Republican Candidates
- Thread starter stdreb27
- Start date
rylan1
Active Member
Originally Posted by 1journeyman
http:///forum/post/2452655
We were never in Rwanda. Nor does our absence there (or anywhere else in Africa) make our foreign policy hypocritical. The genocide there is completely internal, and does not affect our national security in any way. Arguing that Iraq will never be stable because of the different people groups fighting, then saying we should go into Africa conveniently forgets the history of unrest on that continent.... We have a national interest in the Middle East. In addition, the various nation's there have militaries capable of attacking us, and the terrorists based there must be eliminated.
Rylan, you seem to be forgetting how old Reagan was when he ran... and if he was sick while in office then I'm all for hiring more mentally ill people...
The racial "point of view" aspect once again screams discrimination. The President of the United States represents the United States, not a race. To vote for a man or woman because of their race is completely improper. If I said I was going to vote for a white candidate because of their race I'd be flogged
, and rightly so.
I'm thinking about Somalia...anywho... We say that we are going to Iraq to liberate them.. Is the Taliban and al Qaeda the same? Was Kosovo a security or terrorist threat to us? As far as the Middle East goes... does are interest revolve around our need for oil? Do you think a middle eastern army is able to attack us in the US? If so, who? Except for maybe Iran now that they have Nukes?
In regards to Reagan... his policy may have benefited you; however, those policies negatively affected a lot of people and everyone doesn't have the same fondness for him as you do.
Lastly, what are you talking about a "racial point of view"? No one said, at least I didn't that I was voting for Obama or Clinton because of there physical characteristic
http:///forum/post/2452655
We were never in Rwanda. Nor does our absence there (or anywhere else in Africa) make our foreign policy hypocritical. The genocide there is completely internal, and does not affect our national security in any way. Arguing that Iraq will never be stable because of the different people groups fighting, then saying we should go into Africa conveniently forgets the history of unrest on that continent.... We have a national interest in the Middle East. In addition, the various nation's there have militaries capable of attacking us, and the terrorists based there must be eliminated.
Rylan, you seem to be forgetting how old Reagan was when he ran... and if he was sick while in office then I'm all for hiring more mentally ill people...
The racial "point of view" aspect once again screams discrimination. The President of the United States represents the United States, not a race. To vote for a man or woman because of their race is completely improper. If I said I was going to vote for a white candidate because of their race I'd be flogged
I'm thinking about Somalia...anywho... We say that we are going to Iraq to liberate them.. Is the Taliban and al Qaeda the same? Was Kosovo a security or terrorist threat to us? As far as the Middle East goes... does are interest revolve around our need for oil? Do you think a middle eastern army is able to attack us in the US? If so, who? Except for maybe Iran now that they have Nukes?
In regards to Reagan... his policy may have benefited you; however, those policies negatively affected a lot of people and everyone doesn't have the same fondness for him as you do.
Lastly, what are you talking about a "racial point of view"? No one said, at least I didn't that I was voting for Obama or Clinton because of there physical characteristic
1journeyman
Active Member
Originally Posted by Rylan1
http:///forum/post/2453064
I'm thinking about Somalia...anywho... We say that we are going to Iraq to liberate them.. Is the Taliban and al Qaeda the same? Was Kosovo a security or terrorist threat to us? As far as the Middle East goes... does are interest revolve around our need for oil? Do you think a middle eastern army is able to attack us in the US? If so, who? Except for maybe Iran now that they have Nukes?
In regards to Reagan... his policy may have benefited you; however, those policies negatively affected a lot of people and everyone doesn't have the same fondness for him as you do.
Lastly, what are you talking about a "racial point of view"? No one said, at least I didn't that I was voting for Obama or Clinton because of there physical characteristic
Ok.. switching topics again...
I was explaining Rwanda, where you have sited casualty numbers before... if you want to now talk about Somalia that's fine; but don't try to carry over the conversation as though there is no difference.
We were in Somalia helping with relief efforts. Clinton ordered our military out after we were attacked (Blackhawk Down).
Umm, what policies adversely affected who under Reagan exactly? Which political party was in control of the House and Senate under Reagan? Please post some facts...
History says we went into Iraq to liberate it. We freakin helped set up a DEMOCRATIC Government there, have helped them have multiple elections already, etc. And, despite the crazy "oil conspiracy theories" some have posted on this thread with absolutely no basis in fact, we aren't colonizing there. Do you wish to argue we didn't liberate them?
