and libs have to make them for you

 

[red states rule]

So, lets see,
6 years, no terrorist attacks on our soil,
taliban defeated in Afghanastan
Saddan toppled and captured, and hung.
His evil kids are dead.
Iraq has democratic elections in numbers greater than we do here.
Iraq has a Constitution and a President instead of an evil dictator

Yea, President Bush has failed alright.

And dont start in on all the problems existing in Afghanastan and Iraq, we had those same problems going on when we got our independence. It took 13 years until we got the Constitution right, and there werent even any "insurgents" fighting against us.

Libs have a nasty habit of defedning terrorists and bashing America


WashPost Hypes Pentagon Protest With Ramsey Clark, Leaves Out His Saddam Lawyering
Posted by Tim Graham on March 16, 2007 - 07:43.
The Washington Post's reverence for protests -- the leftist ones, that is -- is clearly on display on the front of Friday's Metro section, with advance publicity for a Saturday "peace" march on the Pentagon starring Ramsey Clark, fresh from his unsuccessful defense lawyering for Saddam Hussein. (That fact is never mentioned in Steve Vogel's article.) On roughly the fourth anniversary of the initial blitz on Baghdad and forty years after the violent "levitate the Pentagon" protests of 1967, the Post splashes photographs down most of the front page of Metro, of 1967 at the top and 2007 at the bottom. The story sprawled out across most of B-3, and included another story by Michael Ruane on Christian "peace witness" at the White House.

Two months ago, the Post gave the March for Life and against abortion a tiny box inside the paper on the day of the rally, complete with "pro-choice" events. That could not be defined as splashy pre-protest publicity.

Vogel's report carried the headline: "Once More to the Pentagon: Demonstrators Evoke Historic Confrontation In Planning March, Rally Opposing Iraq War." At the top of the page, a caption of a 1967 photograph read: "The Oct. 21 march marked a turning point in public sentiment toward the Vietnam War, former attorney general Ramsey Clark says." Clark emerges later in the story as well:

"The 1967 march wasn't the biggest, but in some ways it's the most historically significant because of the target," said Brian Becker, national coordinator of the ANSWER Coalition, the main sponsor of tomorrow's protest. "It represented a shift in public opinion."

In tying their protest to the Oct. 21, 1967, march, organizers say they are capitalizing on a similar climate among angry voters who believe the results of November elections have been ignored.

Ramsey Clark, who as attorney general for President Lyndon Johnson helped oversee the administration's preparations for the march, said that day shifted the ground under the government. "From that moment, I got the feeling that we'd reached a turning point in the commitment of many people to ending the war in Vietnam," Clark said in an interview this week.

Whether today's feelings match those of 40 years ago is another question. Clark will be among the speakers tomorrow. "I can't tell you that we have the depth of passion or breadth of commitment today that we had then," Clark said.

Vogel obviously did not work on this story for a day or two. It reads like a reverent history of the 1967 protest. While it does include testimony from Pentagon personnel who recount the violence and vulgarity of protesters, it elevates the protest into a historical touchstone or turning point, as Clark claimed in the caption. Vogel's second paragraph betrays his attraction to the protesters and their apparently earth-shattering activism:

The 1967 march on the Pentagon to protest the Vietnam War became a touchstone event in American history, one that pitted U.S. citizens against "the true and high church of the military-industrial complex," as marcher and author Norman Mailer put it.

Vogel promotes to Post readers how buses and vans will come from all over to protest. (The same was true of the March for Life, but Post readers weren't told that a few weeks ago):

Buses, vans and caravans from across the United States are coming, organizers say, with veterans, soldiers and military family members marching in the first rank of the demonstration. Heading across the Arlington Memorial Bridge to the Pentagon north parking lot, the demonstrators will follow literally in the steps of the earlier protesters. A counter-demonstration in support of the war is also planned for tomorrow.

Will the counter-demonstrators get their own picture in addition to that measly sentence? They certainly did at the March for Life.

