Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 64

Thread: Political Report

  1. #31
    Veteran Paul1355's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    East Coast
    Posts
    5,484
    Rep Power
    14

    Default

    Originally Posted by TunerAddict
    I've been thinking about it, and neither candidate has ANY experience whatsoever. Why? Neither has been president before.
    lol well if you put experience in that way then yea, none of them have been president, evry president that became one was at a point were they ran with no presidential experience. I just meant the important accomplishments he is known for that he made a big difference on.

    I have some for McCain that I was explaining to Pat about. If you want I can explain to you a few accomplishments that John McCain is known for that can show that he backs up some of what he is talking about in his speeches. I can also explain Palin's accomplishments that makes her look better than what the media makes her out to be.

    If you want to continue this argument. Up to you, Turner.
    Last edited by Paul1355; Sep 08, 2008 at 20:50.

  2. #32
    Veteran TunerAddict's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    NY
    Posts
    2,183
    Rep Power
    9

    Default

    I think this had kinda moved into the discussion spectrum and not really and argument. And argument is more divisive and hostile while this has really settled down into a neutral talk where we are all actually learning and presenting new information in a relaxing, intelligent setting.

  3. #33
    Veteran Paul1355's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    East Coast
    Posts
    5,484
    Rep Power
    14

    Default

    Originally Posted by TunerAddict
    I think this had kinda moved into the discussion spectrum and not really and argument. And argument is more divisive and hostile while this has really settled down into a neutral talk where we are all actually learning and presenting new information in a relaxing, intelligent setting.
    I agree, it seemed like an argument at first and then died down. I don't like to get triple-teamed because im the only Republican, makes it harder for myself. I've learned a lot from these talks, and we did argue at many times where we attacked each other. But I have learned and become more open-minded as I was telling OGKnickfan. The more I discuss and argue the more open-minded I become.

    So do you want me to present some information on McCain and Palin that shows that they have some experience and can back up some view points they talk about?

  4. #34
    Superstar pat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    903
    Rep Power
    10

    Default

    As far as Obama admitting to be wrong about the surge is concerned. I think he made a pretty valid point (although I have to say it took him some time to get there) in saying that the surge did create stability but not peace and certainly not democracy. It is really quiet now but this does not mean that the surge changed the fundamental situation.

    1.) destroyed infrastructure
    2.) hostility towards US (troops)
    3.) Islamistic fundamentalism
    4.) corruption

    The surge will only work if a civil society is going to be built, based on principles that are not alien to the middle east.

  5. #35
    Enlightened OGKnickfan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    944
    Rep Power
    7

    Default

    I think whether or not the surge worked is a non-issue. If the war was unethical, wrong to begin with, you are smart to resist the deployment of more troops.

    If someone kicks an old lady's head in, at what point does the act of beating her become moral? She starts to kick and bite, so you have to stomp her, again? I think you walk away, refuse to offer your personal support to a situation that was wrong, to begin with. I commend Obama for refusing to support an action, based on lies and deception, at the beginning, middle and end.

  6. #36
    Veteran Paul1355's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    East Coast
    Posts
    5,484
    Rep Power
    14

    Default

    Originally Posted by OGKnickfan
    I think whether or not the surge worked is a non-issue. If the war was unethical, wrong to begin with, you are smart to resist the deployment of more troops.

    If someone kicks an old lady's head in, at what point does the act of beating her become moral? She starts to kick and bite, so you have to stomp her, again? I think you walk away, refuse to offer your personal support to a situation that was wrong, to begin with. I commend Obama for refusing to support an action, based on lies and deception, at the beginning, middle and end.
    The Surge is a very important issue. If we did not win the Surge and eliminate Al-Queda and just left, then the following would have occurred: there is almost a 100% chance that they would have used Iraq as a stronghold, promoted Radical Islamic/violent propaganda through their victory in Iraq, and would have been worse than before. It would have been a complete moral victory for Al-Queda and their forces would have been solid again and increasing in number. I have no doubt in my mind that these events would have occured if the vote was passed to get out of Iraq when Barack Obama and Joe Biden wanted, like many other Democrats.

    The vote was passed to stay in Iraq and deploy more troops, and bottom line..... it worked.

  7. #37
    Enlightened OGKnickfan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    944
    Rep Power
    7

    Default

    No, it didn't necessarily work, and many experts have linked the drop in violence to Iraqis who have, on their own, worked to expose people promoting terror, usually against their own people, in Iraq, not to the surge. Also, the likelihood, if you study the history of radical Islamic groups, is not great that al-qaeda, a Sunni group, would have established control of Iraq, a majority Shiite nation. Radical Islamic groups have existed in many countries and have failed to assume power, outside of Iran.

