I choose not to believe in god, and believe him to be am imaginary friend to those that do. I hardly believe that's a slap in the face of millions of people.
TRUE christians would practice what they're taught (tolerance) instead of ridiculing and name calling.
<< <i>I choose not to believe in god, and believe him to be am imaginary friend to those that do. I hardly believe that's a slap in the face of millions of people.
TRUE christians would practice what they're taught (tolerance) instead of ridiculing and name calling. >>
Then why would you put your PERSONAL beliefs ONSTAGE in a SPORTS forum for no other reason than to FORCE it on others?
Because you are a self righteous dimwit who thinks YOUR beliefs superceed others ... PERIOD.
<< <i>I must compliment you for your recent posts. I find it refreshing to read a well thought out, coherent response. I wish it would go both ways. >>
I guess it looks like it will have to remain a wish.
<< <i>Then why would you put your PERSONAL beliefs ONSTAGE in a SPORTS forum for no other reason than to FORCE it on others?
Because you are a self righteous dimwit who thinks YOUR beliefs superceed others ... PERIOD. >>
And why do you care so much?
My beliefs don't supercede others...I simply have a simple line in my signature that is a simple belief.
The sports forum isn't the only forum on this message board, in case you were too short sighted to notice.
All this is about YOU finding something, ANYTHING to pick a fight with me about. Softie why are you so bitter? Why are you so angry? How can I possibly carry so much weight that a stupid line in a signature can cause this much commotion? And if my signature is a slap in the face to anyone, I'd suggest they take their reading a bit lighter. All it is one guy's opinion.
I'd suggest that softie turn off his computer, go outside and breathe some fresh air. You obviously have some serious issues if you think that anything I put in my signature line affects ANYONE.
I find it hillarious that I've gotten NO PMs from anyone who's been offended, that it's been there for weeks and NOW it's an issue, from someone who won't comment one way or the other if they are religious?
Softie, it's apparent you relish in trying to get under my skin, in picking fights with me, with doing anything to run your damned mouth about any topic that disagrees with me.
And pandrews, haven't you ever heard the saying that one who lives in a glass house shouldn't throw stones?
Now you're going to play the innocent role...it doesn't fit you pandrews. You come on here with the (to you, anyways) witty, pithy comments that you expect everyone to be taken aback by.
<< <i>Now you're going to play the innocent role...it doesn't fit you pandrews. You come on here with the (to you, anyways) witty, pithy comments that you expect everyone to be taken aback by.
You really should try harder. >>
all i said was that you dont care who you slap in the face on a message board.. am i wrong?
do you think i care who i slap in the face on a message board?
I am at (around) 95% on the 2 sets I have been building.
damn AX that was quick............I should have looked (again) before I spoke.
Btw I was just wondering cuz i do not see the 71 set in the sig line anymore. >>
The way that CU determines the size of the signature is on total characters, not on actual...so I can't have multiple links as well as my signature line that's caused so much controversy.
I recently purchased a house, so that's put everything on hold for the most part, but good deals here and there I still will pick up.
I assume based on the forum you're referring to the Sosa trade. I don't think you can blame him for dealing a pre-roid Sosa, who knew he would go on to hit 500 home runs? Pretty unfair to call him an idiot for that.
A certian someone has been called out on several inaccuraccies in his rambling statements about W. Is it safe to presume he's not going to try and refute them.
<< <i>A certian someone has been called out on several inaccuraccies in his rambling statements about W. Is it safe to presume he's not going to try and refute them. >>
<< <i>A certian someone has been called out on several inaccuraccies in his rambling statements about W. Is it safe to presume he's not going to try and refute them. >>
I have laughed myself silly at his statements so far - ($5 trillion surplus - that's still my favorite) - any more and it will just become painful.
But, purely for my own amusement:
<< <i>And that intolerance {of people of faith for people that don't believe} is the complete opposite of what jesus christ taught... >>
Not saying you're right, not saying you're wrong, but I'd love to hear what it is you think Jesus Christ taught regarding people who don't believe. And no fair looking it up before you answer!!!
