What is the difference?

Discussion in 'Politics' started by JRK, Jul 22, 2012.

  1. JRK
    Offline

    JRK Senior Member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2011
    Messages:
    7,488
    Thanks Received:
    312
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +312
    The tragic events in Aurora Colorado is being blamed on guns by the left

    The deaths in Iraq were blamed on GWB by the left (even though Saddam killed close to 1 million prior to the coalition removing Saddam as well as defeating Al Qaeda in Iraq)

    Murder by the fanatical as well those without the morality most of us live with daily have been spun by the liberals to support there agenda as well as most of the media doing the same
    No Saddam
    No Iraq
    No 9-11
    No wars

    Evil people are the problem

    simply put whether it is in the US
    Afghanistan
    Iraq
    Al Qaeda

    These issues are a creation of evil people who will use IEDs
    WMDs
    Or shotguns with 100 round clips
    They do not care

    6 million people were victims of violent crimes in the US last year
    http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...Xzr9Af&usg=AFQjCNHI3eB3qwwqmEORU5cpgr908GxGpQ

    some how the events in Iraq where GWB fault
    but the events in Aurora Co. were the fault of gun laws

    whats the difference?
     
  2. OODA_Loop
    Offline

    OODA_Loop Account Terminated

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2011
    Messages:
    6,953
    Thanks Received:
    468
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings:
    +523
    Some more situational awareness than a rock by the drones is a good cost free start.
     
    Last edited: Jul 22, 2012
  3. The T
    Offline

    The T George S. Patton Party Supporting Member

    Joined:
    May 24, 2009
    Messages:
    48,072
    Thanks Received:
    5,473
    Trophy Points:
    1,773
    Location:
    What USED TO BE A REPUBLIC RUN BY TYRANTS
    Ratings:
    +5,502
    Difference is that EVIL exists in the world and dealing with it swiftly...and recognizing it for what it is rather than make excuses for it.
     
  4. C_Clayton_Jones
    Offline

    C_Clayton_Jones Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2011
    Messages:
    41,543
    Thanks Received:
    8,933
    Trophy Points:
    2,030
    Location:
    In a Republic, actually
    Ratings:
    +23,869
    What lawmakers on the ‘left’ are calling for more gun restrictions?

    Nothing is being ‘spun’ by the ‘left’ to justify anything.

    The invasion of Iraq had nothing to do with ‘left’ or ‘right,’ it had only to do with the established fact that the invasion was illegal, and the subsequent deaths in Iraq were criminal accordingly.

    Fact: there were no WMDs, as acknowledged by the Bush Administration.

    Fact: there were no ties between Saddam and Al Qaeda.

    Fact: Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11.

    Fact: the ends never justify the means – there was never cause to invade Iraq, whatever the outcome is irrelevant.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  5. The T
    Offline

    The T George S. Patton Party Supporting Member

    Joined:
    May 24, 2009
    Messages:
    48,072
    Thanks Received:
    5,473
    Trophy Points:
    1,773
    Location:
    What USED TO BE A REPUBLIC RUN BY TYRANTS
    Ratings:
    +5,502
    The invasion was as illegal as Advice and CONSENT under the Constitution being given, and Obama continuing it, and claiming victory for himself.

    The Congress can DEFUND IT anytime they like.

    YOU are an idiot.:eusa_hand:
     
  6. JRK
    Offline

    JRK Senior Member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2011
    Messages:
    7,488
    Thanks Received:
    312
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +312
    Never said Saddam had anything to do with 9-11
    Al Qaeda was in Iraq prior to the coalitions invasion

    Even though Blair says it “later emerged” that Zarqawi had set up shop in Iraq in 2002, this connection was actually a formal part of the American case for war. Secretary of State Colin Powell included a section on Zarqawi’s network in Iraq in his February 5, 2003, presentation before the United Nations.

    Former CIA director George Tenet reveals in his own autobiography, At the Center of the Storm, some of the intelligence that backed up Powell’s presentation. More than one dozen other al Qaeda terrorists had joined Zarqawi in Baghdad. One of them was an Egyptian known as Abu Ayyub al Masri, who had served Osama bin Laden’s deputy, Ayman al Zawahiri, since the 1980s. After Zarqawi was killed in 2006, al Masri took his place as the leader of Al Qaeda in Iraq. Al Masri himself was killed earlier this year, and his widow confirmed that they had moved to central Baghdad in 2002.
    Al Qaeda in Iraq | The Weekly Standard

    What was illegal with Iraq?
    congress gave the go ahead in October 2002

    there were ties with Al Qaeda and Iraq if nothing more than wanting to kill coalition troops
    Some Iraqi militants trained in Taliban-run Afghanistan helped Ansar al-Islam, an Islamist militia based in a lawless part of northeast Iraq. The camps of Ansar fighters, who clashed repeatedly with anti-Saddam Kurds, were bombed in the early days of Operation Iraqi Freedom. In February 2003, Secretary of State Colin Powell told the UN Security Council that Iraq was harboring a terrorist cell led by Abu Musab Zarqawi, a suspected al-Qaeda affiliate and chemical and biological weapons specialist. Powell said al-Zarqawi had both planned the October 2002 assassination of a U.S. diplomat in Jordan and set up a camp in Ansar al-Islam’s territory to train terrorists in the use of chemical weapons. Powell added that senior Iraqi and al-Qaeda leaders had met at least eight times since the early 1990s.

