[Reaper329]

Originally Posted by Jerry

Wrong..

"Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton foresees a “remaining military as well as political mission” in Iraq, and says that if elected president, she would keep a reduced military force there to fight Al Qaeda, deter Iranian aggression, protect the Kurds and possibly support the Iraqi military."

"At that debate Obama said that he could not guarantee that all troops would be out of Iraq by the end of his first term. Obama qualified that answer today, as he has in previous town halls in New Hampshire and Iowa, by saying that he would keep troops in Iraq for diplomatic, humanitarian and counterterrorism purposes."











Wrong. A housing bubble and suprime debt of the major financial institutions has caused ecenomic issues (along with European and Asian financials that invested in the US). The height of the war "2002-2005" showed record GDP and economic boom. The federal reserve hasn't dropped the fed funds rate in the last year because of the war. Get your facts straight.





You're 32. You didn't. The height of the Cold War was not the 80's and 90's.




Thats your own problem, not mine.




Actually, no its not form a historical persepctive. Nobody said Bush fixed it nor improved it, but that Clinton's policies for the most part failed. In other words, more of the same because its not the President that determines economic policy for the most part.







Funny, he held the same viewpoints as the Clinton administration pre war which we all know was a very, very, ultra conservative administration.

before you give quotes you might want ot look for sources! Just a piece of advice Also I guess the difference of non combat troops and combat troops is lost on you?
I also understand the cyclical nature of the economy, however the presidents spending is pertinent

[CNorris]

Originally Posted by Reaper329

No need to be condesending slick, I think we are all well aware of his qualifications. In terms of military experience, so have much more than others, but that does not mean they are qualified.

McCain serving in Vietnam and being a Senator dont necessarily mean he is or isnt qualified, however when his stance on the war is what it is, IMO he is not!!

Cut and Run, Cut and run.. Thats not a political solution to an existing problem, its a gutless and cowardly decision to run awayt from the problem without solving it and it will harm this country and the middle east for decades.

Cut and run is the most politically pathetic position I have ever seen. I guess Democrats want to relive the glory days of vietnam. Quite pathetic that one of America's lowest points is the high point of the democratic party. Further proving that if its bad for America, its good for Democrats.

[J. Peterman]

Originally Posted by Reaper329

No need to be condesending slick, I think we are all well aware of his qualifications. In terms of military experience, so have much more than others, but that does not mean they are qualified.

You are correct. Didn't mean to be and I'm sorry about that.

It means they are more qualified to deal with a military situation vs someone that is not.

McCain serving in Vietnam and being a Senator dont necessarily mean he is or isnt qualified, however when his stance on the war is what it is, IMO he is not!!

I rest my case.

[J. Peterman]

Originally Posted by Reaper329

before you give quotes you might want ot look for sources! Just a piece of advice Also I guess the difference of non combat troops and combat troops is lost on you?
I also understand the cyclical nature of the economy, however the presidents spending is pertinent

New York Times.


Yes, dealing with a terrorist threat requires non combative troops.


Seriously, for someone who says Bush duped you, you sure make it easy for the others to do so as well.

Denial seems to be a big problem with the American public...on both sides.

[J. Peterman]

Originally Posted by Reaper329

I also understand the cyclical nature of the economy, however the presidents spending is pertinent

The governments purse goes through Congress, not the President.

[CNorris]

Originally Posted by Jerry

New York Times.


Yes, dealing with a terrorist threat requires non combative troops.


Seriously, for someone who says Bush duped you, you sure make it easy for the others to do so as well.

Denial seems to be a big problem with the American public...on both sides.

Its not very difficult to dupe those that are primarily driven by their intense anti war emotions.

A large majority of 911 conspriacy freaks are the result of boiling anti-war rage combined with an inability to comprehend the complexities of our world. Their emotions start to lead their brain and their convoluted and delusional views of the world and history reflect it. Unfortunately a large percent of Ron Paul and other anti war candidate supporters can be described in the same manner.

[EasyEJL]

The president suggests, the congress writes what it writes.

[Reaper329]

Originally Posted by CNorris

Cut and Run, Cut and run.. Thats not a political solution to an existing problem, its a gutless and cowardly decision to run awayt from the problem without solving it and it will harm this country and the middle east for decades.

Cut and run is the most politically pathetic position I have ever seen. I guess Democrats want to relive the glory days of vietnam. Quite pathetic that one of America's lowest points is the high point of the democratic party. Further proving that if its bad for America, its good for Democrats.

if you want to blame the dems for leaving then blame the neocons for going in the first place, all based on lies and false information

[EasyEJL]

I'm so happy romney dropped out today

[Reaper329]

Originally Posted by Jerry

You are correct. Didn't mean to be and I'm sorry about that.

no problem

Originally Posted by Jerry

It means they are more qualified to deal with a military situation vs someone that is not.

you are entitled to your opinion however I disagree entirely

[Reaper329]

Originally Posted by CNorris

Its not very difficult to dupe those that are primarily driven by their intense anti war emotions.

A large majority of 911 conspriacy freaks are the result of boiling anti-war rage combined with an inability to comprehend the complexities of our world. Their emotions start to lead their brain and their convoluted and delusional views of the world and history reflect it. Unfortunately a large percent of Ron Paul and other anti war candidate supporters can be described in the same manner.

just remember 9-11 and Iraq are tow ENTIRELY different things.

[CNorris]

Originally Posted by Reaper329

just remember 9-11 and Iraq are tow ENTIRELY different things.

They lied? Not according to your democrat buddies. Please remember the facts here. Saddam intentionally radiated the perception that he possessed WMD. Every intellignece report from countless independant countries said the same thing. The same poeple fighting us in Iraq are part of the group that planned 911. If we cut an run they will establish their base and use Iraq to plan future 911's all over Europe and the US.

"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 | Source

"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 | Source

"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 Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998 | Source

"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 | Source

"We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction."
- Madeline Albright, Feb 1, 1998 | Source

"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 | Source

"[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.
- (D) Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, others, Oct. 9, 1998 | Source

"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 | Source

"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 | Source

"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 | Source

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002 | Source

"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 | Source

"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 | Source

"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 | Source

"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 | Source

"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 | Source

"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 | Source


HOW MANY TIMES DOES YOUR OLD TIRED BUSH LIED FANTASY HAVE TO BE DISPROVEN BEFORE YOU BELIEVE IT?

[CNorris]

Originally Posted by EasyEJL

I'm so happy romney dropped out today

HAHA me too. Romney is the most patheic flip flopping piece of garbage I have ever seen in politics. What makes it even sweeter is the fact that pathetic gutless and soulless flip flopper spent millions of his own dollars for nothing! HAHA Rot in hell flip flopper Romney.

What makes me depressed is how many fellow republicans can not even see straight through the most pathetic political hack in years.

OK enough of the rant, I am just so glad that man is out of the running and I wish he would leave the party as well.
Good Riddance, Go Away Romney