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
So I can't call into play the teachings of christ? Because I don't believe in god?
Christ taught tolerance (remember, turning the other cheek?) and passiveness NOT violence to those who studied under him.
It would be comical if it weren't so sad that so many who claim to be 'religious' are the ones who are most opposed to tolerance in any form whatsoever.
But then the religious right in this country is not about religion, its about preaching and trying to push their so-called morals on the rest of the country.
I don't think this is the political forum. Last I checked it was sports talk. And since Mr. W no longer owns the Rangers or plays for Yale it does not belong here. Now, everyone hug.
<<< Hell he probably won't even run in the primaries. >>>
I've heard rumors that Bush will follow the same path as George Washington and step down after two terms. And speaking of politics, I'm PO'd that our national's capital got moved from Philadelphia to Washington DC. The capital should have stayed in Philadelphia, the greatest city in the world, where it belonged. At least they didn't take the Liberty Bell when they moved.
Seriously, I think George Bush has done a very good job, not an excellent job, but a very good job. My only major complaint is that he hasn't gotten a handle on the deficit and this is something that must get properly addressed, sooner rather than later. In my view, the American people have done an excellent job of selecting presidents. The only deadhead in my opinion that we ever elected in my lifetime has been Jimmy Carter. Ironically it turns out that Carter has been one of our best ex-presidents ever with him doing a lot of good charity type work.
There's been a noticeable decline in the number of airplanes flying into tall buildings on American soil since George W started kicking terrorist ass. The days when we can afford to have a wimp in the White House are over.
The Clintons and their ilk no longer need apply ...
<< <i> The Clintons and their ilk no longer need apply ... >>
Number of airplanes flown into buildings under Clinton's watch: ZERO
Number of airplanes flown into buildings under Bush's watch (hell I wouldn't really call what he does 'watching'): TWO.
Any other questions?
The Clintons and their ilk led this country into unprecedented economic growth for everyone, while Bush has managed to make it better just for the elite 1%.
Bush is a wanna be tough guy who recklessly spends money this country doesn't have, cuts revenues we can't afford to lose, and has made the USA universally hated (and no, they don't hate us for our freedom).
One can also make the argument that there was a dramatic increase in airplanes flying into buildings during W's presidency. It's probably nothing more than coincidence, but I'm not sold on the notion that Bush has made the United States any safer. I'm all for kicking terrorist ass, playing harball with Iran, and no longer kissing Saudi rear, but how can one not view Iraq as a totally bungled operation? Like I said before, Bush could ultimately be judged quite favorably if Iraq does indeed become the fount of democracy in the Middle East. But that looks like a major pipedream to me.
It is well known for all those who don't stick their heads in the sand that the terrorists had started planning this attack well before Bush became president and in fact of course they had tried before to blow up the World Trade Center. I'm not going to sit here and "blame" Clinton, Bush or any American and nobody else should either. These terrorist murderers did it - plain and simple...eliminate these terrorist murderers as soon as possible which is what we are trying to do. And we will succeed...just a question of when.
About Iraq - too many Monday morning quarterbacks in the USA about this. Freedom isn't free...some Americans should understand that. I was for the war and have no regrets about doing it. It was well worth it. What were we supposed to do? Wait until Sadaam sold or assisted a terrorist group with smuggling and detonating a nuclear device in Israel or the United States killing millions of people, and then go to war with him. Nope...we did the right thing getting rid of Sadaam. Frankly, we should have never captured him alive...that was a mistake but he'll swing from a rope fairly soon or he'll have a "slip & fall, break his neck" accident.
<< <i>[Number of airplanes flown into buildings under Clinton's watch: ZERO >>
Clinton being a world wide wimp for 8 years created the breeding grounds for 9/11 to happen. If you think otherwise, then just continue to bend over and allow all our enimies to have their way with you.
Clinton was America's version of Britian's cowardly Neville Chamberlain promising peace in our time all the while our enimies were making preparations to attack us while we slept because fools such as you were so busy rejoicing that they weren't quite as poor as they used to be that they forgot that America was at risk.