The Taliban and Al Qaeda are very similar, but not the same. The Taliban was the Radical Islamic Government in Afghanistan that was harboring and supporting Al Qaeda (like Saddam was harboring and supporting other terrorist groups).
Kosovo, as as already been pointed out to you, was a NATO operation.
Yes, our interest in the Middle East is partly related to oil. It's also related to international shipping and Israel.
Again, and again, and again we've told you this; Iraq attacked our military hundreds (if not thousands) of times while we were enforcing the No Fly Zone. In addition, we have allies in the region who were under threat by Saddam.
1journeyman
Active Member
Originally Posted by Rylan1
http:///forum/post/2452625
...Now in the case for a black man and woman... I don't think these factors would make their presidency more difficult... I think different point of views would be a benefit....
Originally Posted by rylan
...Lastly, what are you talking about a "racial point of view"? No one said, at least I didn't that I was voting for Obama or Clinton because of there physical characteristic
Seems to me your first post answers the question in your second.
http:///forum/post/2452625
...Now in the case for a black man and woman... I don't think these factors would make their presidency more difficult... I think different point of views would be a benefit....
Originally Posted by rylan
...Lastly, what are you talking about a "racial point of view"? No one said, at least I didn't that I was voting for Obama or Clinton because of there physical characteristic
Seems to me your first post answers the question in your second.
reefraff
Active Member
Originally Posted by 1journeyman
http:///forum/post/2453008
Had Frist been allowed to use the "nuclear option" and close filibusters on judges (which appears to me to be unconstitutional) Alito, Roberts and many more would have gone through. McCain points to those examples of "success" when the reality is those 2 and more should have gone through.
Critics of the nuclear option believe the Dems will not use the "nuclear option" themselves if they win in 2008....
The Nuke option was never a sure bet. I personally would have loved to have seen it happen but I don't see these sissy politicians pulling off a good ol fashioned buster but you never know.
http:///forum/post/2453008
Had Frist been allowed to use the "nuclear option" and close filibusters on judges (which appears to me to be unconstitutional) Alito, Roberts and many more would have gone through. McCain points to those examples of "success" when the reality is those 2 and more should have gone through.
Critics of the nuclear option believe the Dems will not use the "nuclear option" themselves if they win in 2008....
The Nuke option was never a sure bet. I personally would have loved to have seen it happen but I don't see these sissy politicians pulling off a good ol fashioned buster but you never know.
darthtang aw
Active Member
Originally Posted by reefraff
http:///forum/post/2453158
I'd take Reagan again in a heartbeat. When you consider the mess Reagan inherited from Carter, come on. Clinton can't hang. Clinton simply didn't (or wasn't able to)
[hr]
up the prosparity that started under reagan.
This election I would take a democrat of old over my current choices....Give me JFK.
http:///forum/post/2453158
I'd take Reagan again in a heartbeat. When you consider the mess Reagan inherited from Carter, come on. Clinton can't hang. Clinton simply didn't (or wasn't able to)
[hr]
up the prosparity that started under reagan.
This election I would take a democrat of old over my current choices....Give me JFK.
stdreb27
Active Member
yawn, please, you want to know why dems never liked reagan? He ended the strangle hold of their flawed control based economics and it hurt. Because all these organizations that the government was propping up, he said we are not paying for it any more. Remember his femail counterpart on the other side of the pond? Then lets not forget him doing more than any president to end the USSR. Bad policies, alot of times, good policies hurt. You've got to run if you want to stay fit.
1journeyman
Active Member
I'd take Reagan again as well. I'm interested to see if Rylan provides any information as to how people weren't better off because of him... Heck, my dad was an Air Traffic Controller fired by Reagan when they went on strike. Even he voted again for Reagan in 84...
The Dems hate Reagan because he brought down the Soviet Union. In fact there is an interesting memo supposedly released from the KGB detailing negotiations between Senator Kennedy and the Soviets in the early 80s when Kennedy was attempting to derail Reagan's hard line approach to dealing with the Soviets.
The Dems hate Reagan because he brought down the Soviet Union. In fact there is an interesting memo supposedly released from the KGB detailing negotiations between Senator Kennedy and the Soviets in the early 80s when Kennedy was attempting to derail Reagan's hard line approach to dealing with the Soviets.
reefraff
Active Member
There was a quote from a former USSR government official after the fall.
