I am watching F-911 tomorrow

Page 3 of 3 First 123

  1. Quote Originally Posted by gobig1
    Bottom line.........There are NO GOOD POLITICIANS, that includes Presidents and ex-Presidents. It doesn't matter who is in office, they will be critized.
    There are good and bad in every profession.

    Here is one of the definitions of Politician from Merriam Webster online;

    Politician - a person primarily interested in political office for selfish or other narrow usually short-sighted reasons.
    One of the other definitions on there is "a person experienced in the art or science of government." Actually, that is the first definiton.

    Politicians DO NOT have your, my, our best or ANY of our personal interests in mind. This country is not free anymore, it is ran by politicians with THEIR own agenda in mind.

    GOBIG
    You're partially right; a lot of them don't. However, you can't make broad, sweeping generalizations like that.

    As for this country not being free, you are sadly mistaken.

    /karp


  2. Quote Originally Posted by Brooklyn
    Osama Bin Laden/Usama Bin Ladin is a symbol. If we kill him he can become a martyr. If we capture him it makes it look to the masses like the war on terror is pretty much over, which is far from the truth. Anytime Bush wants to get support for his agenda he trumps the threat of Bin Laden out. He is the face of terror like Saddam Hussein was the face of the old Iraq. The best thing for Bush, as far as the long-term is concerned, is not to catch Bin Laden. Why do you think we keep capturing his "Number 2 guy"?
    I've considered that and that argument has some merit... However, we all know that once Bil Laden is taken out of the picture, someone else will take his place, and more than likely we will see terrorist activities increase in respose to the capture. So really, Bush could say "Hey, we got him," which makes him look good, and he can also say "We've still got a lot more work to do," which keeps the war on terror going.

    /karp
    •   
       


  3. Brooklyn, you really think that any president would play games like that?

    I mean seriously, it's not like Bush needs to get reelected or anything.

    Oh, and please name an instance of Bush "trumping" the threat of bin laden.

    I have heard plenty of the "war on terror" but I don't remember OBL really being mentioned beyond Op EF.

    But I do agree with you, capturing bin laden would not mean that it would be the end of the "war on terror", he is simply a figurehead.

    But hey, that doesn't stop liberals from screaming "WHAT ABOUT BIN LADEN????!!!?!?!"

    now does it?

  4. Quote Originally Posted by jrkarp
    There are good and bad in every profession.


    One of the other definitions on there is "a person experienced in the art or science of government." Actually, that is the first definiton.


    You're partially right; a lot of them don't. However, you can't make broad, sweeping generalizations like that.

    As for this country not being free, you are sadly mistaken.

    /karp
    That is your OPINION.....after 21+ years in the military I would defend our "freedoms" with my life, that doesn't mean our country is free.......increasing encroachment into my personal desires that have no harm to any other individual is not a free society (my opinion) although we do enjoy many more benefits than most societies, we are FAR from free to do as we please or choose in respect to not harming others.

    Just because you "agree" with a politicians point of view on a certain subject DOES NOT mean they have YOUR best interest in mind, they don't even know who the hell you are, so YES the broad sweeping generalization definitely applies to politicians.

  5. Quote Originally Posted by gobig1
    Just because you "agree" with a politicians point of view on a certain subject DOES NOT mean they have YOUR best interest in mind, they don't even know who the hell you are, so YES the broad sweeping generalization definitely applies to politicians.
    So basically what you are saying is that if a politician doesn't know you personally, he's out for selfish motives? I think it's pretty ridiculous to assert that just because a politician doesn't know everybody who he represents personally, that means that he doesn't care about the best interests of the community (as a whole) that he was elected to represent.

    Obviously he can't know what is in your PERSONAL best interests, but that doesn't mean that he doesn't care about his constituents at all.

    /karp

  6. Quote Originally Posted by jrkarp
    So basically what you are saying is that if a politician doesn't know you personally, he's out for selfish motives? I think it's pretty ridiculous to assert that just because a politician doesn't know everybody who he represents personally, that means that he doesn't care about the best interests of the community (as a whole) that he was elected to represent.