If you can't comprehend the big picture, then there's no scholar on the face of the earth that can explain it to you. Enjoy the extra nickles you made under Clinton's watch ... our boys are paying the price for your selfishness today ...
<< <i>It is well known for all those who don't stick their heads in the sand that the terrorists had started planning this attack well before Bush became president and in fact of course they had tried before to blow up the World Trade Center. I'm not going to sit here and "blame" Clinton, Bush or any American and nobody else should either. These terrorist murderers did it - plain and simple...eliminate these terrorist murderers as soon as possible which is what we are trying to do. And we will succeed...just a question of when.
About Iraq - too many Monday morning quarterbacks in the USA about this. Freedom isn't free...some Americans should understand that. I was for the war and have no regrets about doing it. It was well worth it. What were we supposed to do? Wait until Sadaam sold or assisted a terrorist group with smuggling and detonating a nuclear device in Israel or the United States killing millions of people, and then go to war with him. Nope...we did the right thing getting rid of Sadaam. Frankly, we should have never captured him alive...that was a mistake but he'll swing from a rope fairly soon or he'll have a "slip & fall, break his neck" accident. >>
Saddam was the easy mark. Iraq had nothing to do with Sept. 11 and was not viewed highly by terrorist groups. In fact they saw Iraq as a bit wacky and unreliable.
The U.S. of course did not have the balls to invade Syria or Iran, both larger keys to terrorist training. Instead we created a new terror battleground in Iraq, and now claim "this keeps them from coming to the U.S." How arrogant.
Will Syria or Iran become democracies as a result if our incursion (it's not a war guys) in Iraq as is being touted? No.
We should have concentrated on Afghanistan first and let everyone know by our actions there that we mean business.
Number of airplanes flown into buildings under Clinton's watch: ZERO
Number of airplanes flown into buildings under Bush's watch (hell I wouldn't really call what he does 'watching'): TWO.
Any other questions?
The Clintons and their ilk led this country into unprecedented economic growth for everyone, while Bush has managed to make it better just for the elite 1%.
Bush is a wanna be tough guy who recklessly spends money this country doesn't have, cuts revenues we can't afford to lose, and has made the USA universally hated (and no, they don't hate us for our freedom).
Axtell - While I'm no Bush fan, you have to be kidding right????
The two planes that hit buildings during Bush's watch were planned and plotted while Clinton was in office. The great "unprecedented economic growth for everyone" turned out to be smoke and mirrors when accountants started to look at the numbers. Let's face facts, Bush has not done a great job, but Clinton did nothing! He took an economic policy from Reagan and let things be. If you think that's what great leaders do then you are right.
It's a shame that in this country the best and brightest no longer run for public office, the Presidency and most of the elected officials are just mediocre (and that's being kind). The current president was a “C” student in college, Clinton was only concern was getting some action and Kerry is a two-faced lying coward.
This country’s greatness is being swallowed by the ideologues on both sides (left and right). No one can come in and be the best for this country due to the stranglehold each party has on this country. The right has the religious people fighting for them and the Left has Hollywood and the Media fighting for them. No progress will happen until people educate themselves! I can’t see that happening anytime soon, this country is going to go down the road of Rappers, Video Gamers, Skate Boarders, Beer Drinkers and Bible Thumpers.
No room for an original thought.....
"An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind". - Gandhi
Keith - you always bring good points to the table with sports and with your political views these are also all valid points. Though I disagree with some and the reasons below.
<<< Saddam was the easy mark. Iraq had nothing to do with Sept. 11 and was not viewed highly by terrorist groups. In fact they saw Iraq as a bit wacky and unreliable. >>>
I believe getting rid of Sadaam was in the security interests of the United States. That "wacky and unreliable" makes a rogue mass murderer such as him extremely dangerous.
<<< The U.S. of course did not have the balls to invade Syria or Iran, both larger keys to terrorist training. Instead we created a new terror battleground in Iraq, and now claim "this keeps them from coming to the U.S." How arrogant. >>>
If we "have to" invade Syria or Iran we will.
