jahbrudda
Well-Known Member
You shouldn't trust foreign and domestic intelligence, it's all organized propaganda from the MIC.
Stoners on riu, have confirmed this.
Why do people buy the idea that enemies can be bombed into submission?
- Thread starter Padawanbater2
- Start date
Stoners on riu, have confirmed this.
jahbrudda
Well-Known Member
Sorry, that lie just isn't working any more, women are smarter than left think they are.god damn right!!!
and you should be scared..women are currently more than 50% of the electorate..wonder how many pubster wives are going to secretly vote for hillary?
The Left’s “war on women” narrative is just politics and not actually happening, according to most likely voters interviewed by Rasmussen Reports.
A majority of respondents (59 percent) said the war on women is “primarily a slogan used for political purposes.” Just 22 percent of respondents said there really is a war. And 19 percent are not sure if there’s a war or not.http://washingtonexaminer.com/the-war-on-women-is-just-politics-poll/article/2553673?custom_click=rss
charface
Well-Known Member
Couldnt do it.
I draw the line at turtles.
tell that to romney.Sorry, that lie just isn't working any more, women are smarter than left think they are.
The Left’s “war on women” narrative is just politics and not actually happening, according to most likely voters interviewed by Rasmussen Reports.
A majority of respondents (59 percent) said the war on women is “primarily a slogan used for political purposes.” Just 22 percent of respondents said there really is a war. And 19 percent are not sure if there’s a war or not.http://washingtonexaminer.com/the-war-on-women-is-just-politics-poll/article/2553673?custom_click=rss
jahbrudda
Well-Known Member
Severe Buyers' Remorse in CNN Poll: Romney 53, Obama 44tell that to romney.
Guy Benson | Jul 28, 2014
ginwilly
Well-Known Member
I had a girlfriend that liked to be binded. Once I let her bind me and I found out I have trust issues. Maybe some soft handcuffs and a blindfold are OK...tell that to romney.
Obviously you are delusional. Where again did I say or imply fear?
You are afraid an army of roughly 30K people will bring war to America's doorstep, America having the largest military force the world has ever seen, combined with the coalition forces of NATO
You are suggesting/supporting going to the enemies battleground, exactly what they want us to do, waging an indefinite war, exactly what they want us to do, losing more American soldiers lives, exactly what they want us to do, and financially bleeding our country dry, exactly what they want us to, when we could stay home, defend our country and remove ourselves from Middle Eastern affairs that have nothing to do with us, exactly what they don't want us to do because they know they can't attack us at home.
I would support picking up and leaving if it were an actual option, but it's not. That ship sailed a long time ago. Things aren't as simple as you seem to think they are, and it seems quite pointless to continue this line of discussion with you.
"they know they can't attack us at home."
Fucking el oh el.
Absolutely. Everyone sees the other guy as a cancer that must be removed.
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
That part where you think they'll be at your front door if we don't fight them in the Middle East, that's you fear mongering.
Like I said, you are 8 times more likely to be killed by a cop in America than a Muslim extremist, I don't see you running to wage a war against the police. Why not? They kill innocent people all the time with no knock search warrants and drug raids. 2 US journalists get murdered so now we have to waste billions of dollars and possibly kill hundreds or thousands more Americans?
"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998
"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998
"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
--Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998
"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
--Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998
"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by:
-- Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct. 9, 1998
"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
-Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998
"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
-- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999
"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by:
-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), and others, Dec 5, 2001
"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them."
-- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002
"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002
"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
-- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002
"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002
"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002
"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do"
-- Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
-- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002
"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002
"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003
One of these days you guys are going to realize that they are all the same. Bush was no more guilty than any single person in the American government. Obama is caught in the same machine.
ginwilly
Well-Known Member
Oh my
reasonevangelist
Well-Known Member
Wow dude, you actually impressed me with that little comment at the end of that long list of... citing hypocritical presidents and politicians... i thought you were going with the "whatever the presidents and politicians say, must be right, due to their lofty status" angle... but you went the other direction.
Among those quotes, there are an overwhelming number of prompts for outrage and dispute. I think this qualifies as "argumentum ad nauseam" (aka "insist until the opposition gives up, and then pretend that makes you right").
Although i will offer a slight correction: they're not "caught" in the machine... they aspire and strive to participate in it, due to the perceived benefits of such a privileged and lofty station. They WANT to be there, in that position, doing what presidents/congressmen/senators/etc. do, reaping the expected rewards. IMO, that is the fundamental commonality which makes them all bad.
Why do you think any other nation would want to develop weapons of mass destruction? Look at what the U.S. MIC-controlled, regulatory-captured, usurped gov't, has been able to accomplish, via exactly that.
Meanwhile, the U.S. continues to forcibly tax and unjustly oppress its own citizens, in order to use those same stolen resources to fund the perpetuation of those same oppressive systems, which are designed to perpetuate themselves as thus.
And yet, all those "talking heads" go around acting like everyone else is the bad guys, unless they comply with what is represented as "our" demands... which is really only the demands of those who benefit from oppression of their own countrymen, and everyone else who doesn't want to comply.
Plus, i saw the UN mentioned in there; they are the reason our gov't agreed to the ban on psychoactive substances, which is part of the unjust cannabis prohibition problem, which then feeds into the legitimization of militarization of local police, as well as the private prison industrial complex.
It's all connected, and it's all heinous as fuck, and if not for the lingering ideals upon which this country was founded, i would be thoroughly ashamed to call myself "American." Instead, i am disgusted and ashamed by the actions of our rogue government... whom i do NOT define as "America."
I am america; You are america; We, The People, are America... not these goddamn treasonous, traitorous usurpers who have slithered their way into positions of power and subverted the ideals worth defending, in order to oppress all of us, and every part of the world they can.
ChesusRice
Well-Known Member
The actual plan under Bush was to Occupy Iraq and use that for regional influence in the area.
The Neo Cons actually thought up the idea during Clintons term but Clinton wouldnt go for it.
The first Bush actually understood what taking out Hussein meant. He also got a very nice pay check from the Saudis to take out Iraqs invasion and he kept him bottled up just in case the Saudis reniged on their business deals
Red1966
Well-Known Member
How would you kill a family he didn't have? "way too safe for people like you to make it into old age" Safety causes early death? You don't seem to understand English at all. Stupid surrender monkey.
Red1966
Well-Known Member
You seem to think the dead just go on functioning as they did when they were alive.
Red1966
Well-Known Member
The dead do not plot.
earnest_voice
Well-Known Member
Clinton signed the Iraqi Liberation Act which essentially endorsed regime change. His state dept. and the CIA also tried and failed multiple times to initiate regime change through covert operations which included hiring the "rendon group" and updating the Bush 1 era memorandum/finding that authorized covert operations inside Iraq to overthrow Saddam.
You're so partisan it's sad.
Red1966
Well-Known Member
It is your plan of doing the least possible that leads to perpetual war. You don' t kill some of them, you kill ALL of them. You kill their recruits, too. If we don't kill them, they will kill us. The longer we delay, the harder it will be.
earnest_voice
Well-Known Member
Put this bird in next, fuck hillary...and..
How Women Changed the Outcome of the Election
There has been much discussion about the demographic makeup of the 2012 electorate, and one thing is clear: Women’s voices determined the outcome of the election. Across the board, women made the difference. Here are seven key facts about women voters and the gender gap in the 2012 elections.
1. Women were the majority of voters. According to exit polls 53 percent of the voters in the 2012 elections were women—more than one out of every two voters across the country was a woman. Moreover, 55 percent of those women cast votes for President Barack Obama. Women who voted for President Obama made up 29 percent—nearly one-third—of the electorate.
2. The gender gap grew to 10 points. The gender gap is defined as the margin between men and women’s support for a candidate. It’s the best way to measure how men and women’s voting patterns differ. According to official 2012 exit polls, President Barack Obama had a 10-point gender gap over his Republican rival, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney—higher than in most (but not all) presidential races since 1980.
3. Women decided the election. This past November women determined the outcome of the presidential election. Only in President Bill Clinton’s 1996 victory did a candidate succeed by winning with women and losing with men. Again, according to official exit polls, in both of their first terms in office, President Obama and President Clinton won with both genders. In neither of his campaigns did President George W. Bush win with women, although previous Republican presidents did.
4. The gender gap extends beyond women of color. The gender gap widened considerably with Latinos and African Americans this year, but also with whites. While President Obama’s support with white women declined, his gender gap among whites grew and was the same as former Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry’s gender gap in 2006 and larger than President Clinton’s 1992 gender gap among whites. It was also larger than the gender gap among whites in the last four midterm elections.
5. The top issues for women were the economy and a candidate who will fight for them. Abortion may have been salient, but jobs and the economy are still the primary concern. Polling firm Momentum Analysis conducted a bipartisan study of “Walmart moms”—women with kids younger than age 18 and who have shopped at a Walmart at least once within the past month—and found abortion lagged behind the economy as a vote driver for these women. Similarly, according to the official exit polls, Gov. Romney bested President Obama by approximately 14 points with the three-fourths of the electorate who said the most important candidate qualities were that he “shares my values,” “is a strong leader,” or “has a vision.” But President Obama trounced Gov. Romney by 63 points with the one-fifth of voters who said “cares about people like me” was the most important value.
6. Extreme remarks and candidates changed the debate. The election highlighted many candidates’ extreme views on women—not just those who made public gaffes. Much was written, of course, about Senate candidates Rep. Todd Akin (R-MO) and Indiana Treasurer Richard Mourdock’s extreme comments on women and abortion. But there was a lot more where that came from, including, many argue, from Republican vice-presidential nominee Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI). The campaign back and forth helped delineate the boundaries of what’s acceptable—both as political speech and as policy.
7. Abortion and women’s health issues played a real role. These extreme views might have driven many women voters to the arms of Democrats. A Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research postelection poll of women who supported President Obama in 2008 and an early December national poll for Planned Parenthood Action Fund both show the issues of abortion and access to birth control helped President Obama more than Gov. Romney. The Planned Parenthood survey found 69 percent of women—5 percentage points higher than all voters—had heard, seen, or read something about Gov. Romney’s plan to “get rid of” federal funding for Planned Parenthood.
With women deciding the presidential election, and with record numbers of women in both the House and the Senate, policies helping women must now be on the front burner. Women determined the outcome of the way the government looks, and it is time for lawmakers to answer the call of the majority of voters in the country and make sure economic fairness, pay equity, and issues of work-family balance are on the top of the policy agenda.
star trek was ahead of its time with ANGEL ONE
http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/women/report/2012/12/12/47916/how-women-changed-the-outcome-of-the-election/