    And, if withdrawal from Iraq offers them a moral victory, so be it. I don't believe in something that's wrong, in the first place, becoming right and just, later on. It was wrong, to begin with, and it's still wrong. The blood of 1.2 million dead speaks to that.

  8. #38
    Veteran Paul1355's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    East Coast
    Posts
    5,484
    Rep Power
    14

    Default

    Originally Posted by OGKnickfan
    No, it didn't necessarily work, and many experts have linked the drop in violence to Iraqis who have, on their own, worked to expose people promoting terror, usually against their own people, in Iraq, not to the surge. Also, the likelihood, if you study the history of radical Islamic groups, is not great that al-qaeda, a Sunni group, would have established control of Iraq, a majority Shiite nation. Radical Islamic groups have existed in many countries and have failed to assume power, outside of Iran.

    And, if withdrawal from Iraq offers them a moral victory, so be it. I don't believe in something that's wrong, in the first place, becoming right and just, later on. It was wrong, to begin with, and it's still wrong. The blood of 1.2 million dead speaks to that.
    Barack Obama admitted it was a success. I'm not going to keep arguing with you the likely hood of Al-Queda gaining power in Iraq if we left, because I think they almost 100% will. A country in taters from war and no one to turn to with Al-Queda winning the war against the "all powerful" USA...everything makes sense for the events I mentioned to happen. You can keep denying it because of other countries with Radical Islam, this is different. I think we spoke our case on this topic, you sound like you are anti-war in general by the way you approach these topics. I respect your decision due to the many innocent deaths that have taken place since our first invasion.

    And we will withdrawal troops soon enough without Al-Queda gaining moral victory. I'm sure Bush made a speech today about the withdrawal of thousands of troops that should all be back by February.

    Good discussion.

  9. #39
    Enlightened OGKnickfan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    944
    Rep Power
    7

    Default

    I'm not completely anti-war. War, because of how the world is set up, can be necessary. If a government is actively (operative word) committing genocide, or engaging in unprovoked belligerent acts against its neighbors, war is necessary, obviously.

    However, this is not what the United States has done, for the most part, if you look at the history of this country. This war was fought on the pretext that nuclear and biological weapons were being kept in Iraq. Because we felt Israel could be struck by these, we sacrificed over a million lives. Turned out that they had none of these weapons, and we should have allowed inspectors to continue doing their jobs, which is what they asked us to do. Documents were forged and the whole thing was being pushed since the Clinton administration, by Neocons.

    Even the just wars that we've engaged in have been for selfish reasons. During WWII, the holocaust was taking place, but we only entered the war when Japan bombed Pearl Harbor. During WWI, we didn't enter until the Zimmerman note, sent by Germany and asking for the invasion of the United States by Mexico, was intercepted. We didn't enter the Civil War to stop slavery, we did so as the result of economic conflict between slave states and free states, as the US moved to settle the lands stolen from Mexico.

    So, bottom line is that we have engaged, by and large, in amoral war. I do not support war, if it's immoral (done for the wrong reasons). Amoral (not done out of goodness) war can be right, if, at the least, the nation fought is engaging in evil. You need to decide what you are first, a Christian or an American. Since Christians can be born anywhere, and under any political conditions, your mixing of politics and religion is almost anti-Christian.

    *Also, Barack never said that he was wrong about the surge, which is what you claim. If he did say that, please quote the question and the answer. Don't play those type of games. A few Al Qaeda fighters are also incapable of taking control of a country where they are not even citizens and cannot speak Iraqi Arabic, that has never, Paul: they're not trying to settle the country, bring their families to live there. What you propose has never happened. Also, most of the people who fought the US in Iraq were not Al-Qaeda. Again, you're repeating what the Bush administration likes to say, in order to justify attacking Iraq, claims of Iraq funding Al-Qaeda, providing bases, etc. All that's a lie, for the simple fact that Al-Qaeda hated Saddam for being a secular leader, who allowed women to hold jobs, drive cars and go to school. Again, do you research, before talking.
    Last edited by OGKnickfan; Sep 09, 2008 at 12:09.

  10. #40
    Veteran Paul1355's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    East Coast
    Posts
    5,484
    Rep Power
    14

    Default

    Originally Posted by OGKnickfan
    I'm not completely anti-war. War, because of how the world is set up, can be necessary. If a government is actively (operative word) committing genocide, or engaging in unprovoked belligerent acts against its neighbors, war is necessary, obviously.

    However, this is not what the United States has done, for the most part, if you look at the history of this country. This war was fought on the pretext that nuclear and biological weapons were being kept in Iraq. Because we felt Israel could be struck by these, we sacrificed over a million lives. Turned out that they had none of these weapons, and we should have allowed inspectors to continue doing their jobs, which is what they asked us to do. Documents were forged and the whole thing was being pushed since the Clinton administration, by Neocons.

