Pelosi lied, people died.

[Tom]

How long befreo we heaer THAT day in, day out?

One of Nancy's campagin promises was that in the first 100 hours, the dems was follow thorugh on all the 9-11 Commissio's recommendatioins, and she said the day after the election that that would be the top priority.
Now, after looking at them, they have backed off and will NOT do the reorganization of how congress oversees intellignece and how the congressional offices handle the financing of intelligence. This is becasue dems will now hold these important posts, guys like Mutha.
Chris Dodd said todfay that campaign embellishments were probably at work here, and that even though they said ALL nobody really believe they would enact ALL of the suggestions. Perhaps dowdy Dodd has never heard the word "most."
So, the big thing the dems ran on was that Bush lied, that national security was compromised, but as soon as they would benefit, it is no longer such a big deal.

The party that did not know what "is" meant now dosens't know what "all" means. Boby oh boy, dems have troulbe with small words, eh?

Not even in office yet and renigging on promises. Anyting to get elected, I guess.

[Ponyplayr]

No way...Nancy will keep us safe.


http://littledemocrats.net/sitebuilder/images/always_safe2-585x421.jpg

[luv_america]

Oh lets face it, the political process in the country has weakened us. Not that I have a better suggestion, but the bickering between the two parties on national security doesn't help the country. All of these politicians should be beaten half to death to understand that they have to do what's right for the country, not what's right for their party.

[BlueShoe]

Nancy had to backpedal on her original choice for chairman of the House Intelligence Commitee.Rep Alcee Hastings D-Fla,the impeached former judge is out.Rep Jane Harman D-Ca,who was in line,is very unlikely to be named,since she and Pelosi have had major differences and do not get along.As of this posting,it is uncertain who will lead the commitee.

[PaceAdvantage]

Did the Republicans really lose last month? Sounds like more of the same to me....

[doophus]

luv america said in above post:

"All of these politicians should be beaten half to death......."

[DJofSD]

Tom, Tom, Tom.

Don't cha know that nothing but good is in the hearts of the demos while repubs are spawn from the dark side?

Besides, when the libs have achieved the greater good, the end will justify the means. I mean, come on, every body lies now and again, what's the big deal?

[Secretariat]

Oh lets face it, the political process in the country has weakened us. Not that I have a better suggestion, but the bickering between the two parties on national security doesn't help the country. All of these politicians should be beaten half to death to understand that they have to do what's right for the country, not what's right for their party.

In other words what "you" perceive what's right for the country.

[luv_america]

Sec,

I'm not shocked you found something wrong with my statement.

The answer is "yes". Protecting us should be any politicians first priority. At least we've succeeded the last 5 years in preventing a terrorist attack on US soil.

[Indulto]

At least we've succeeded the last 5 years in preventing a terrorist attack on US soil.When some of the still self-deluded right finish patting themselves on the back long enough to face reality, they might come to understand how little was actually achieved by them, as well as how less safe we are from the same source five years later.

The conspiracy that resulted in the extensive loss of life among U.S. citizens on U.S. soil on 9/11/2001 was successful because it was a total surprise designed to take advantage of 1) virtually non-existent airport security, 2) dysfunctional government intelligence operations, 3) a politically divided, self-focused populace disarmed by the protracted absence of external threats , and 4) the unprecedented deployment of educated operatives who despite having available personal economic alternatives, were willing to sacrifice their lives in order to complete their mission.

The results achieved were far beyond the most optimistic expectations of the planners of that operation due to 1) the unanticipated weaknesses and previously undetected flaws in the structure of the twin towers, and 2) the negligent, incompetent operation of our military air-defenses.

Yes, the likelihood that the same operation could succeed today is virtually zero, but variations are being planned at this very moment by people who have learned to think outside the box and who have now been augmented by perhaps more capable new recruits. Because we never took the necessary steps to defend our borders, we have no idea who may have crossed them both before and after 9/11, and who today are probably gathering intelligence for another operation and/or possibly setting one in motion.