<<< Will Syria or Iran become democracies as a result if our incursion (it's not a war guys) in Iraq as is being touted? No. >>>
Not in the near future and perhaps not in the distant future. But especially with the shared ideas of the internet, and I believe the basic human desire to be free, I believe one day democracy can come to these two countries.
<<<We should have concentrated on Afghanistan first and let everyone know by our actions there that we mean business. >>>
We did concentrate on Afghanistan first. We took care of that and our troops are doing an outstanding job there. Now we are taking care of Iraq. We'll take care of any other situation that could mean us being attacked again. We will do whatever is necessary based on circumstances. I am a registered Republican and don't like Clinton's politics, but I never blamed him for the 1993 World Trade Center attack in which the terrorists first attempted their mass murder. That to me is Monday morning quarterbacking just like I don't blame Roosevelt for Pearl Harbor. But I do blame Clinton for the soft response. I don't think anybody would state that Roosevelt had a "soft response" to Pearl Harbor. Sometimes our enemies outsmart us with a sneak attack but the United States has a way of making sure that justice is served and the enemy always gets whats coming to them.
In my freshman year of school, I was class president. I didn't care for the job.
It takes a very special person to be head of state.
I think I would have to do a "walk thru" a day in the life of the president before I make a considered evaluation about the mental state of that individual - i.e. is this person an idiot?
If someone, from without, looked at some of things I did, they might think I'm an idiot. But, from within, they may see things entirely different.
I believe getting rid of Sadaam was in the security interests of the United States. That "wacky and unreliable" makes a rogue mass murderer such as him extremely dangerous. >>
Many have argued that while Saddam wasn't the nicest guy, he brought stability to what's been a very, VERY unstable region. Not defending the guy or his tactics, but there were no terrorist activities taking place in Iraq prior to the invasion (no matter how loud the right yells it, it just wasn't happening). He simply wouldn't allow. Saddam did not have ANY weapon capabilties, the sanctions against his country were working. The right will continue to believe that Saddam somehow, someway was assisting terrorist activities against the US, which FACTS say, was NOT happening.
<< <i> If we "have to" invade Syria or Iran we will. >>
No we won't. They don't hold the untold billions of oil reserves and no-bid contracts (for Halliburton!) that Iraq held.
<< <i> Not in the near future and perhaps not in the distant future. But especially with the shared ideas of the internet, and I believe the basic human desire to be free, I believe one day democracy can come to these two countries. >>
Why does everyone feel that everyone wants democracy? Do you think the women in Iraq are better off today or before? Women have taken steps backwards in terms of prominence and prestige in Iraq, but I guess that's ok?
<< <i> We did concentrate on Afghanistan first. We took care of that and our troops are doing an outstanding job there. Now we are taking care of Iraq. We'll take care of any other situation that could mean us being attacked again. We will do whatever is necessary based on circumstances...Sometimes our enemies outsmart us with a sneak attack but the United States has a way of making sure that justice is served and the enemy always gets whats coming to them. >>
Afghanistan absolutely was justified in being invaded...the source of those who devastated our country was there....but why would we divert our focus away from the primary target and move to a country which (a) had no involvement in 9/11 and (b) was not a threat to us?
I will end my debate on this one, final point: How many days has Osama Bin Laden been free?
<<< I will end my debate on this one, final point: How many days has Osama Bin Laden been free? >>>
That's it for me also. I come here for the sports. But an OT thread once in a while doesn't bother me. It was interesting to see the political opinions of my fellow sports talk forum members.
As far as Bin Laden, he can run and he can hide, but sooner or later he'll get what's coming to him.
Comments
One does not need to be a member of this forum (or any other) to be counted as people around you Ax.
the sig line could still be an affront to millions of people w.o them actually seeing it
I'll go back to sleep now...............
SD
TRUE christians would practice what they're taught (tolerance) instead of ridiculing and name calling.
<< <i>I choose not to believe in god, and believe him to be am imaginary friend to those that do. I hardly believe that's a slap in the face of millions of people.
TRUE christians would practice what they're taught (tolerance) instead of ridiculing and name calling. >>
Then why would you put your PERSONAL beliefs ONSTAGE in a SPORTS forum for no other reason than to FORCE it on others?