I asked Igor Gaidar, Boris Yeltsin's first prime minister, why the improvements in Russia are virtually ignored by the American media. "Well," said Gaidar with a twinkle in his eye, "The Communists spent huge sums of money trying to infiltrate your media. Just because the Soviet Union ended, these people didn't go away."
They were also placing people in universities and the labor movement.
I asked Igor Gaidar, Boris Yeltsin's first prime minister, why the improvements in Russia are virtually ignored by the American media. "Well," said Gaidar with a twinkle in his eye, "The Communists spent huge sums of money trying to infiltrate your media. Just because the Soviet Union ended, these people didn't go away."
They were also placing people in universities and the labor movement.
scubadoo
Active Member
RYLAN.....Regarding Rwanada you missed my point. It appears CLinton knew what was about to happen there beforehand and did nothing.
You have posted we should be in Africa right now doing something and critcal of this administration for not doing so.
I'm simply pointing out CLinton stood by and did nothing. Are you critical of that administration regarding its inaction?
I find it somewhat amusing that for some reason many democrats/liberals simply will tear at Bush for the same things previous democratic administrations have done. Some even apply situational ethics/morals...and have different levels of acceptability based on which party occupies the white house.
ALso, correct me if I am wrong.....your positon is we should have followed the UN lead regarding Iraq and we should not be involved in what you beleive is a civil war. So, if we follow the UN regarding Africa we are now wrong for doing so....and it is okay to get involved in a "civil war" in africa?
Please clarify this for me...as you appear to be in contradiction with your positions.
You have posted we should be in Africa right now doing something and critcal of this administration for not doing so.
I'm simply pointing out CLinton stood by and did nothing. Are you critical of that administration regarding its inaction?
I find it somewhat amusing that for some reason many democrats/liberals simply will tear at Bush for the same things previous democratic administrations have done. Some even apply situational ethics/morals...and have different levels of acceptability based on which party occupies the white house.
ALso, correct me if I am wrong.....your positon is we should have followed the UN lead regarding Iraq and we should not be involved in what you beleive is a civil war. So, if we follow the UN regarding Africa we are now wrong for doing so....and it is okay to get involved in a "civil war" in africa?
Please clarify this for me...as you appear to be in contradiction with your positions.
scubadoo
Active Member
Originally Posted by 1journeyman
http:///forum/post/2453087
Again, and again, and again we've told you this; Iraq attacked our military hundreds (if not thousands) of times while we were enforcing the No Fly Zone. In addition, we have allies in the region who were under threat by Saddam.
Iraq attacks ONW aircraft monitoring No-Fly zone
December 2, 2002
In-Depth Coverage UNITED STATES EUROPEAN COMMAND December 02,2002-- Iraqi forces threatened Operation Northern Watch (ONW) coalition aircraft today.
Iraqi forces fired anti-aircraft artillery from sites approximately 10 miles east of Mosul while coalition aircraft conducted routine enforcement of the Northern No-Fly Zone.
Coalition aircraft responded in self-defense to the Iraqi attacks by dropping precision guided munitions on elements of the Iraqi integrated air defense system.
All coalition aircraft departed the area safely.
Coalition aircraft have been enforcing the Northern No-Fly Zone for more than 11 years. Since Dec. 28, 1998, Saddam Hussein has opted to challenge this enforcement by firing at coalition aircraft with surface-to-air missiles (SAMs) and anti-aircraft artillery and by targeting them with radar. Operation Northern Watch aircraft respond in self-defense to these threats, while continuing to enforce the No-fly Zone.
.
http:///forum/post/2453087
Again, and again, and again we've told you this; Iraq attacked our military hundreds (if not thousands) of times while we were enforcing the No Fly Zone. In addition, we have allies in the region who were under threat by Saddam.
Iraq attacks ONW aircraft monitoring No-Fly zone
December 2, 2002
In-Depth Coverage UNITED STATES EUROPEAN COMMAND December 02,2002-- Iraqi forces threatened Operation Northern Watch (ONW) coalition aircraft today.
Iraqi forces fired anti-aircraft artillery from sites approximately 10 miles east of Mosul while coalition aircraft conducted routine enforcement of the Northern No-Fly Zone.
