1 edit
Originally posted by XanthosNZQuestion, Lets say after 9/11 that Bush decided that we wasn't going to do anything, then all the Democrats wouldve criticised Bush for not doing something, right? But Bush stuck to his ground, and dosnt do anything. You wouldve still voted Democrat even though the parties views were opposite then they were now, Right?
I would vote Democrat because the only thing that the Republican government has done in response to terrorist attacks is kill people (innocent and not) and create more embittered individuals.
And clearly I know what a logical fallacy is. I was being sarcastic.
Is Bush's "with us or with the terrorists" line supposed to apply to bipartisan politics in the US or just those who would be against an illegal invasion?
Originally posted by flyUnityTry answering the question in my post before attempting to ask me a question unrelated to my post and unanswerable due to the number of hypotheticals involved.
Question, Lets say after 9/11 that Bush decided that we wasn't going to do anything, then all the Democrats wouldve criticised Bush for not doing something, right? But Bush stuck to his ground, and dosnt do anything. You wouldve still voted Democrat even though the parties views were opposite then they were now, Right?
Originally posted by der schwarze RitterI think you're partially correct. I think we'll be in more danger from terrorist with Democrats in office. However, I think a fair analysis would conclude that since democrats have been out of power, much of the rhetoric is just that, rhetoric. If they actually had the presidency they'd have to be a little more responsible.
If a Democrat is elected in 2008, there will be another terrorist incident in the United States that will make 9/11 look like a warm-up exercise. It's pretty clear to all that the Democrats are gutless, clueless and dangerous when it comes to prosecuting the War on Terror.
For example, domestic wiretapping. They're making a lot of hay over that now. But with a democrat in the White House, I predict they'll be a little more willing to engage in survellience of individuals whose numbers have been found in cell phones of Al Queda members. And the press will be a lot more understanding too.
You'll see in the Democratic primaries, the candidates will be as far left as they dare, but whoever gets the nomination will have to move right in order to hope to be elected.
Originally posted by der schwarze RitterWhen did the 9/11 attack occur? Let me refresh your memory - it was during a Republican administration.
If a Democrat is elected in 2008, there will be another terrorist incident in the United States that will make 9/11 look like a warm-up exercise. It's pretty clear to all that the Democrats are gutless, clueless and dangerous when it comes to prosecuting the War on Terror.
1 edit
Originally posted by AThousandYoungThat is about as dumb as I've ever heard.
There's an excellent chance they'd vote Republican, considering how much the Republicans have strengthened the terrorists.
Let's see.
Terrorists attack. We can: Ignore them or Fight Back
We fight back and create terrorists.
And now we slap ourselves in the head and say "Boy! That was dumb! Look at all the terrorists we created."
The terrorists attack again.
So we don't fight back. We are quick learners.
So again they attack.
We take it.
Again and again.
This isn't going too well so we weigh our options. This seems familiar.
We can: Ignore them or Fight Back
We have now tried ignoring them, but what the hey, lets try again.
We dont fight back and the terrorists attack again.
Upon re-evaluation, we can: Ignore them or fight back.
We have ignored them twice now and it didn't seem to work, so this time we fight back and create more terrorists. And they attack again this time with many more attackers. So we ignore them and they still attack. So we fight back and create MILLIONS and BILLIONS of terrorists and eventually, the entire world are terrorists so they win.
Is that about right there adozenchildren?
Originally posted by der schwarze Ritter'All' being the Republican party faithful, right?
If a Democrat is elected in 2008, there will be another terrorist incident in the United States that will make 9/11 look like a warm-up exercise. It's pretty clear to all that the Democrats are gutless, clueless and dangerous when it comes to prosecuting the War on Terror.
1 edit
Originally posted by rwingettWhen did they blow up the embassies in africa? Who turned down Bin Laden when he was offered up by the Sudanese government because the lawyers thought it might be "illegal"?
When did the 9/11 attack occur? Let me refresh your memory - it was during a Republican administration.
Are you saying that blowing up asprin factories was a good thing or a bad thing? And did it deter al Queda in the least or just "create more terrorists"? LOL
Here is a link to just a few things they were doing while Clinton diddled around with his cigars.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/19/AR2007031900653.html
Originally posted by StarValleyWy"Let's see.
That is about as dumb as I've ever heard.
Let's see.
Terrorists attack. We can: Ignore them or Fight Back
We fight back and create terrorists.
And now we slap ourselves in the head and say "Boy! That was dumb! Look at all the terrorists we created."
The terrorists attack again.
So we don't fight back. We are quick learners.
So again they ...[text shortened]... the entire world are terrorists so they win.
Is that about right there adozenchildren?
Terrorists attack. We can: Ignore them or Fight Back
We fight back and create terrorists."
Glad to see that you recognise the stupidity of the way you fight back.
How about:
You fight back in a way that DOES NOT create terrorists. Of course this would need a president with a brain.
1 edit
Originally posted by petrosianpupilAw Yes! Your secret "special method". Shhhhh. Don't want to give it away now do we. Mum's the word. The walls have ears and all that.
How about:
You fight back in a way that DOES NOT create terrorists. Of course this would need a president with a brain.
You best not speak of it so openly. Who knows what length the terrorists will go to to force your "secret and special method" out of you. You are brave indeed to even hint at its existence.
You can trust me. I will NEVER tell, even if they tickle me or ask nicely!
And for goodness sakes, shouldn't we stop talking about... errrr... well "you know who". We are probably creating THOUSANDS of them just by these insulting comments. Ahem.
Originally posted by lepomisShhhh! For goodness sakes! That is a SECRET! Have you not followed putridpupils plan to defeat them!
Why dont we just give the terrorists everything that they want?... wouldnt that solve the problem???
Sheesh! Big mouth. I'm afraid you have given away his top secret method and now there is no hope for us.
Sigh.
Originally posted by StarValleyWyInvading Iraq was not "fighting back". It was diverting resources from the guys who actually attacked us. This is closer to "ignore them" than to "fight back".
That is about as dumb as I've ever heard.
Let's see.
Terrorists attack. We can: Ignore them or Fight Back
We fight back and create terrorists.
And now we slap ourselves in the head and say "Boy! That was dumb! Look at all the terrorists we created."
The terrorists attack again.
So we don't fight back. We are quick learners.
So again they ...[text shortened]... the entire world are terrorists so they win.
Is that about right there adozenchildren?
Please reference your sources...or are you just making stuff up?
Originally posted by StarValleyWyWho screwed up getting Bin Laden in Tora Bora?
When did they blow up the embassies in africa? Who turned down Bin Laden when he was offered up by the Sudanese government because the lawyers thought it might be "illegal"?
Are you saying that blowing up asprin factories was a good thing or a bad thing? And did it deter al Queda in the least or just "create more terrorists"? LOL
Here is a link t ...[text shortened]... ars.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/19/AR2007031900653.html