Because you are a self righteous dimwit who thinks YOUR beliefs superceed others ... PERIOD.
ISO 1978 Topps Baseball in NM-MT High Grade Raw 3, 100, 103, 302, 347, 376, 416, 466, 481, 487, 509, 534, 540, 554, 579, 580, 622, 642, 673, 724__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ISO 1978 O-Pee-Chee in NM-MT High Grade Raw12, 21, 29, 38, 49, 65, 69, 73, 74, 81, 95, 100, 104, 110, 115, 122, 132, 133, 135, 140, 142, 151, 153, 155, 160, 161, 167, 168, 172, 179, 181, 196, 200, 204, 210, 224, 231, 240
<< <i>I must compliment you for your recent posts. I find it refreshing to read a well thought out, coherent response. I wish it would go both ways. >>
I guess it looks like it will have to remain a wish.
<< <i>Then why would you put your PERSONAL beliefs ONSTAGE in a SPORTS forum for no other reason than to FORCE it on others?
Because you are a self righteous dimwit who thinks YOUR beliefs superceed others ... PERIOD. >>
And why do you care so much?
My beliefs don't supercede others...I simply have a simple line in my signature that is a simple belief.
The sports forum isn't the only forum on this message board, in case you were too short sighted to notice.
All this is about YOU finding something, ANYTHING to pick a fight with me about. Softie why are you so bitter? Why are you so angry? How can I possibly carry so much weight that a stupid line in a signature can cause this much commotion? And if my signature is a slap in the face to anyone, I'd suggest they take their reading a bit lighter. All it is one guy's opinion.
I'd suggest that softie turn off his computer, go outside and breathe some fresh air. You obviously have some serious issues if you think that anything I put in my signature line affects ANYONE.
I find it hillarious that I've gotten NO PMs from anyone who's been offended, that it's been there for weeks and NOW it's an issue, from someone who won't comment one way or the other if they are religious?
Softie, it's apparent you relish in trying to get under my skin, in picking fights with me, with doing anything to run your damned mouth about any topic that disagrees with me.
And pandrews, haven't you ever heard the saying that one who lives in a glass house shouldn't throw stones?
<< <i>And pandrews, haven't you ever heard the saying that one who lives in a glass house shouldn't throw stones? >>
how was i throwing stones?
and dont cross the road if you cant get out of the kitchen.. people in glass houses sink ships..
You really should try harder.
Steve
<< <i>Slightly off topic,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, Axtell when was the last time you added a card to one of the sets you have been working on?
Steve >>
3 days ago actually...bought a small lot of '85 football cards.
What about you?
I am at (around) 95% on the 2 sets I have been building.
damn AX that was quick............I should have looked (again) before I spoke.
Btw I was just wondering cuz i do not see the 71 set in the sig line anymore.
<< <i>Now you're going to play the innocent role...it doesn't fit you pandrews. You come on here with the (to you, anyways) witty, pithy comments that you expect everyone to be taken aback by.
You really should try harder. >>
all i said was that you dont care who you slap in the face on a message board.. am i wrong?
do you think i care who i slap in the face on a message board?
if so,
<< <i>I add cards all the time.
I am at (around) 95% on the 2 sets I have been building.
damn AX that was quick............I should have looked (again) before I spoke.
Btw I was just wondering cuz i do not see the 71 set in the sig line anymore. >>
The way that CU determines the size of the signature is on total characters, not on actual...so I can't have multiple links as well as my signature line that's caused so much controversy.
I recently purchased a house, so that's put everything on hold for the most part, but good deals here and there I still will pick up.
I assume based on the forum you're referring to the Sosa trade. I don't think you can blame him for dealing a pre-roid Sosa, who knew he would go on to hit 500 home runs? Pretty unfair to call him an idiot for that.
<< <i>A certian someone has been called out on several inaccuraccies in his rambling statements about W. Is it safe to presume he's not going to try and refute them. >>
Not talking about me are you?
<< <i>Not talking about me are you? >>
Who else would I be talking about?