Coalition aircraft responded in self-defense to the Iraqi attacks by dropping precision guided munitions on elements of the Iraqi integrated air defense system.
All coalition aircraft departed the area safely.
Coalition aircraft have been enforcing the Northern No-Fly Zone for more than 11 years. Since Dec. 28, 1998, Saddam Hussein has opted to challenge this enforcement by firing at coalition aircraft with surface-to-air missiles (SAMs) and anti-aircraft artillery and by targeting them with radar. Operation Northern Watch aircraft respond in self-defense to these threats, while continuing to enforce the No-fly Zone.
.
scubadoo
Active Member
Originally Posted by Rylan1
http:///forum/post/2453064
I'm thinking about Somalia...anywho... We say that we are going to Iraq to liberate them.. Is the Taliban and al Qaeda the same? Was Kosovo a security or terrorist threat to us? As far as the Middle East goes... does are interest revolve around our need for oil? Do you think a middle eastern army is able to attack us in the US? If so, who? Except for maybe Iran now that they have Nukes?
In regards to Reagan... his policy may have benefited you; however, those policies negatively affected a lot of people and everyone doesn't have the same fondness for him as you do.
Lastly, what are you talking about a "racial point of view"? No one said, at least I didn't that I was voting for Obama or Clinton because of there physical characteristic
Yes, a middle east country can attack us here at home by supporting a base for terrorist training and activity. See the 9/11 results of a terrorist attack for proof and first attack on WTC here at home. Also, please note zero attacks here at home post 9/11 war on terror.
That's what makes the terrorrists and countries that support them a tough war to wage. If we invade a country based on proactivity we are wrong accroding to you (see Iraq position). 9/11 proved we need to be proactive in order to prevent future attacks..and post 9/11 so far proves this strategy to be correct based on no attacks here at home. Too bad we did not take this approach after the initial WTC attack.
http:///forum/post/2453064
I'm thinking about Somalia...anywho... We say that we are going to Iraq to liberate them.. Is the Taliban and al Qaeda the same? Was Kosovo a security or terrorist threat to us? As far as the Middle East goes... does are interest revolve around our need for oil? Do you think a middle eastern army is able to attack us in the US? If so, who? Except for maybe Iran now that they have Nukes?
In regards to Reagan... his policy may have benefited you; however, those policies negatively affected a lot of people and everyone doesn't have the same fondness for him as you do.
Lastly, what are you talking about a "racial point of view"? No one said, at least I didn't that I was voting for Obama or Clinton because of there physical characteristic
Yes, a middle east country can attack us here at home by supporting a base for terrorist training and activity. See the 9/11 results of a terrorist attack for proof and first attack on WTC here at home. Also, please note zero attacks here at home post 9/11 war on terror.
That's what makes the terrorrists and countries that support them a tough war to wage. If we invade a country based on proactivity we are wrong accroding to you (see Iraq position). 9/11 proved we need to be proactive in order to prevent future attacks..and post 9/11 so far proves this strategy to be correct based on no attacks here at home. Too bad we did not take this approach after the initial WTC attack.
stdreb27
Active Member
Originally Posted by reefraff
http:///forum/post/2454239
Come on, lets face it. If we were in Africa Bush would be taking crap for killing 600,000 innocent Rawandians or whatever.
If bush said he was pro-baby killing, Pro UN, Pro treehugging, the libs would say they were against all that.
http:///forum/post/2454239
Come on, lets face it. If we were in Africa Bush would be taking crap for killing 600,000 innocent Rawandians or whatever.
If bush said he was pro-baby killing, Pro UN, Pro treehugging, the libs would say they were against all that.
rylan1
Active Member
Originally Posted by stdreb27
http:///forum/post/2452664
LOL, you do know it is illeagal to take into consideration age if the age is over 45 in consideration of a job position. At least in texas, I thought it was federal.
What the crap, scared he would be assasinated? Seriously? That is a real concern of black people? It would be a serious stretch but I guess I could see historical fear, lincoln, MLK. But what about your "leaders" now? No one has gone after Jackson, Harrykon, and who ever else and shot em. Jackson ran for president and was doing good till he called some jews something stupid.
I don't think all black people feel this way, but when people ask is this country ready for a black president, some people take whether or not they could be a target for radical groups or persons. I also want to say that Sharpton and Jackson are not our leaders in the context that you describe.
http:///forum/post/2452664
LOL, you do know it is illeagal to take into consideration age if the age is over 45 in consideration of a job position. At least in texas, I thought it was federal.