    Czech officials have also reported that Mohammed Atta, one of the September 11 ringleaders, met an Iraqi intelligence agent in Prague months before the hijackings, but U.S. and Czech officials subsequently cast doubt on whether such a meeting ever happened. Al-Qaeda members fleeing Afghanistan have reportedly hid in northern Iraq, but in areas beyond Saddam’s control.

    Terrorism Havens: Iraq - Council on Foreign Relations

    The WMDs were not part of the question, but sense you brought it up
    I would now like to turn to the so-called “Air Force document” that I have discussed with the Council before. This document was originally found by an UNSCOM inspector in a safe in Iraqi Air Force Headquarters in 1998 and taken from her by Iraqi minders. It gives an account of the expenditure of bombs, including chemical bombs, by Iraq in the Iraq-Iran War. I am encouraged by the fact that Iraq has now provided this document to UNMOVIC.

    The document indicates that 13,000 chemical bombs were dropped by the Iraqi Air Force between 1983 and 1988, while Iraq has declared that 19,500 bombs were consumed during this period. Thus, there is a discrepancy of 6,500 bombs. The amount of chemical agent in these bombs would be in the order of about 1,000 tonnes. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, we must assume that these quantities are now unaccounted for.

    The discovery of a number of 122 mm chemical rocket warheads in a bunker at a storage depot 170 km southwest of Baghdad was much publicized. This was a relatively new bunker and therefore the rockets must have been moved there in the past few years, at a time when Iraq should not have had such munitions.
    from the UN
    Update 27 January 2003

    Defense.gov News Article: Munitions Found in Iraq Meet WMD Criteria, Official Says
    from the DOD

    the question was whats the difference?
     
  7. JRK
    Offline

    JRK Senior Member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2011
    Messages:
    7,488
    Thanks Received:
    312
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +312
    Diane F called for bringing back the ban on assault weapons this morning
     
  8. JRK
    Offline

    JRK Senior Member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2011
    Messages:
    7,488
    Thanks Received:
    312
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +312
    not sure what you mean, no dis respect there
    It is tragic
    It has no more of reason than Saddam paying families to sacrifice there children to blow up others
    using WMDs as he had
    same with Al Qaeda
    terror is terror and trying to separate it from a nut in Co to Iraq had a political advantage for the libs that had more to do with BHO being elected than anything

    My point is and has been that we have allowed the media to judge evil for us and with Saddam, OBL and that nut in Co therre all the same
    there evil
     
  9. Wry Catcher
    Offline

    Wry Catcher Platinum Member

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2009
    Messages:
    31,804
    Thanks Received:
    4,250
    Trophy Points:
    1,160
    Location:
    San Francisco Bay Area
    Ratings:
    +8,183
    in Just-
    spring when the world is mud-
    luscious the little
    lame balloonman
    whistles far and wee

    and eddieandbill come
    running from marbles and
    piracies and it's
    spring

    when the world is puddle-wonderful

    the queer
    old balloonman whistles
    far and wee
    and bettyandisbel come dancing

    from hop-scotch and jump-rope and
    it's
    spring
    and
    the

    goat-footed [end page 31]

    balloonMan whistles
    far
    and
    wee


    e. e. cummings
     
    Last edited: Jul 22, 2012
  10. JRK
    Offline

    JRK Senior Member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2011
    Messages:
    7,488
    Thanks Received:
    312
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +312
    We have equal pay rights now, why would we need more?
    civil rights act
    President Kennedy met with the Republican leaders on June 11, 1963 prior to his television address that night to discuss the legislation. On June 13, Everett McKinley Dirksen, Senate Minority Leader, and Mike Mansfield, Senate Majority Leader, both voiced support for the president's bill except for provisions guaranteeing equal access to places of public accommodations. This led to several Republican Congressmen drafting a compromise bill to be considered. On June 19, the president sent his bill to Congress as it was originally written, saying legislative action was "imperative".[4][5] The president's bill first went to the House of Representatives, and referred to the House Judiciary Committee, chaired by Emmanuel Celler, a Democrat from New York. After a series of hearings on the bill, Celler's committee strengthened the act, adding provisions to ban racial discrimination in employment, providing greater protection to black voters, eliminating segregation in all publicly owned facilities (not just schools), and strengthening the anti-segregation clauses regarding public facilities such as lunch counters. They also added authorization for the Attorney General to file lawsuits to protect individuals against the deprivation of any rights secured by the Constitution or U.S. law. In essence, this was the controversial "Title III" that had been removed from the 1957 and 1960 Acts. Civil rights organizations pressed hard for this provision because it could be used to protect peaceful protesters and black voters from police brutality and suppression of free speech rights.
    Civil Rights Act of 1964 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    I see that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid took a swipe at Republicans this morning, comparing them to those who opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 for filibustering health reform legislation. It’s worth remembering that the longest filibuster of the 1964 act was conducted by a still-sitting senator, Robert C. Byrd, who personally spoke against the legislation for 14 hours and 13 minutes on June 9 & 10, 1964. Here’s an extract from my book, Wrong on Race: The Democratic Party’s Buried Past, which was published last year.
    Who Opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1964? | Stan Collender's Capital Gains and Games

    what more do we need except this type of spam and lies to stop
    2 laws covering the same is not needed
     

Share This Page