I never realized before how intolerant people of faith are about the people that don't believe.
My Auctions
<< <i>I thought this related to a bit of this thread
I never realized before how intolerant people of faith are about the people that don't believe. >>
And that intolerance is the complete opposite of what jesus christ taught, yet those who 'believe' attempt to belittle and slam those who don't.
<< <i>A certian someone has been called out on several inaccuraccies in his rambling statements about W. Is it safe to presume he's not going to try and refute them. >>
I have laughed myself silly at his statements so far - ($5 trillion surplus - that's still my favorite) - any more and it will just become painful.
But, purely for my own amusement:
<< <i>And that intolerance {of people of faith for people that don't believe} is the complete opposite of what jesus christ taught... >>
Not saying you're right, not saying you're wrong, but I'd love to hear what it is you think Jesus Christ taught regarding people who don't believe. And no fair looking it up before you answer!!!
<< <i>And no fair looking it up before you answer!!! >>
Now that is funny!
Christ taught tolerance (remember, turning the other cheek?) and passiveness NOT violence to those who studied under him.
It would be comical if it weren't so sad that so many who claim to be 'religious' are the ones who are most opposed to tolerance in any form whatsoever.
But then the religious right in this country is not about religion, its about preaching and trying to push their so-called morals on the rest of the country.
<< <i>There's no hugging in Sports Talk. >>
Oh. Uh, my bad. I'm gonna go lift weights and drink beer.
Now you're learnin' - except don't worry too much about liftin' the weights...focus on drinkin' the beer
<< <i>yeah its humorous, axtell trying to explain the teachings of Christ.. >>
You're right, it was.
<< <i>I don't think George Bush will win a third term. >>
Hell he probably won't even run in the primaries.
I've heard rumors that Bush will follow the same path as George Washington and step down after two terms. And speaking of politics, I'm PO'd that our national's capital got moved from Philadelphia to Washington DC. The capital should have stayed in Philadelphia, the greatest city in the world, where it belonged. At least they didn't take the Liberty Bell when they moved.
Seriously, I think George Bush has done a very good job, not an excellent job, but a very good job. My only major complaint is that he hasn't gotten a handle on the deficit and this is something that must get properly addressed, sooner rather than later. In my view, the American people have done an excellent job of selecting presidents. The only deadhead in my opinion that we ever elected in my lifetime has been Jimmy Carter. Ironically it turns out that Carter has been one of our best ex-presidents ever with him doing a lot of good charity type work.
My choice for 2008...Anybody but Hillary.
There's been a noticeable decline in the number of airplanes flying into tall buildings on American soil
since George W started kicking terrorist ass. The days when we can afford to have a wimp in the White House are over.
The Clintons and their ilk no longer need apply ...
"How about a little fire Scarecrow ?"
<< <i>
The Clintons and their ilk no longer need apply ...
Number of airplanes flown into buildings under Clinton's watch: ZERO
Number of airplanes flown into buildings under Bush's watch (hell I wouldn't really call what he does 'watching'): TWO.
Any other questions?
The Clintons and their ilk led this country into unprecedented economic growth for everyone, while Bush has managed to make it better just for the elite 1%.
Bush is a wanna be tough guy who recklessly spends money this country doesn't have, cuts revenues we can't afford to lose, and has made the USA universally hated (and no, they don't hate us for our freedom).
About Iraq - too many Monday morning quarterbacks in the USA about this. Freedom isn't free...some Americans should understand that. I was for the war and have no regrets about doing it. It was well worth it. What were we supposed to do? Wait until Sadaam sold or assisted a terrorist group with smuggling and detonating a nuclear device in Israel or the United States killing millions of people, and then go to war with him. Nope...we did the right thing getting rid of Sadaam. Frankly, we should have never captured him alive...that was a mistake but he'll swing from a rope fairly soon or he'll have a "slip & fall, break his neck" accident.
<< <i>[Number of airplanes flown into buildings under Clinton's watch: ZERO >>
Clinton being a world wide wimp for 8 years created the breeding grounds for 9/11 to happen.
If you think otherwise, then just continue to bend over and allow all our enimies to have their way with you.
Clinton was America's version of Britian's cowardly Neville Chamberlain promising peace in our time
all the while our enimies were making preparations to attack us while we slept because fools such as you
were so busy rejoicing that they weren't quite as poor as they used to be that they forgot that America was at risk.
If you can't comprehend the big picture, then there's no scholar on the face of the earth that can explain it to you.
Enjoy the extra nickles you made under Clinton's watch ... our boys are paying the price for your selfishness today ...
"How about a little fire Scarecrow ?"
<< <i>It is well known for all those who don't stick their heads in the sand that the terrorists had started planning this attack well before Bush became president and in fact of course they had tried before to blow up the World Trade Center. I'm not going to sit here and "blame" Clinton, Bush or any American and nobody else should either. These terrorist murderers did it - plain and simple...eliminate these terrorist murderers as soon as possible which is what we are trying to do. And we will succeed...just a question of when.
About Iraq - too many Monday morning quarterbacks in the USA about this. Freedom isn't free...some Americans should understand that. I was for the war and have no regrets about doing it. It was well worth it. What were we supposed to do? Wait until Sadaam sold or assisted a terrorist group with smuggling and detonating a nuclear device in Israel or the United States killing millions of people, and then go to war with him. Nope...we did the right thing getting rid of Sadaam. Frankly, we should have never captured him alive...that was a mistake but he'll swing from a rope fairly soon or he'll have a "slip & fall, break his neck" accident. >>
Saddam was the easy mark. Iraq had nothing to do with Sept. 11 and was not viewed highly by terrorist groups. In fact they saw Iraq as a bit wacky and unreliable.
The U.S. of course did not have the balls to invade Syria or Iran, both larger keys to terrorist training. Instead we created a new terror battleground in Iraq, and now claim "this keeps them from coming to the U.S." How arrogant.
Will Syria or Iran become democracies as a result if our incursion (it's not a war guys) in Iraq as is being touted? No.
We should have concentrated on Afghanistan first and let everyone know by our actions there that we mean business.
<< <i>
<< <i>I don't think George Bush will win a third term. >>
Hell he probably won't even run in the primaries. >>
Are either of these comments serious? I have to wonder now . . . . . . .
SD
Number of airplanes flown into buildings under Bush's watch (hell I wouldn't really call what he does 'watching'): TWO.
Any other questions?
The Clintons and their ilk led this country into unprecedented economic growth for everyone, while Bush has managed to make it better just for the elite 1%.
Bush is a wanna be tough guy who recklessly spends money this country doesn't have, cuts revenues we can't afford to lose, and has made the USA universally hated (and no, they don't hate us for our freedom).
Axtell - While I'm no Bush fan, you have to be kidding right????
The two planes that hit buildings during Bush's watch were planned and plotted while Clinton was in office. The great "unprecedented economic growth for everyone" turned out to be smoke and mirrors when accountants started to look at the numbers. Let's face facts, Bush has not done a great job, but Clinton did nothing! He took an economic policy from Reagan and let things be. If you think that's what great leaders do then you are right.
It's a shame that in this country the best and brightest no longer run for public office, the Presidency and most of the elected officials are just mediocre (and that's being kind). The current president was a “C” student in college, Clinton was only concern was getting some action and Kerry is a two-faced lying coward.
This country’s greatness is being swallowed by the ideologues on both sides (left and right). No one can come in and be the best for this country due to the stranglehold each party has on this country. The right has the religious people fighting for them and the Left has Hollywood and the Media fighting for them. No progress will happen until people educate themselves! I can’t see that happening anytime soon, this country is going to go down the road of Rappers, Video Gamers, Skate Boarders, Beer Drinkers and Bible Thumpers.
No room for an original thought.....
<<< Saddam was the easy mark. Iraq had nothing to do with Sept. 11 and was not viewed highly by terrorist groups. In fact they saw Iraq as a bit wacky and unreliable. >>>
I believe getting rid of Sadaam was in the security interests of the United States. That "wacky and unreliable" makes a rogue mass murderer such as him extremely dangerous.