    Even the just wars that we've engaged in have been for selfish reasons. During WWII, the holocaust was taking place, but we only entered the war when Japan bombed Pearl Harbor. During WWI, we didn't enter until the Zimmerman note, sent by Germany and asking for the invasion of the United States by Mexico, was intercepted. We didn't enter the Civil War to stop slavery, we did so as the result of economic conflict between slave states and free states, as the US moved to settle the lands stolen from Mexico.

    So, bottom line is that we have engaged, by and large, in amoral war. I do not support war, if it's immoral (done for the wrong reasons). Amoral (not done out of goodness) war can be right, if, at the least, the nation fought is engaging in evil. You need to decide what you are first, a Christian or an American. Since Christians can be born anywhere, and under any political conditions, your mixing of politics and religion is almost anti-Christian.

    *Also, Barack never said that he was wrong about the surge, which is what you claim. If he did say that, please quote the question and the answer. Don't play those type of games. A few Al Qaeda fighters are also incapable of taking control of a country where they are not even citizens and cannot speak Iraqi Arabic, that has never, Paul: they're not trying to settle the country, bring their families to live there. What you propose has never happened. Also, most of the people who fought the US in Iraq were not Al-Qaeda. Again, you're repeating what the Bush administration likes to say, in order to justify attacking Iraq, claims of Iraq funding Al-Qaeda, providing bases, etc. All that's a lie, for the simple fact that Al-Qaeda hated Saddam for being a secular leader, who allowed women to hold jobs, drive cars and go to school. Again, do you research, before talking.
    And Saddam never performed genocide on his own people? What about when he killed over a million of his own people? That does not qualify? And his tortures on innocent civilians everyday for amusement? You said that genocide makes war neccessary, then that makes the Iraq War neccessary because of Saddam's history of genocide on his own people, you contradicted yourself.
    Also Saddam was notified before hand that inspectors would come to search for his weapons, he had plenty of time to move them wherever he wanted, perhaps Pakistan? Many people think that Osama is there and that Pakistan is home to many wanted terrorist and weapons. Anything could have happened in that period of time, this is why telling the press military information hurts strategy because the terorist just have to turn on TV and see our plans unfold. It's ridculous.

    How am I mixing politics and religion to be ANTI-CHRISTIAN?!?!?!, i stated that my belief supports why I have my political views. my examples were the support of Israel due to my belief in Biblical prophecy and importance the Bible preaches about the land. Your accusation is completely false.

    *Time to get a taste of the real Obama, watch part 1 of Bill O'Reilly's interview with Barack Obama last week. Obama openly admitted that the Surge was a success, get to know your presidential nominee a little more and what he says presently. I recommend you watching the O'Reilly factor at 8 pm, Obama is asked about his association with people that has hit him in a completely negative way with guys like Jeremiah Wright and Bill Aires, terrorist, yea not a pretty bunch. It apparently gets good. Tell me what you think of that. And part 2 of the interview talks about his Economics strategy, a lot is presented in these few interviews on the O'Reilly factor, even though you hate Bill, watch it.

    And Al-Queda was present in Iraq after the invasion. Why else would they have strongholds in that land? You think the Surge is one big lie? Everyone from Democrats to Republicans is saying it was a success and that AL-QUEDA has been destroyed in that area and almost completely.
    Last edited by Paul1355; Sep 09, 2008 at 19:50.

  11. #41
    Enlightened OGKnickfan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    944
    Rep Power
    7

    Default

    Paul, unless you voted for Kerry, I don't want to hear that argument, about his military experience being valuable, from you. George Bush was a draft dodger, while Kerry fought in Vietnam, bravely and honorably. I bet you didn't support Kerry, despite his service.

    Being against the surge does not exclude the possibility of someone having foreign policy experience. He's also not likely to ever be president, because of his age, kind of like Dick Cheney. Now, the reason why I would be against the surge is that the whole thing was wrong, from the start. As such, I would not support it at any point. In fact, I'd push to end the war from its start, if I was in national political office.

    When it comes to supporting Bush's Iraq policy, it shows that McCain's foreign policy experience works against the country. Like I said in an earlier post, experience can be detrimental. If a person is experienced at having panic attacks, abusing his power, cheating on his wife, warmongering, and cutting taxes for the rich, I don't want his experience being used in the White House.

  12. #42
    Veteran Paul1355's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    East Coast
    Posts
    5,484
    Rep Power
    14

    Default

    Originally Posted by OGKnickfan
    Paul, unless you voted for Kerry, I don't want to hear that argument, about his military experience being valuable, from you. George Bush was a draft dodger, while Kerry fought in Vietnam, bravely and honorably. I bet you didn't support Kerry, despite his service.