What the crap, scared he would be assasinated? Seriously? That is a real concern of black people? It would be a serious stretch but I guess I could see historical fear, lincoln, MLK. But what about your "leaders" now? No one has gone after Jackson, Harrykon, and who ever else and shot em. Jackson ran for president and was doing good till he called some jews something stupid.
I don't think all black people feel this way, but when people ask is this country ready for a black president, some people take whether or not they could be a target for radical groups or persons. I also want to say that Sharpton and Jackson are not our leaders in the context that you describe.
stdreb27
Active Member
Originally Posted by Rylan1
http:///forum/post/2454916
I also want to say that Sharpton and Jackson are not our leaders in the context that you describe.
I agree they aren't. But Jackson has run for president. And won a few primaries, before he messed up. Sharpton isn't so much. But they have been the "primary black leaders" as appointed by the powers that be. You do have to admit, every time their has been a "black" issue of national prominence you have one of these two wieghing in.
But I don't know you just were the third black person, I'd heard say that over the course of about 3 days. It was just so far from left field in my mind, that I just had to ask. I mean sure if you are Secret Service.
http:///forum/post/2454916
I also want to say that Sharpton and Jackson are not our leaders in the context that you describe.
I agree they aren't. But Jackson has run for president. And won a few primaries, before he messed up. Sharpton isn't so much. But they have been the "primary black leaders" as appointed by the powers that be. You do have to admit, every time their has been a "black" issue of national prominence you have one of these two wieghing in.
But I don't know you just were the third black person, I'd heard say that over the course of about 3 days. It was just so far from left field in my mind, that I just had to ask. I mean sure if you are Secret Service.
rylan1
Active Member
Originally Posted by mfp1016
http:///forum/post/2453075
Rylan, were you old enough to remember Reagan? Just wondering if you're speaking out of personal experience, or regurgitating what someone told you.
Also, if you don't think oil is an important political aspect, then you are disillusioned with the world.
I do remember Reagan, but wasn't old enough to have a perspective of him at that time. So yes I am regurgitating info that I learned after the fact...but whats funny is that I am not sure how old you are, but can you tell me what effect say Carter had on America, or Nixon, Johnson, Kennedy.. how about Washington?
I'm not disillusioned... but there are people that will say our interests in Iraq are not about oil.
http:///forum/post/2453075
Rylan, were you old enough to remember Reagan? Just wondering if you're speaking out of personal experience, or regurgitating what someone told you.
Also, if you don't think oil is an important political aspect, then you are disillusioned with the world.
I do remember Reagan, but wasn't old enough to have a perspective of him at that time. So yes I am regurgitating info that I learned after the fact...but whats funny is that I am not sure how old you are, but can you tell me what effect say Carter had on America, or Nixon, Johnson, Kennedy.. how about Washington?
I'm not disillusioned... but there are people that will say our interests in Iraq are not about oil.
rylan1
Active Member
Originally Posted by stdreb27
http:///forum/post/2454934
I agree they aren't. But Jackson has run for president. And won a few primaries, before he messed up. Sharpton isn't so much. But they have been the "primary black leaders" as appointed by the powers that be. You do have to admit, every time their has been a "black" issue of national prominence you have one of these two wieghing in.
But I don't know you just were the third black person, I'd heard say that over the course of about 3 days. It was just so far from left field in my mind, that I just had to ask. I mean sure if you are Secret Service.
Yes I agree and that is the cause of their lives..these issues they fight are usually matters of civil rights to the highest degree. But take in account the latest thing w/ MLB and questioning umpires...Jackson came out in defense of white umpires.
http:///forum/post/2454934
I agree they aren't. But Jackson has run for president. And won a few primaries, before he messed up. Sharpton isn't so much. But they have been the "primary black leaders" as appointed by the powers that be. You do have to admit, every time their has been a "black" issue of national prominence you have one of these two wieghing in.
But I don't know you just were the third black person, I'd heard say that over the course of about 3 days. It was just so far from left field in my mind, that I just had to ask. I mean sure if you are Secret Service.
Yes I agree and that is the cause of their lives..these issues they fight are usually matters of civil rights to the highest degree. But take in account the latest thing w/ MLB and questioning umpires...Jackson came out in defense of white umpires.