Republican Candidates

rylan1

rylan1

Active Member
Originally Posted by ScubaDoo
http:///forum/post/2454134
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.
Fact is that no middle east country or any country has attacked us domestically since WWII. We've been attacked numerous times by groups and individuals (terrorists). Its a big difference.
So are you saying that we have evidence that Iraq supports al Qaeda or 911 terrorists?
One other question...have we supported terrorists in other countries or groups we wanted to overthrow their gov't?
 
1journeyman

1journeyman

Active Member
Originally Posted by Rylan1
http:///forum/post/2454935
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.
Rylan, so how about telling us some of these negatives regarding President Reagan, instead of just saying blanket statements about how people suffered under him...
No one minds you regurgitating info, the problem is statements like the previous one regarding Reagan aren't info; they are opinions. And if you don't have any info to back it up you're "regurgitating" an uneducated opinion. Just like your stats on the economy that were 5 years old....
 
1journeyman

1journeyman

Active Member
Originally Posted by Rylan1
http:///forum/post/2454942
Fact is that no middle east country or any country has attacked us domestically since WWII. We've been attacked numerous times by groups and individuals (terrorists). Its a big difference.
So are you saying that we have evidence that Iraq supports al Qaeda or 911 terrorists?
One other question...have we supported terrorists in other countries or groups we wanted to overthrow their gov't?
Rylan, you're starting to ask questions on this thread that have alreay been addressed.
The fact is, Middle Eastern Countries have attacked our allies in the Middle East several times since WW2. Now, until we revoke our alliances with Kuwait, Israel, Saudi Arabia, etc. then an attack against one of them is militarily an attack against the USA.
Al Qaeda was sheltered and sponsored by the Taliban. The Taliban was the ruling government of Afghanistan.
Iraq did meet with Al Qaeda, but the 9-11 Comission found there was no operational link between the two. That said, Saddam supported other terrorist groups that have attacked the USA (Hamas, Hezbollah).
We've supported rebel groups many times. To the best of my knowledge those rebels haven't sent retarded women into crowded markets and blown them up, or blown up school buses full of kids, etc. So are you saying we've supported Terrorist Groups?
 
scubadoo

scubadoo

Active Member
Originally Posted by Rylan1
http:///forum/post/2454942
Fact is that no middle east country or any country has attacked us domestically since WWII. We've been attacked numerous times by groups and individuals (terrorists). Its a big difference.
So are you saying that we have evidence that Iraq supports al Qaeda or 911 terrorists?
One other question...have we supported terrorists in other countries or groups we wanted to overthrow their gov't?
Fact is, several support and finance terroists now and in the past and will do so in the future.
If you have evidnece that the US has sponsored terrorism please bring it here and post it. We have supported liberation groups, but not terrorists groups to my knowledge. Sounds like the nonsense the far left loon websites have posted.
I do know many on the far left compare us to terrorists.
 
scubadoo

scubadoo

Active Member
Originally Posted by Rylan1
http:///forum/post/2454935
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.
If you were not old enough to remember Regan, where are you getting your perspective on his presidency? YOu did negatively comment earlier on this thread I beleive. CAn you site your sources?
 
scubadoo

scubadoo

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.

What about Louis Farrakhan, the racist black leader? He receives support for his sick views.
 
scubadoo

scubadoo

Active Member
Originally Posted by Rylan1
http:///forum/post/2454942
So are you saying that we have evidence that Iraq supports al Qaeda or 911 terrorists?
One other question...have we supported terrorists in other countries or groups we wanted to overthrow their gov't?
USA Today reported:
"U.S. authorities in Iraq say they have new evidence that Saddam Hussein's regime gave money and housing to Abdul Rahman Yasin, a suspect in the World Trade Center bombing in 1993. ...
"Military, intelligence and law enforcement officials reported finding a large cache of Arabic-language documents in Tikrit, Saddam's political stronghold. A U.S. intelligence official ... said some [U.S. intelligence] analysts have concluded that the documents show that Saddam's government provided monthly payments and a home for Yasin."
After Yousef fled the Philippines in 1995, local police discovered plans for three types of terrorist attacks on his laptop computer. One was Bojinka. A second plot called for the hijacking of an airliner with plans to crash it into a U.S. nuclear power plant.
Yousef's third plan, however, reads like an early blueprint for 9/11, calling for U.S. airliners to be hijacked then crashed kamikaze style into American landmarks. Specifically mentioned on a list of potential targets found on Yousef's laptop: The World Trade Center and Pentagon.
Sunday's AP report noted that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed worked with Yousef in the mid-1990s, then later took Yousef's plan for kamikaze airstrikes on the U.S. to Osama bin Laden for refinement and funding.
The fact that the mastermind of 9/11 borrowed his plans from the mastermind of the '93 WTC bombing is the best evidence yet that the two plots were linked.
But how clear is Iraq's involvement in the 1993 attacks? Some say evidence of Baghdad's sponsorship is compelling.
Beyond Ramzi Yousef's Iraqi passport and Abdul Rahman Yasin's subsidy from Saddam, terrorist expert Laurie Mylroie has insisted for years that Iraq helped Yousef execute his plan. She says that Jim Fox, the FBI's New York bureau chief in 1993, who headed up the WTC bombing probe, was thoroughly convinced of a connection.
 
rylan1

rylan1

Active Member
Originally Posted by 1journeyman
http:///forum/post/2456984
You all will love this; Hillary's Health Care Plan now comes complete with garnished wages for those that don't want to participate.
http://www.time.com/time/politics/ar...ed-rss-netzero
That's what I don't like about Hilary's plan. Obama, and others have been asking how she plans to go after the people who decline coverage.. and the only way would be to fine them or garnish wages....just like in Mass. This is why I support Obama's plan because it doesn't mandate coverage for adults, but it does make it affordable and doesn't exclude for pre-existing conditions.
These plans are not socialized medicine or universal healthcare as many people describe it or what other countries such as Canada have.
I think this is a key issue for democrats... I think people are ignorant to the mandates of Clintons Healthcare Plan. It costs a whole lot more than Obama's Plan... And it is not Universal Health Care as she describes.. I think people are under the impression that they will get free health care, which this is not. It also forces people to have coverage even if they don't want it or can't afford it.
 
stdreb27

stdreb27

Active Member
Originally Posted by Rylan1
http:///forum/post/2458047
That's what I don't like about Hilary's plan. Obama, and others have been asking how she plans to go after the people who decline coverage.. and the only way would be to fine them or garnish wages....just like in Mass. This is why I support Obama's plan because it doesn't mandate coverage for adults, but it does make it affordable and doesn't exclude for pre-existing conditions.
These plans are not socialized medicine or universal healthcare as many people describe it or what other countries such as Canada have.
You know, it doesn't work for us, repeating the same thing over and over and it becoming true...
It is socializing medicine. Every one under 25? Government subsidised, it is for the kids, and when they turn into teenagers and adults, when they hit 25 they'll be begging for it again. And it will turn into social security. Doesn't work, bad for the country, and we can't do anything because people aren't smart enough to figure that out. You saw what happened when Bush talked about the option of the individual to privatize 1% of their contribution. The dummycrats and their mindless minions raised cain.
 
reefraff

reefraff

Active Member
National Healthcare wont work unless everyone is forced in. These people can and well say anything to get elected. They wont change anything. Healthcare will be an issue in the 2012 election. Remember you heard it here first
 
1journeyman

1journeyman

Active Member
Originally Posted by Rylan1
http:///forum/post/2458047
....
These plans are not socialized medicine or universal healthcare as many people describe it ......
Umm, when you say "many people" does that include Obama himself?
Originally Posted by Obama
My plan begins by covering every American...
taken from his webpage... Sorry, Rylan, you can repeat it 100 times, click the heels of some magical ruby slippers, blow out the candles and make a wish and it still doesn't change the fact that both Democratic plans are socialized, Universal Plans.
Rylan, I'm quoting DIRECTLY from Obama's official webpage. Before you continue to argue this you might want to read his actual position.
 
rylan1

rylan1

Active Member
Originally Posted by stdreb27
http:///forum/post/2458058
You know, it doesn't work for us, repeating the same thing over and over and it becoming true...
It is socializing medicine. Every one under 25? Government subsidised, it is for the kids, and when they turn into teenagers and adults, when they hit 25 they'll be begging for it again. And it will turn into social security. Doesn't work, bad for the country, and we can't do anything because people aren't smart enough to figure that out. You saw what happened when Bush talked about the option of the individual to privatize 1% of their contribution. The dummycrats and their mindless minions raised cain.
It mandates coverage for children. I suspect that would end at 18 unless your parents choose to keep you on theirs until 25. 25 is a good age range given that many people upto this age have not started careers or are college students. I would describe the plan as universal health coverage... this not the same as universal medicine/healthcare. So you can say I am repeating the same thing over and over... The fact that you don't realize that there is a problem is what is really
 
rylan1

rylan1

Active Member
Originally Posted by 1journeyman
http:///forum/post/2458076
Umm, when you say "many people" does that include Obama himself?
taken from his webpage... Sorry, Rylan, you can repeat it 100 times, click the heels of some magical ruby slippers, blow out the candles and make a wish and it still doesn't change the fact that both Democratic plans are socialized, Universal Plans.
Rylan, I'm quoting DIRECTLY from Obama's official webpage. Before you continue to argue this you might want to read his actual position.
It doesn't mandate coverage but makes insurance available and affordable for every american. So you can quote all you want...problem is that you pick one sentence and fail to read the rest.
 
1journeyman

1journeyman

Active Member
Originally Posted by Rylan1
http:///forum/post/2458488
... The fact that you don't realize that there is a problem is what is really

Actually, the fact that you are arguing you know Obama's plan better than Obama himself is...
On second thought, the fact that we, as critics of the plan, have actually taken more time to read about the plan from Obama's website than you -a proponent of the plan- is not funny. It's sad and indicative of what's wrong with politics in America today.
 
1journeyman

1journeyman

Active Member

Originally Posted by Rylan1
http:///forum/post/2458490
It doesn't mandate coverage but makes insurance available and affordable for every american. So you can quote all you want...problem is that you pick one sentence and fail to read the rest.
STILL WRONG... would you like the whole paragraph?
"My plan begins by covering every American. If you already have health insurance, the only thing that will change for you under this plan is the amount of money you will spend on premiums. That will be less. If you are one of the 45 million Americans who don't have health insurance, you will have it after this plan becomes law. No one will be turned away because of a preexisting condition or illness." Taken word for word, from Obama's webpage.
So, let's see. If you currently have Health Insurance the premiums will now be regulated. If you don't have coverage you will get it. Pretty sure that accounts for 100% of the people in the USA... Either you have coverage or you don't...
Let me explain what this will do Rylan. People like me, (and the majority of Americans)who understand the importance of Health Insurance and budget accordingly for it, will lose our coverage. Why? Because companies like the one I have will quit writing health insurance! So we're gonna get stuck with everyone else... paying higher taxes for a broken system. Brilliant...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top