<<< The U.S. of course did not have the balls to invade Syria or Iran, both larger keys to terrorist training. Instead we created a new terror battleground in Iraq, and now claim "this keeps them from coming to the U.S." How arrogant. >>>
If we "have to" invade Syria or Iran we will.
<<< Will Syria or Iran become democracies as a result if our incursion (it's not a war guys) in Iraq as is being touted? No. >>>
Not in the near future and perhaps not in the distant future. But especially with the shared ideas of the internet, and I believe the basic human desire to be free, I believe one day democracy can come to these two countries.
<<<We should have concentrated on Afghanistan first and let everyone know by our actions there that we mean business. >>>
We did concentrate on Afghanistan first. We took care of that and our troops are doing an outstanding job there. Now we are taking care of Iraq. We'll take care of any other situation that could mean us being attacked again. We will do whatever is necessary based on circumstances. I am a registered Republican and don't like Clinton's politics, but I never blamed him for the 1993 World Trade Center attack in which the terrorists first attempted their mass murder. That to me is Monday morning quarterbacking just like I don't blame Roosevelt for Pearl Harbor. But I do blame Clinton for the soft response. I don't think anybody would state that Roosevelt had a "soft response" to Pearl Harbor. Sometimes our enemies outsmart us with a sneak attack but the United States has a way of making sure that justice is served and the enemy always gets whats coming to them.
It takes a very special person to be head of state.
I think I would have to do a "walk thru" a day in the life of the president before I make a considered evaluation about the mental state of that individual - i.e. is this person an idiot?
If someone, from without, looked at some of things I did, they might think I'm an idiot. But, from within, they may see things entirely different.
Merry Christmas
mike
Mike, I know I would have voted for ya...especially if your platform would have been reducing the school hours
<< <i>
I believe getting rid of Sadaam was in the security interests of the United States. That "wacky and unreliable" makes a rogue mass murderer such as him extremely dangerous.
>>
Many have argued that while Saddam wasn't the nicest guy, he brought stability to what's been a very, VERY unstable region. Not defending the guy or his tactics, but there were no terrorist activities taking place in Iraq prior to the invasion (no matter how loud the right yells it, it just wasn't happening). He simply wouldn't allow. Saddam did not have ANY weapon capabilties, the sanctions against his country were working. The right will continue to believe that Saddam somehow, someway was assisting terrorist activities against the US, which FACTS say, was NOT happening.
<< <i>
If we "have to" invade Syria or Iran we will.
>>
No we won't. They don't hold the untold billions of oil reserves and no-bid contracts (for Halliburton!) that Iraq held.
<< <i>
Not in the near future and perhaps not in the distant future. But especially with the shared ideas of the internet, and I believe the basic human desire to be free, I believe one day democracy can come to these two countries.
>>
Why does everyone feel that everyone wants democracy? Do you think the women in Iraq are better off today or before? Women have taken steps backwards in terms of prominence and prestige in Iraq, but I guess that's ok?
<< <i>
We did concentrate on Afghanistan first. We took care of that and our troops are doing an outstanding job there. Now we are taking care of Iraq. We'll take care of any other situation that could mean us being attacked again. We will do whatever is necessary based on circumstances...Sometimes our enemies outsmart us with a sneak attack but the United States has a way of making sure that justice is served and the enemy always gets whats coming to them. >>
Afghanistan absolutely was justified in being invaded...the source of those who devastated our country was there....but why would we divert our focus away from the primary target and move to a country which (a) had no involvement in 9/11 and (b) was not a threat to us?
I will end my debate on this one, final point: How many days has Osama Bin Laden been free?
<< <i>I will end my debate on this one >>
Thank God!!!!!!
That's it for me also. I come here for the sports. But an OT thread once in a while doesn't bother me. It was interesting to see the political opinions of my fellow sports talk forum members.
As far as Bin Laden, he can run and he can hide, but sooner or later he'll get what's coming to him.
<< <i>Many have argued that while Saddam wasn't the nicest guy >>
"wasnt the nicest guy"?