    Being against the surge does not exclude the possibility of someone having foreign policy experience. He's also not likely to ever be president, because of his age, kind of like Dick Cheney. Now, the reason why I would be against the surge is that the whole thing was wrong, from the start. As such, I would not support it at any point. In fact, I'd push to end the war from its start, if I was in national political office.

    When it comes to supporting Bush's Iraq policy, it shows that McCain's foreign policy experience works against the country. Like I said in an earlier post, experience can be detrimental. If a person is experienced at having panic attacks, abusing his power, cheating on his wife, warmongering, and cutting taxes for the rich, I don't want his experience being used in the White House.
    You have your views and I have mine but John Kerry and John McCain have very different stories in the war, you can cannot compare those two, McCain has more honor than Kerry will ever have.

    Let's just keep this thread to recent political news, I'm tired of going off topic half the time.

    By the way, did you happen to watch part 1 of the O'Reilly vs Obama interview?

  13. #43
    Enlightened OGKnickfan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    944
    Rep Power
    7

    Default

    Kerry was the previous nominee of the democratic party, that is political news. As for Kerry's service, he rescued people. How much more service can anyone offer? After Vietnam, he spoke out against American atrocities, during the war, without fear of consequences.

    I did see the interview, and Obama never admitted that he was "wrong about the surge," which is what you claimed he said. What he did say was that there were many factors involved and that the soldiers deserve all the credit for what happened. I should add that McCain takes credit for it regularly.

    Let's look at the GOP: Guiliani, once again invoked 9/11 and showed the destruction, to make people think that, if McCain is not elected, it will happen again. McCain-Palin accuse Obama of calling Palin a pig, when he never even mentioned her name, her comment, the VP GOP nominee. Did anyone else threaten Obama with death, from amongst the republicans, this week?

  14. #44
    Veteran Paul1355's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    East Coast
    Posts
    5,484
    Rep Power
    14

    Default

    Originally Posted by OGKnickfan
    Kerry was the previous nominee of the democratic party, that is political news. As for Kerry's service, he rescued people. How much more service can anyone offer? After Vietnam, he spoke out against American atrocities, during the war, without fear of consequences.

    I did see the interview, and Obama never admitted that he was "wrong about the surge," which is what you claimed he said. What he did say was that there were many factors involved and that the soldiers deserve all the credit for what happened. I should add that McCain takes credit for it regularly.

    Let's look at the GOP: Guiliani, once again invoked 9/11 and showed the destruction, to make people think that, if McCain is not elected, it will happen again. McCain-Palin accuse Obama of calling Palin a pig, when he never even mentioned her name, her comment, the VP GOP nominee. Did anyone else threaten Obama with death, from amongst the republicans, this week?
    Your twisting words OG, realize this now, please. My claim was that Barack Obama admitted that the Surge was a success. Go back and read the posts. And then I said that he never admitted that he was wrong. I said HE SHOULD have admitted that he was wrong because it is evident that everyone that voted against the Surge, underestimated this victory, like Obama said. And being that this Surge worked, he and everyone else that voted against it, was wrong. Bottom line, no if,ands, or buts, he was wrong, period, and he knows it. Stop backing him up, HE SAID IT WAS A SUCCESS AND HE PREVIOUSLY VOTED AGAINST IT! Watch it again if you don't believe me. Just admit it already.

    And stop going off topic, answer this topic first, and then we can talk about the "pig" comment.

  15. #45
    Veteran TunerAddict's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    NY
    Posts
    2,183
    Rep Power
    9

    Default

    Originally Posted by Paul1355
    You have your views and I have mine but John Kerry and John McCain have very different stories in the war, you can cannot compare those two, McCain has more honor than Kerry will ever have.

    Let's just keep this thread to recent political news, I'm tired of going off topic half the time.

    By the way, did you happen to watch part 1 of the O'Reilly vs Obama interview?
    Bull****. Kerry was a war hero just like McCain. That swift boat bull**** is the one of the most disgusting thing I've ever seen.

Similar Threads

  1. NBA draft report vs Lottery Knicks
    By Kiyaman in forum NY Knicks
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: Dec 28, 2007, 09:24
  2. Report: Several Knick players want out!
    By Starks in forum NY Knicks
    Replies: 29
    Last Post: Dec 14, 2007, 17:11
  3. Replies: 0
    Last Post: Jun 21, 2007, 03:53
  4. Report: James Dolan to break silence
    By Starks in forum NY Knicks
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: Mar 02, 2006, 11:53
  5. Knicks Report Card
    By kriss childs in forum NY Knicks
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: May 07, 2004, 16:37

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •