- Joined
- Dec 3, 2009
- Messages
- 52,009
- Reaction score
- 33,944
- Location
- The Golden State
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
Oh, by the way on the two most important issues, National Security and the Economy, Bush wasn't a liberal as tax cuts aren't liberal programs
Well, it matters what he did, as we're now dealing with the results. Moreover, it's better to learn from the mistakes of the past so as not to repeat them.
Now, we have a few thousand truly evil people in the Middle East committing acts of savagery under the banner of ISIS. They are radicals who are not afraid to die for their cause, and who believe that their god will see to it that they succeed in their goal of world domination.
So, what do we do?
It is our problem to a degree, since we set the stage for the uprising and since we still rely on the region for oil. It seems to me that it is also the problem of a lot of other nations as well, including, of course, Egypt, the last one to have been attacked.
So, do we go in alone, guns blazing, to free the world from evil and set things right? Remember the learning from the past thing.
ISIS extremists carry the seeds of their own destruction just like all other extremists groups have in the past. We wouldn't have these symptoms to deal with if Bush hadn't created the problem in the first place
Oh come on now. This conflict had very little to do with oil but everything to do with power ..... in Washington DC
Then Obama must not be a liberal either, right?
That is your opinion but ignores the terrorist attacks in the 90's and in addition ignores the reality of 9/11 and the warning the U.S. got in the 1998 PDB given to Clinton
Really? how much of a tax cut did you get from Obama and is Iraq in the same or better shape than when Bush left office?
What Iraqi terrorist attacks were made in the 90s ?
So you think it is a few thousand that took over territory in Iraq and Syria?
Muslim Statistics (Terrorism) - WikiIslam
The subject was taxes.
And he not only kept the Bush cuts, but also cut payroll taxes. A large part of the "stimulus" was not spending, but tax cuts.
So, if Bush is a conservative, then so is Obama. Personally, I think they're both liberals, defined as seeking large government solution to problems, and they both look a lot like my avatar, but that's just my opinion.
Where in that rather lengthy article on Muslim terrorism does it say how many ISIS radicals you want to believe that there are?
Please post for me the part of the Congressional resolution that claims the reason for any attack has to do with Iraq's involvement in 9/11
9/11 wasn't in the 90s you brought up terror attacks in the 90s. I'm asking what those Iraqi terror attacks were in that decade ? :roll:
Let me see if I can be clearer, there were a number of terrorists attacks on this country in the 90's, none of them initiated to the best of our knowledge from Iraq, and our actions or inactions to those attacks led to 9/11. Now Iraq was not attacked because of 9/11 as the resolution stated but again you refuse to read that resolution and stick by your false opinions and beliefs.
So you actually believe Iraq would still have been attacked despite 9/11 ...... WOW ! :lamo
Is that what the resolution stated?
The neocon ambition for regime change in Iraq predates 9/11. 9/11 merely served as a twisted excuse to advance that ambition.
Kristol and Kagan advocated regime change in Iraq throughout the Iraq disarmament crisis.[22][23] Following perceived Iraqi unwillingness to co-operate with UN weapons inspections, core members of the PNAC including Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz, R. James Woolsey, Elliot Abrams, Donald Rumsfeld, Robert Zoellick, and John Bolton were among the signatories of an open letter initiated by the PNAC to President Bill Clinton calling for the removal of Saddam Hussein.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_American_Century
Is it what you believe, or do you intend to keep ducking and diving like this ad infinitum ? Cite where (in the resolution you keep hiding behind) invasion was sanctioned ? :waiting:
Apparently so did Bill Clinton who signed the Iraq Liberation Act in 1998, what did that Act propose?
I've repeatedly explained that there's a dimes thickness of difference in the two parties and been an advocate for the independent party. What's your point?
My point is third party advocates like you are naïve and very gullible even though principled. There is no chance of success at the national level for a third party until you build it from the ground up. As has been seen and proven, 43% or so of the Democrats will vote for a Democrat regardless of his qualifications or no matter what he does, about 25% of Republicans are the same way, where does that leave an independent. The answer is always work from within and change from within, not from the outside. The choice is clear, the party of Pelosi, Reid, and Obama or the Republicans. Looks simple to me
Registered independents outnumber both democratic and republican voters. It's merely time for them to vote independent.
Americans are increasingly declaring independence from the political parties. It is not uncommon for the percentage of independents to rise in a non-election year, as 2013 was. Still, the general trend in recent years, including the 2012 election year, has been toward greater percentages of Americans identifying with neither the Republican Party nor the Democratic Party, although most still admit to leaning toward one of the parties
Registered independents outnumber both democratic and republican voters. It's merely time for them to vote independent.
Being registered and who you vote for are two different thing. Doesn't matter whether or not you register an independent for here is what you are missing
From Gallop
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?