Here's what 4 more years will sound like . . .

sadly, i think you're right.

and despite what you might think...no, i'm not a mccain fan. i think it's pathetic, that he is "the best" that the republican party has to offer this go around.

 

Why would you care what the republicans have to offer...unless your a republican?

 

This is the exact type of thing that causes the divide. Its not the black leaders and its not the "reverse racism", its this kind of attack on staples of black culture (something many whites may not understand) that they dismiss as a "kill whitey" rhetoric.

Wright never said anything close to "kill whitey." He has said what most conservatives...and some liberals, are afraid to say.

We (the US) do sponsor our own versions of terrorism - Look up Nugan Hand Bank and Castle Bank of Nassau. They were two banks that were controlled by the CIA, and the CIA wasnt buying $10,000 toilet seats with the hundreds of millions of dollars of illegal money they funneled thru those banks.

We (the US) do import drugs into our own country - Noriega was given the green light to import drugs into the US (and the US was fully aware) because he spied on Castro for us. As soon we had no further use for him, we arrested him for drug trafficking.

America is controlled by white people. Thats a fact thats not good or bad, its just the way it is and anyone who says otherwise is an idiot.

The bombing of Japan is a debate for historians. To look at it just from an american point of view is narrow minded. Im pretty sure there are a few dozen countries that agree with wright that bombing Japan was wrong.

After the tuskegee experiments, jim crow laws, segregation, and the civil rights unrest of the 1960's, do you really think black people from wright's generation are gonna be walking down main street with the american flag in one hand and a hotdog in the other. Hell no, their gonna be skeptical of a lot of things america does.

But that doesnt make him unpatriotic. Hell, he was a marine who served in vietnam. The army now takes women as well as men, so if you want to know where wright is coming from, the least you can do is pick up a gun and head to iraq...right, I didnt think so.

And just so you know...there are things about white, american culture that blacks dont understand. But we dont dismiss it as being racist.

 

And you want to hear racist...

McCain's "spiritual advisor," Pastor Hagee, (he went to him and sought his endosement) said that Hitler was part of God's plan to drive Jews from Europe.

 

ya know, somehow...i knew that was going to be your response.

i care what both parties have to offer...b/c i don't vote by party affiliation - i vote by who is going to get the freakin' job done. besides that, both parties have people serving in MY congress, in MY government, in MY country...so damn right i care about what the republican and democrats have got to offer me.

that's my entire point.

 

I dont consider myself a democrat, but every time I try to give the republican party a chance, I look at their failed policies and presidential track record (there hasnt been a decent republican president since g. ford) and it makes me sick to my stomach. Sorry, but I can never vote for tax cuts for the rich, anti-abortion ideas from the dark ages, and a political party that panders to racist.

 

that's fine...i'm not asking you to do anything you don't want too.

and yes, you're probably right about g. ford....but one could argue that these days presidents and candidates, alike, are NOT what they used to be.

and just so you know...i always respect and appreciate your input - even if i don't always agree. :wink:

happy friday!!

 

Did you evaporate when Ronald Reagan was in office? One could argue there hasn't been a good Democratic president since FDR as well. Matter of viewpoints.

 

I was there...were you?

Reagan cut social programs to nil, vetoed sactions against Apartheid South Africa (WTF!), illegally sold weapons to iran, and tripled the deficit to $3 trillion. (I could stimulate the economy too with out of control government spending.)

Why do you think Bush the First only served one term?

Clinton, while a cheating ass, created policies that stimulated the economy (I dont know a single person who wasnt making $ hand over fist during the clinton years) and actually gave "W" a surplus, which he promptly squandered.

But I guess you evaporated during those 8 years?

 

You have to factor in a post 9/11 world. We have kept extremists focused on Iraq instead of US soil. Also Reagan was fighting the cold war.

 

The late, great Richard Pryor had a beautiful quote:

"you can either believe me, or your lying eyes".

If you cant "see" what's happening to this country, and how the American people are constantly being distracted from what's really going on, I pity you.

 

amen.

 

I dont like to call people dumb, but when they insult me with such obsurdity I can only take offense.

THAT IS ABOUT THE DUMBEST THING I HAVE EVER HEARD!