Vogel uses no labels to describe Clark, Becker, the ANSWER Coalition, or any other radical leftist that's quoted. The only references to ideology were vague descriptions of historical perceptions of the 1967 march:

The 1967 march still raises emotions at both ends of the political spectrum. On the left, it is remembered as a time when peaceful marchers were confronted by bayonet-wielding soldiers and beaten. On the right, the march is recalled as a disgraceful event during which military police were subjected to terrible abuse from protesters.

History shows that both views hold elements of truth. Soldiers manning the line in front of the Pentagon Mall entrance were taunted with vicious slurs and pelted with garbage and fish. Some defenseless protesters sitting peacefully were clubbed and hauled off.

In his article on the White House "Christian peace witness," Ruane used the P-word just once:

The event is sponsored by the District-based Sojourners/Call to Renewal, a progressive religious group, along with the American Friends Service Committee, Lutheran Peace Fellowship, Sisters of Mercy of the Americas, and more than two dozen other Protestant and Catholic groups.

Ruane also noted that activist Celeste Zappala, whose son died in Iraq, will be there, and so will Taylor Branch, a Friend of Bill (Clinton) and the author of several books on Martin Luther King Jr.

http://newsbusters.org/node/11457


Libs have a nasty habit of defedning terrorists and bashing America


WashPost Hypes Pentagon Protest With Ramsey Clark, Leaves Out His Saddam Lawyering
Posted by Tim Graham on March 16, 2007 - 07:43.
The Washington Post's reverence for protests -- the leftist ones, that is -- is clearly on display on the front of Friday's Metro section, with advance publicity for a Saturday "peace" march on the Pentagon starring Ramsey Clark, fresh from his unsuccessful defense lawyering for Saddam Hussein. (That fact is never mentioned in Steve Vogel's article.) On roughly the fourth anniversary of the initial blitz on Baghdad and forty years after the violent "levitate the Pentagon" protests of 1967, the Post splashes photographs down most of the front page of Metro, of 1967 at the top and 2007 at the bottom. The story sprawled out across most of B-3, and included another story by Michael Ruane on Christian "peace witness" at the White House.

Two months ago, the Post gave the March for Life and against abortion a tiny box inside the paper on the day of the rally, complete with "pro-choice" events. That could not be defined as splashy pre-protest publicity.

Vogel's report carried the headline: "Once More to the Pentagon: Demonstrators Evoke Historic Confrontation In Planning March, Rally Opposing Iraq War." At the top of the page, a caption of a 1967 photograph read: "The Oct. 21 march marked a turning point in public sentiment toward the Vietnam War, former attorney general Ramsey Clark says." Clark emerges later in the story as well:

"The 1967 march wasn't the biggest, but in some ways it's the most historically significant because of the target," said Brian Becker, national coordinator of the ANSWER Coalition, the main sponsor of tomorrow's protest. "It represented a shift in public opinion."

In tying their protest to the Oct. 21, 1967, march, organizers say they are capitalizing on a similar climate among angry voters who believe the results of November elections have been ignored.

Ramsey Clark, who as attorney general for President Lyndon Johnson helped oversee the administration's preparations for the march, said that day shifted the ground under the government. "From that moment, I got the feeling that we'd reached a turning point in the commitment of many people to ending the war in Vietnam," Clark said in an interview this week.

Whether today's feelings match those of 40 years ago is another question. Clark will be among the speakers tomorrow. "I can't tell you that we have the depth of passion or breadth of commitment today that we had then," Clark said.

Vogel obviously did not work on this story for a day or two. It reads like a reverent history of the 1967 protest. While it does include testimony from Pentagon personnel who recount the violence and vulgarity of protesters, it elevates the protest into a historical touchstone or turning point, as Clark claimed in the caption. Vogel's second paragraph betrays his attraction to the protesters and their apparently earth-shattering activism:

The 1967 march on the Pentagon to protest the Vietnam War became a touchstone event in American history, one that pitted U.S. citizens against "the true and high church of the military-industrial complex," as marcher and author Norman Mailer put it.

Vogel promotes to Post readers how buses and vans will come from all over to protest. (The same was true of the March for Life, but Post readers weren't told that a few weeks ago):

Buses, vans and caravans from across the United States are coming, organizers say, with veterans, soldiers and military family members marching in the first rank of the demonstration. Heading across the Arlington Memorial Bridge to the Pentagon north parking lot, the demonstrators will follow literally in the steps of the earlier protesters. A counter-demonstration in support of the war is also planned for tomorrow.