    Obviously he can't know what is in your PERSONAL best interests, but that doesn't mean that he doesn't care about his constituents at all.

    /karp
    If you would have read my post slower, we both basically said the same thing, except that I'm not saying he is being selfish with only his interests/motives in mind, JUST NOT YOURS in mind. Obviously, he is voted into office on broad, general issues, i.e., reduce crime, increase jobs, etc., those may/may not affect you directly, that in no way means he is looking out for YOU. I think my whole point of this is that a politician will make uninformed decisions based on media propaganda, specifically steroids (which is why we are all here) and go with the "general" public point of view and make them illegal. Back in 1990 when steroids became scheduled class III and illegal, all the doctors on the voting panel said it was the wrong thing to do. I just don't like someone I don't know making decisions for me, maybe you do......I don't. Enough on this......enjoy your day.

    GOBIG

  7. Quote Originally Posted by gobig1
    If you would have read my post slower, we both basically said the same thing, except that I'm not saying he is being selfish with only his interests/motives in mind, JUST NOT YOURS in mind. Obviously, he is voted into office on broad, general issues, i.e., reduce crime, increase jobs, etc., those may/may not affect you directly, that in no way means he is looking out for YOU.
    Um, you said:

    Quote Originally Posted by gobig1
    Politicians DO NOT have your, my, our best or ANY of our personal interests in mind. This country is not free anymore, it is ran by politicians with THEIR own agenda in mind.
    So, actually that is exactly what you said.

    EDIT: Wait, I think I get what you are saying: elected politicians do not represent us personally. So what? That doesn't mean that they are selfish or bad people or not good at their jobs, which is what meant when you originally said:

    Quote Originally Posted by gobig1
    Bottom line.........There are NO GOOD POLITICIANS, that includes Presidents and ex-Presidents. It doesn't matter who is in office, they will be critized.

    Politician - a person primarily interested in political office for selfish or other narrow usually short-sighted reasons.
    Quote Originally Posted by gobig1
    I think my whole point of this is that a politician will make uninformed decisions based on media propaganda, specifically steroids (which is why we are all here) and go with the "general" public point of view and make them illegal. Back in 1990 when steroids became scheduled class III and illegal, all the doctors on the voting panel said it was the wrong thing to do. I just don't like someone I don't know making decisions for me, maybe you do......I don't. Enough on this......enjoy your day.

    GOBIG
    I don't like people making decisions for me either, but that's life.

    /karp

  8. Where did that come from? Not from Moore!

    Quote Originally Posted by Funny Monkey
    This months issue of Scientific America had some interesting FACTS about what happened on 9/11 and they started out trying to find something that would point the finger at the government but in the end they said that no one could give factual evidence to back up any of there claims. I thought that was interesting.

    I hope no one here actually believes bull**** like the buildings didn't come down because two 747's flew into them it was because Bush and Cheney were detonating bombs in the basement as they sipped on brandy and smoked cigars in the white house.

  9. Quote Originally Posted by INFOHAZARD
    Where did that come from? Not from Moore!
    I don't think so that was just one of the conspiracy theorists they spoke with and that was his views on the situation. There were several others in the article that one just semed to jump out in my mind.

    I was wondering where you were at? Welcome back.
  

  
 

Similar Forum Threads

  1. Replies: 2
    Last Post: 11-13-2011, 03:00 AM
  2. So who is gonna watch I am Legend ?
    By ReaperX in forum General Chat
    Replies: 42
    Last Post: 12-23-2007, 06:31 AM
  3. Stupid AM.com Heisman Watch 2006-2007
    By CEDeoudes59 in forum Sports Talk
    Replies: 55
    Last Post: 11-10-2006, 09:16 PM
  4. I am trying out a NO2 hombrew for kicks!
    By windwords7 in forum Supplements
    Replies: 37
    Last Post: 04-13-2003, 12:50 PM
  5. I AM SICK.. of feeling over loaded with info
    By WanaKnowMore in forum Anabolics
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: 10-28-2002, 09:34 PM
Log in
Log in