So let me understand you..."W" started the war and decided to sacrifice 30,000 American troops (not to mention trillions of $) to distract the terrorist away from the US? :smt021

And reagan had to submit to racism in order to combat communism...because to combat racism AND communism simultaneously would be like walking and chewing gum at the same time? :smt021

 

30,000 soldiers have died so far? News to me.

I DO know, since the War began, there hasn't been a catastrophic terrorist attack anywhere in the world. Unlike Clinton, who had 5 attacks on his watch.

What do you do for a living Jelly?

 

Over 4000 dead and at least 30,000 wounded.

You're not seriously saying war is a logical eliminator of terrorist attacks?

So why dont we just stay in a constant state of war? That way we will never be attacked anywhere in the world again?

The reason its called terrorism is because its senseless, illogical, and unpredictable. While the person in office (and their policies) may or may not incite a terrorist attack - clinton didnt - its how we respond that more telling.

Wow...thats a new one. I'll answer your question, but if I may ask, why do you want to know and why is that important?

 

Weren't there a few in Europe between 2004 and 2007? I could be wrong, I was a little preoccupied then, being in the middle of fearing for mine and my childrens' lives at the time because my ex came home from the war with a rampant case of PTSD.

 

Destroying terrorist training camps, cells, and hideouts in foreign countries (ie afghanistan/iraq), helps to alleviate the problem. While it may not completely eliminate the threat of terrorism, it disrupts Al-Qeada's (spelling) ability to train and perform tasks related to terrorism. If we do nothing to combat terrorism on foreign soil, we're just leaving ourselves open to combating terrorism on our soil. Simple logic and many military commanders will agree on it. A good defense is a solid offense, and taking the fight to the enemy is better than 30,000 civilian americans sacrificed for lack of action (you were watching the planes slam into those buildings and kill people right - not quite 30,000, but the number was high enough).

While Iraq may have had nothing to do with the terrorists who attacked us, I support the Afghan war; provided the evidence against the enemy is factful and not some "wag the dog" bullshit.

I'm curious Jelly. What would you consider to be a "logical eliminator of terrorist attacks," which didn't involve some form of combat/force?

 

LMAO!!! "While the person in office (and their policies) may or may not incite a terrorist attack - clinton didnt - its how we respond that more telling."

Wow dude, you throw barbs and come back with this gem of a statement. It's not about PREVENTING terrorist attacks, but how we respond. Clinton didn't incite terrorist attacks? So WTF WERE WE ATTACKED FOR? Oklahoma City, WTC, USS Cole, Tanzania and Kenyan Embassy Bombings? Holy shit, where the fuck have you been?

 

I have no problem with the US combating terrorism, especially when we are the victims of terrorism.

But the original back-and-forth had to do with "W", iraq, 9/11, and terrorism. And iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. So to attack a country to divert a terrorist attack here, even if that country had nothing to do with the terrorist attack, is ok? (Al-Queada wasnt in iraq when we invaded.)

But there are questions that must be asked when we decide to play world police...

-If terrorist that attack us are hiding in a country, do we use diplomacy to bring them to justice or do we invade that country to get the responsible parties?
-Is it ok to invade a country that may knowingly or unknowingly harbor terrorist-in-training?
-Just who made us the "world police?" And if we decided to make ourselves the "world police" is that fair to the rest of the world?

These questions are easy to answer when the country in question is iraq, iran, or some other "bad guy" country we dont like. But what if the terrorist are in canada, g. britain, or isreal?

Yeah, Saddam was a murderous d*ck who we "thought" had WMD's. But we dont invade countries for having leaders who are murderous d*cks (apartheid s. africa, china, any number of african countries) or for trying to build a nuke - really want to tussle with n. korea...I dont think so!

We (the US) exploited a horrible tragedy to invade a country for oil. ("W" is letting "BIG OIL" return to iraq after they were kicked out 35 years ago.)

 

No, he didnt. Middle-eastern countries had hated us and our butting in of world affairs long before Clinton was in office. We've been pulling strings behind the scenes in the middle east for over 50 years and have been the victim of mid-east terrorist attacks since the early 80's.

Do a little research on the CIA and the stuff "the company" does around the world. You would be suprised.