Will the counter-demonstrators get their own picture in addition to that measly sentence? They certainly did at the March for Life.

Vogel uses no labels to describe Clark, Becker, the ANSWER Coalition, or any other radical leftist that's quoted. The only references to ideology were vague descriptions of historical perceptions of the 1967 march:

The 1967 march still raises emotions at both ends of the political spectrum. On the left, it is remembered as a time when peaceful marchers were confronted by bayonet-wielding soldiers and beaten. On the right, the march is recalled as a disgraceful event during which military police were subjected to terrible abuse from protesters.

History shows that both views hold elements of truth. Soldiers manning the line in front of the Pentagon Mall entrance were taunted with vicious slurs and pelted with garbage and fish. Some defenseless protesters sitting peacefully were clubbed and hauled off.

In his article on the White House "Christian peace witness," Ruane used the P-word just once:

The event is sponsored by the District-based Sojourners/Call to Renewal, a progressive religious group, along with the American Friends Service Committee, Lutheran Peace Fellowship, Sisters of Mercy of the Americas, and more than two dozen other Protestant and Catholic groups.

Ruane also noted that activist Celeste Zappala, whose son died in Iraq, will be there, and so will Taylor Branch, a Friend of Bill (Clinton) and the author of several books on Martin Luther King Jr.

http://newsbusters.org/node/11457

 

[Hamiltonian]

or maybe you libs just dont have a sense of humour. If you couldnt see that it was a joke, I have nothing but pity for you.

Oooooh, this explains everything. All of your opinons seem like jokes because they actually are jokes.

You never answered the question. If poverty, lack of education are contributors to terrorism, why is it other parts of the world have poverty and lack of education, but dont produce terrorists like the radical Islamo facists are?
Oh, and not to mention, Osama is hardly poor or uneducated.

I think you are just being a good consistent lib and refusing to admit there is evil in this world.

Why, because poverty and poor education lead to a society destablization. In this sort of power vaccuum, different factors can take hold. You can have organized crime, or political machines and dictatorship, or combinations depending upon the influencing factors in the area. Radical islam influences terrorism in these power vaccuums.

Osama himself can't do much. The terrorists don't always have to be poor, it is just that poverty creates the societal destabilization. Just like organized crime bosses in Russia don't have to be poor and uneducated to exploit the poverty there, just like Osama doesn't have to be poor and uneducated to cause Terrorism.

Oh, and you're doing a bad job at slandering liberals. You should know that liberals admit that their is evil in this world. They think that evil is called America, since all liberals are part of the hate America first crowd . Oh, and I never said there wasn't evil. There is evil, and it is in men like the crime bosses, like Osama, like Hilter, and many others who try to exploit these power vaccuums.

 

[red states rule]

Who needs to slander libs - they show what idiots they are on a daily basis.

Yes, poverty causes people to become terrorists. Tell us another liberal fairy tale - like how rotten America is, and how we are the bullies of the world

 

[Hamiltonian]

Who needs to slander libs - they show what idiots they are on a daily basis.

Well apparently you need to slander libs since you just did it again here. Apparently you're so smart, yet your statement is self defeating.

 

[red states rule]

Well apparently you need to slander libs since you just did it again here. Apparently you're so smart, yet your statement is self defeating.

Libs are experts at slander - they di it everyday


CNN's Cafferty Calls Alberto Gonzales 'Waterboy' and 'Weasel'
Posted by Brad Wilmouth on March 15, 2007 - 23:43.
Catching up on an item from Monday's The Situation Room on CNN, which has already been covered by conservative talk radio host Mark Levin, CNN's Jack Cafferty condescendingly labeled Attorney General Alberto Gonzales as a "glorified waterboy for the White House" as he called for Gonzales to resign over the controversial firing of U.S. attorneys. After asking viewers to email him with their thoughts, Cafferty further called Gonzales a "weasel." Cafferty: "If you look up the word weasel in the dictionary, Wolf, you'll see Alberto Gonzales' picture there."

Below is a complete transcript of Cafferty's comments on Alberto Gonzales from the March 12 The Situation Room on CNN:

Jack Cafferty, about 4:15 p.m.: "All right, for the sake of the nation, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales should step down. Democratic Senator Chuck Schumer also said Gonzales putting politics above the law and that he's shown more allegiance to President Bush than to Americans' legal rights. As examples, Schumer points to the FBI's illegal snooping into people's private lives, as well as the controversy surrounding the Justice Department's firing of federal prosecutors. Schumer isn't the only one questioning Gonzales. Democratic Senator Joe Biden says Gonzales has 'lost the confidence of the vast majority of the American people.' A New York Times editorial says the Attorney General, quote, 'has never stopped being consigliere to Mr. Bush's imperial presidency,' unquote. And it's not enough that the Attorney General of the United States is a glorified water boy for the White House. The Bush administration also is admitting now that its number one political hack, Karl Rove, passed along complaints from Republican lawmakers about U.S. attorneys to the Justice Department and to the White House Counsel's Office -- a political advisor playing a role in the hiring and firing of U.S. attorneys. It's disgraceful. Here's the question: Should U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales resign?"

After providing his email address, Cafferty continued:

Cafferty: "If you look up the word weasel in the dictionary, Wolf, you'll see Alberto Gonzales' picture there."

Blitzer: "You don't like him?"

Cafferty: "That's correct. I don't."

Blitzer: "Jack Cafferty will be back with your e-mail shortly. Thank you, Jack, for that."

Shortly before 5:00 p.m., Cafferty was back with viewer emails:

Blitzer: "Check in with Jack Cafferty for 'The Cafferty File.' Jack?"

Cafferty: "Several people in Congress, the United States Senate are suggesting that it's time for Attorney General Alberto Gonzales to resign. And we asked this hour if you thought that was a good idea. Don writes from Florida: 'Jack, a better question is: How soon should Alberto Gonzales resign? And what should be the punishment for his crimes?'

"Ralph writes: 'Nah. They'd just replace him with somebody more dangerous, somebody who knows how to run a police state without getting caught.'

"John in Philadelphia: 'Actually, he should have been fired. We all know how long that takes, though. Remember Rumsfeld? This worm is exactly the type of hatchet man that Bush likes. Don't ever do the people's work. Just do my dirty work.'

"Larisa in Seattle: 'Alberto Gonzales should have resigned yesterday or last year or two years ago. Look at the guy's legacy: torture memos, spying on Americans, and now substituting GOP cronies for lawyers who are supposed to be defending the public good and upholding the Constitution.'

"Robert writes from Ohio: 'Resign? He ought to be perp-walked.'

"J. writes: 'Jack, of course he ought to resign, but we both know he won't. His role right now is to cover the backside of the most corrupt administration in history, which is a tall order for such a little man.'

"Jody in Tennessee: 'Yeah, he ought to, but that won't happen. He's a Bush buddy. Every time I see him on TV, he looks like he's laughing at us.'

"And Jenny in New York: 'From this administration? No way. He's doing a heck of a job.'

"We got no letters suggesting that Alberto Gonzales was doing a great job, and that we were out of line by quoting some of the people, like Chuck Schumer in the Senate, who are calling for the man's resignation. Nobody wrote and said, 'This guy is doing a good job.'"

Blitzer: "Out of how many? About hundreds? Did we get thousands?"

Cafferty: "I don't know. Yeah, it was 800, 900 e-mails. I didn't read 800 or 900 of them, but I spun through probably a couple of hundred. There were none, none. Nobody wrote to say Alberto Gonzales is doing a good job as the Attorney General of the United States. I mean, that alone says something, doesn't it?"

Blitzer: "It certainly does. Jack, thank you very much."

 

[LuvRPgrl]

If Gore would have been President on 9-11, he would still to this day be looking for "a controlling legal authority" by which to respond

He would tell us its a secondary problem, that he has to stay focused on global warming and getting the repubs to capitulate on the kyoto treaty so it can ruin us financially.