More significantly, we obviated the need for immediate action on the part of the enemy to inflict casualties upon U.S. citizens HERE because we have created ideal circumstances elsewhere (THERE) for achieving that objective. While failing to capture or eliminate those admittedly responsible for the 9/11 operation, we have only SUCCEEDED in multiplying U.S. casualties while strengthening the enemy's hand. In the process we have have also incurred wrath, fear, and disrespect from potential allies who might have strengthened our position.

Who here really believes there won’t be a mass homicidal operation of some sort here regardless of who controls the White House. We will prevent some of them, but our real preparedness will rest in our ability to minimize the damage done by those we can’t.

The quoted statement belongs in the same category as "mission accomplished" and has the same ring as the recent praise for the Iraqi Prime Minister in Jordan.

[PaceAdvantage]

Who here really believes there won’t be a mass homicidal operation of some sort here regardless of who controls the White House. We will prevent some of them, but our real preparedness will rest in our ability to minimize the damage done by those we can’t.

Are you saying I should either move to the boonies or jump off a bridge and just end it all already?

What a bleak outlook on life you have, with no facts to back up any of your doomsday scenarios. It's so easy to predict that another attack will happen....hell as long as one happens before you die, I guess you'll look like a genius!

I prefer to give credit where credit is DUE for actually PREVENTING any attacks since we were officially put on notice 5+ years ago. After all, as you say, an attack is a virtual LOCK to happen, and the fact that it has been prevented through some pretty juicy times to be a terrorist (Iraq/Afghanistan invasion being the two biggest excuses for another attack on the U.S.) shouldn't be brushed off so lightly.

I know, I know, BUSH is President, so GOD FORBID you offer up even the slightest HINT of praise on something he may have had a hand in preventing.

[DJofSD]

Who here really believes there won’t be a mass homicidal operation of some sort here regardless of who controls the White House.

I doubt anything will happen for the next three years. Year one and two will still have Bush in office. In year three, I expect the demos will be in control of the government. Give them a year to completely demoralize the military and to neuter it. That's when we'll reap the consequences of pussy-footing around.

[Indulto]

...I prefer to give credit where credit is DUE for actually PREVENTING any attacks since we were officially put on notice 5+ years ago. After all, as you say, an attack is a virtual LOCK to happen, and the fact that it has been prevented through some pretty juicy times to be a terrorist (Iraq/Afghanistan invasion being the two biggest excuses for another attack on the U.S.) shouldn't be brushed off so lightly.

I know, I know, BUSH is President, so GOD FORBID you offer up even the slightest HINT of praise on something he may have had a hand in preventing.
I guess you guys are so used to employing scare tactics when they aren’t warranted that you can’t recognize real danger anymore. Just as a change of Pace, rather than make another transparent attempt to blow me off, why don’t you take the high road and list all the Bush accomplishments with regard to security that you’re aware of and that I failed to praise. Shouldn’t be a problem, right?

[luv_america]

Its funny how the libs respond almost like they wish we were hit over the last 5 years.

The facts are the facts. With the United States on the offensive, and our increased recognition of the threat that we face, we have thwarted all attacks on US for the last 5 years. Why can't we celebrate that? Is that not a good thing?

[luv_america]

Who here really believes there won’t be a mass homicidal operation of some sort here regardless of who controls the White House. We will prevent some of them, but our real preparedness will rest in our ability to minimize the damage done by those we can’t.

I never hear the terrorists endorsing George Bush and the Republicans, but I do hear statements similar to Democrats in Congress and elsewhwere when they speak.

You have to ask yourself, if you were a terrorist, who would you vote for.

[chickenhead]

I think Afghanistan obviously had a huge impact on them, as have our much increased focus on their financing and trying to track them and keep an eye on them. So, good job Bush for those things.

I wouldn't fall over myself to pat him on the back, unlike most of you I guess I have no doubt a Democrat pres would have also invaded Afghanistan, and would also have increased the CIA scrutiny.

Like Indulto, I also assume we will be hit again. I don't want it to happen, but in an open and free democracy, it will never be as difficult as we would like for it to happen. That's just reality, don't try and construe it as anything else.

[JustRalph]

I guess the one hundred plus attacks foiled in the U.S. over the last five years doesn't mean anything...........

[Suff]

Like Indulto, I also assume we will be hit again. I don't want it to happen, but in an open and free democracy, it will never be as difficult as we would like for it to happen. That's just reality, don't try and construe it as anything else.

Old construction expression.

When your on the top rung of the ladder , all everybody see's is your ass.

While people like to exclaim that America is the Worlds only Superpower they don't accept the consequences of that.

No matter what we do we will be the object of attacks. It comes with the territory. Its a function of being #1.


A hole in one battleship, destroyed embassies, two destroyed office towers, while heinous, pose no threat to America.

It is not the Governments role to keep you safe in the world. Defense of the nation is their responsibility. Not to make you safe and warm like Mommy.

We need to have systems in place to reduce the threats. All types of systems. But those systems cannot change the fundamental freedoms that Americans enjoy.

We learned this week that for four years Bush has been spying on 100's of thousands of Americans.

Any American that has left the country has had his address and employment accessed. His drivers record, travel records, even eating habits... Each one was given a score and this information has been given to Foreign Governments, Private Companies where they scored you. That score has been use in hiring decisions and in granting licenses, security clearances and contracts.

The information cannot be obtained by the public, your score cannot be revealed to you, you cannot challenged your score in anyway, and the Government is retaining and updating this info for 40 years.

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/headline/nation/4373684.html

[chickenhead]

I guess the one hundred plus attacks foiled in the U.S. over the last five years doesn't mean anything...........

Actually I think you meant to say worldwide? Either way, like I said, good job Bush. Seriously, of course I'm glad they've busted them up (almost all abroad thankfully).

Of course that doesn't mean someone can't criticize what they see as a mistake by Bush, does it?..you criticize him, so does pretty much everyone on the right...but somehow if the left criticizes him they are traitors? Isn't that pretty hypocritical? You think he should have been/should be tougher in iraq, a lot on the left think he shouldn;t have gone into Iraq..two potentially valid criticisms. I actually feel both ways. We shouldn;t have gone in, but once in, we should have been much tougher.

Like this Iraq study group...did you look at who was on that panel? Is it any wonder what their recommendations are, considering the makeup? Wouldn't you think they might have at least ONE retired general on board, to give some input on the military options? I would have. But they were chosen, knowing what the answer was going to be in advance.

The biggest sham I have personally seen over the last few years is the straw man argument that the right has used, to blame everything on the left. The right had both houses of congress, the presidency, and the support of the poeple...what more do you need? At some point you need to admit (and I think you, JR, have largely) that the reasons these guys didn't and haven't done what you wanted was because they didn't want to.

Whatever they haven't done in Iraq, is because they didn't do them. Not because anyone on the left. Ditto about a whole lot of other things (illegal immigration, energy independence, etc.) Which is too bad, because there are a few issues where I think our only hope IS the Republican party, I am a bit pissed they have falied so miserably.

[chickenhead]

A hole in one battleship, destroyed embassies, two destroyed office towers, while heinous, pose no threat to America.

It is not the Governments role to keep you safe in the world. Defense of the nation is their responsibility. Not to make you safe and warm like Mommy.

]

I though the gov was mommy, she keeps flashing those big gov't teats at me, telling me to suck on 'em. :faint:

We created gov't to protect our life liberty property and happiness. The acts of keeping me safe, and keepign the nation safe, for the most part coincide very nicely (we would not and do not allow gov't where those two aren't closely aligned, what would be the point?).

As far as profiling...in and of itself, does that reduce my liberty? Does having someone look at what I do, change what I can do? What matters more than what you laid out, is what the govt actions are based on that info. In and of itself, it means nothing.

[Indulto]

... We created gov't to protect our life liberty property and happiness. The acts of keeping me safe, and keepign the nation safe, for the most part coincide very nicely (we would not and do not allow gov't where those two aren't closely aligned, what would be the point?).

As far as profiling...in and of itself, does that reduce my liberty? Does having someone look at what I do, change what I can do? What matters more than what you laid out, is what the govt actions are based on that info. In and of itself, it means nothing.Apparently you don't see this as a violation of some of our constitutional protections.

I don't object to the profiling aspect as much as I do the information sharing and retention aspect. At a time when there is little likelihood of correcting false assumptions, or of getting second chances, the inability to redress error or abuse threatens pursuit of happiness at the very least.

[Tom]

Perhaps you and Sec would car to addressn this fact - if not for waterboarding, LA might well have suffered the next 9-11 already. Had we acccepted that waterboarding know terrorists was somehow bad, they probably would have succeeded in their plot against LA. Counltess American would be dead today, but a know terrorist, the achitect of 91-11 himself would be comforatable. Oh, wait he alreay is. NO HARM came to him and lives were saved. But you two would gladly have sacrifieced those lives for your feel good moments, correct? If I am wrong, pleas explain how YOU would have stopped the attack?
To answer an earlier question, yes, there will be another 9-11, only much greater in scope, if democrats are allowed to pussyify this country with thier ridiculous and assine politics.
The first act of the new Speaker was to "dumb down" her promised attention to natinal security. Her FIRST act. What do we hav eto look forward too under this broad? Death and destruction, failure, the hallmark of liberalism.

[PaceAdvantage]

A hole in one battleship, destroyed embassies, two destroyed office towers, while heinous, pose no threat to America.

So we should wait until they destroy something REALLY important (like Congress when everyone is gathered for the State of the Union) before we crap our pants?

I would say willing to kill almost 3000 innocent civilians at the drop of a hat is a serious threat to America. What do they put in the drinking water up there in Massachusetts that causes you to believe otherwise?

[PaceAdvantage]

why don’t you take the high road and list all the Bush accomplishments with regard to security that you’re aware of and that I failed to praise. Shouldn’t be a problem, right?

All I need to do is count the bodies of innocent civilians killed on American soil post-9/11 by terrorists with an Islamic leaning. That's enough for me....

[Suff]

?So we should wait until they destroy something REALLY important (like Congress when everyone is gathered for the State of the Union) before we crap our pants? I would say willing to kill almost 3000 innocent civilians at the drop of a hat is a serious threat to America. What do they put in the drinking water up there in Massachusetts that causes you to believe otherwise?




Are you saying that a WAR. Such as a war in Iraq prevents a person from sneaking into congress with a bomb? And that prior to the war in Iraq this could have happened easily? or was a risk that only a war diffuses?

I ask you frequently what your point is. You paint a picture that congress could be wiped out. Let me advise you there are many red blooded Americans that entertain that idea.

When you say "we should wait" What are we doing to make you think we were previously waiting? And by making war in iraq it is your thinking that we are now not waiting? Where do you get that?

And can explain to me how being at war lessens the threat to a man with a bomb in congress

[Tom]

Originally Posted by Suff
"A hole in one battleship, destroyed embassies, two destroyed office towers, while heinous, pose no threat to America."

You want to tell the survivors of those Americans who died in those attacks that bullshit?

[Suff]

What do they put in the drinking water up there in Massachusetts that causes you to believe otherwise?

Explain to me how 3000 lives or even 30,000 lives is a threat to our country?

Specifically... Is it your contention that on September 12th 2001 we were at significnat risk of losing our country?

The Constitution , The bill of rights, Democracy, Captialism, Three branch of Government, Civil Courts, Local Government, States Rights, Free Elections


All the things that are America....

It is your contention that we almost lost them on Spetember 11th?

Or that when a row boat sided up to the USS COLE in Yemen?

Or when a Ryder Rent a Truck blew up a parking garage.

Your telling me...that AMERICA was and is at SERIOUS risk by 19 guys with Box cutters?

WTF water you drinking? Does this shit really sell somewhere?

[Suff]

Originally Posted by Suff

You want to tell the survivors of those Americans who died in those attacks that bullshit?


yea.,.. because it true.
What I am saying is not even debatable.

[Tom]

You are mistaking the word debatable with believable.

[PaceAdvantage]

Are you saying that a WAR. Such as a war in Iraq prevents a person from sneaking into congress with a bomb?

That's exactly what I'm saying. It's called having a bite as worse as your bark. It's called "If you mess with us, we will bring the full force of the US military down on your ass, whether you live there or not!"

It may not be fair, it may not be righteous, it may not even be the American way, but it is an effective deterrent against an enemy which blends in so well amongst us.

After 9/11, they've discovered that Bush won't hesitate to invade Muslim countries with US ground troops. I betcha they never thought that would happen TWICE. Now they aren't so quick to launch a terrorist attack on US soil, fearing their homeland may be destroyed in the process.

It's probably the same reason why they never SERIOUSLY went after Israel with any of the dirty bombs or nukes you guys like to claim they will drop on the US one day because of what Bush "started."

And by "they" I mean any Muslim country on the terrorist hit list.

[PaceAdvantage]

Explain to me how 3000 lives or even 30,000 lives is a threat to our country?

"Losing the country" and a "threat to the country" are two totally different things. I'm not sure why the entire country has to be at risk before you're willing to ratchet up the heat.

[46zilzal]

same bullshit we heard in the cold war: there are BAD people out there. BE scared and submit to all our directives, and OF COURSE, give us your money so we can protect you.


crappo, and there was even more evidence of it then than now

[PaceAdvantage]

same bullshit we heard in the cold war: there are BAD people out there. BE scared and submit to all our directives, and OF COURSE, give us your money so we can protect you.


crappo, and there was even more evidence of it then than now

The cold war turned out pretty much to our advantage, did it not? I guess all those nukes built didn't go to waste afterall.

Same theory in play here.

[Suff]

[QUOTE]
That's exactly what I'm saying. It's called having a bite as worse as your bark. It's called "If you mess with us, we will bring the full force of the US military down on your ass, whether you live there or not!"


People talk about this like someone gave us a dirty look in a shit kicker bar.

War does'nt address the forces that created the problems. By and large it affects normal everyday people who have no idea what your even talking about.





It may not be fair, it may not be righteous, it may not even be the American way, but it is an effective deterrent against an enemy which blends in so well amongst us.


Effective......not even.



After 9/11, they've discovered that Bush won't hesitate to invade Muslim countries with US ground troops. I betcha they never thought that would happen TWICE. Now they aren't so quick to launch a terrorist attack on US soil, fearing their homeland may be destroyed in the process.



Thats a hell of alot of mind reading. Who are they? I seriously think you give this entity more credit than they are due.


It's probably the same reason why they never SERIOUSLY went after Israel with any of the dirty bombs or nukes you guys like to claim they will drop on the US one day because of what Bush "started."

:lol:

More mind reading. I never claim that. Matter of fact, I hear people say that they will drop a NUKE on us because of whatever the reason of the day is.

[Suff]

I though the gov was mommy, she keeps flashing those big gov't teats at me, telling me to suck on 'em. :faint:
[QUOTE]
We created gov't to protect our life liberty property and happiness. The acts of keeping me safe, and keepign the nation safe, for the most part coincide very nicely (we would not and do not allow gov't where those two aren't closely aligned, what would be the point?).


I'd debate that. But for arguments sake...

We have Police and a set of guidelines the Government follows to serve and protect.

But to address that point directly. The odds being the victim of a terror attack on a US Airline are 1,100,000 to 1. The odds of an AMERICAN being the Victim of a Terror attack anywhere in the world is 1 in 650,000.

The odds you will fly on a plane with a drunk pilot is 177-1.

If you fly once a year and its a domestic flight, your odds of being the Victim of a Terror attack are 2,320,000 to 1


The Govt has a responsibility to allocate resources in accordance with the threat.


As far as profiling...in and of itself, does that reduce my liberty? Does having someone look at what I do, change what I can do? What matters more than what you laid out, is what the govt actions are based on that info. In and of itself, it means nothing


Profiling...INCREASES the likelihood of these events. It does not reduce them. AS remote as they are......profiling has no net positive effect on reducing the likelihood.

Matter of fact, Its peripheral ramifications INCREASE the likelihood.

[Tom]

Where do you get this stuff from?
Mushrooms?

Honestly, you don't believe this crap do you?
You just post to have a few snickers, right?

[Suff]

Where do you get this stuff from?
Mushrooms?

Honestly, you don't believe this crap do you?
You just post to have a few snickers, right?

Those are what are known as facts Tom.

[Suff]

Actuaries do alot of this work for insurance purposes.



Chance of dying from any kind of injury during the next year: 1 in 1,820

Chance of dying from intentional self-harm: 1 in 9,380

Chance of dying from an assault: 1 in 16,421

Chance of dying from a car accident: 1 in 18,585

Chance of dying from any kind of fall: 1 in 20,666

Chance of dying from accidental drowning: 1 in 79,065

Chance of dying from exposure to smoke, fire, and flames: 1 in 81,524

Chance of dying in an explosion: 1 in 107,787

Chance that Earth will experience a catastrophic collision with an asteroid in the next 100 years: 1 in 5,000

Chance of dying in such a collision: 1 in 20,000

Chance of dying from exposure to forces of nature (heat, cold, lightning, earthquake, flood): 1 in 225,107

Chance of dying in an airplane accident: 1 in 354,319

Chance of dying from choking on food: 1 in 370,035

Chance of dying in a terrorist attack while visiting a foreign country: 1 in 650,000

Chance of dying in a fireworks accident: 1 in 1,000,000

Chance of dying from overexertion, travel or privation: 1 in 1,428,377

[Suff]

We created gov't to protect our life liberty property and happiness. The acts of keeping me safe, and keepign the nation safe, for the most part coincide very nicely (we would not and do not allow gov't where those two aren't closely aligned, what would be the point?).

.

How about this one for middle america where they don't have Sky Scrapers or International Airports



:

"There are more than 40,000 malls in this country, and each is open about 75 hours per week. If a person shopped for two hours each week and terrorists were able to destroy one mall per week, the odds of being at the wrong place at the wrong time would be approximately 1.5 million to 1.


If terrorists destroyed one mall each month, the odds would climb to one in 6 million. This assumes the total destruction of the entire mall; if that unlikely event didn't occur, the odds would become even more favorable.



editors note.. A mall a week is a lot Malls. No?

:lol:

[chickenhead]

I know you're not arguing that there should be some effort to prevent attacks? You're saying it's too much right now? Over the top?

We drive this thing...if thats what people want, thats what they want. Its way more common for a kid to drown than die by a gun, yet there a whole lot of parents want trigger locks and mandatory this and that...and don't say boo about swimming pools.

If your point is that people aren't rational about what they feel threatened by..I 'll give you that. That's nothing new. That doesn't make it trivial though.

A car accident doesn't cause the Dow to sink by hundreds of points. You also left out of your previous list the Pentagon. That's a military target. And the Whitehouse. That was a target. These weren't kids with firecrackers we're talking about. 3000 died in the twin towers, could have been 30,000 just as easily. They lucked out the planes hit so high on the towers.

Just because something is not an immediate danger of completely destroying all of us instantaneously, doesn't make it trivial.

As for profiling increasing the risk, you have a study? I'd like to read it.

[PaceAdvantage]

Well then. I guess we can expect the Democrats in charge to recommend that we drop all preventative and defensive measures put into place since 9/11 and divert all that money to help the poor and hungry in the USA.

Problem solved!

Thanks Suff.


PS. Do you wear your blinkers 24 hours a day, or only when you're posting on off-topic?

[Tom]

Odds you will run into a wack-o in Off topics - 200%

[Suff]

Well then. I guess we can expect the Democrats in charge to recommend that we drop all preventative and defensive measures put into place since 9/11 and divert all that money to help the poor and hungry in the USA.

Problem solved!

Thanks Suff.


PS. Do you wear your blinkers 24 hours a day, or only when you're posting on off-topic?


:lol: you are something.

[luv_america]

Suff said:

It is not the Governments role to keep you safe in the world. Defense of the nation is their responsibility. Not to make you safe and warm like Mommy.

Exactly what is the role of govenment then?

You mean we should dump all the other government programs that absolve citizens and illegals from their own responsibility? It soulds very contradicting.

[Indulto]

Odds you will run into a wack-o in Off topics - 200%:lol:
I assume that translates into

Odds you will run into a right-wing wack-o in Off topics - 100%

Odds you will run into a left-wing wack-o in Off topics - 100%

[Tom]

Well now, aren't you being PC tonight! :lol:

[DJofSD]

Statistics are not facts.

The likelyhood of getting into an automobile accident are pretty slim. You don't need those air bags. Forget about using those seat belts.

Food poisoning, you don't need to worry about that, so just unplug your refrigerator.

Being hit by lightening is not too great, so, go ahead and play out those 18 holes and ignore that siren.

The confidence you have in quoting all of these probabilities makes me think you'd take your chances with a revolver with one bullet in it.

[Tom]

Statistics like Suff quoted are for a specific person.

Your odds of dying today are astonomically small, but the odds of thousand of people dying today are 100%.

The odds of someone getting hit by lightning today are 99.999999%

[Suff]

The confidence you have in quoting all of these probabilities makes me think you'd take your chances with a revolver with one bullet in it.

I fly a lot. I don't worry about my safety at all. I have no concerns that someone onboard my aircraft will bring it down.

If you were to ask me to rank my concerns as far as flying it would be that the Company has over worked or underpaid someone working on or near my Plane that makes a critical error. That may be specific as a technical error or something benign as failing to shutter something properly while tired or working in haste.

In regards to the statistics I posted.

This disussion never takes place anywhere.

Lets have an honest look at what we are up against and how best to address it. We have this hyperbolic "They want to kill us" and "Its My Job to make Americans safe"....... That leave people to beleive drastic measures have a direct effective on keeping them safe. THAT IS NOT TRUE.

But you cannot have these talks. Even on this board people start in with what water I'm drinking and whack job....when the F'ing facts are as clear as day!


Similiar to the debate about America.

America that is Free Elections, Three Branchs of Govt. , Civil Rights, Local Goverment, Habeus Corpus, Freedom of Religion, Freedom of Speech, Right to Bear Arms...

Those things and much more are what AMERICA is. Lets address threats that are compensant to the fundementals. If we are to be so Bold to start a war to stop a percieved threat then it must be conducted under completely different parameters than George Bush has.

This guy....whether you like to hear it or not, has really screwed this Country up.

Remember now.. On September 16th, 2001 when he stood on that pile of rubble....he had 85% of this country and 65% of the world on his side. He was 9 months in office, had a Republican House and Senate, a Favorable DOD, he had guys who had been around in Cheney and Rumsfeld...

And they blew it.

[Tom]

Woah, that last spin made me dizzy!

Nice try Suff, but once again, when out facts, you turn the topic to the same old same old.

The thread topic is that Pelosi is DOING THE SAME DAMN THING AND BACKING UP AFTER THE ELECTION.

[DJofSD]

I fly a lot. I don't worry about my safety at all. I have no concerns that someone onboard my aircraft will bring it down.

Well, that's nice.

What about the other passengers? What do you say about their concerns -- or do you care?

[Suff]

Well, that's nice.

What about the other passengers? What do you say about their concerns -- or do you care?

First you said statistics aren't facts. Which I'd dispute. But that's neither here nor there.

Your now using emotion to argue fact. Despite the facts people want to feel safe......

and also your asking me if I care? Care what? That someone feels safe from an event that is 1 in a million of happening? No I do not care about it that much.

However I am forced to participate in this foolishness so I suppose indirectly I do care. I could tell you some silly stuff that I've seen and experienced recently....and maybe I will . There is some stupid stuff going on.

And I know. I'm leaving for Philadelphia in The morning, Tuesday I'm flying to Harrisburg, Wednesday morning I'm flying to NY and Thursday night back to Boston. I just got back Friday Night from 3 days in Indianapolis, and that followed three quick trips to NY and Nj that wrapped around my trip to Louisville for the BC.

Here's my point and then I'll let you go.

Its Godamn stupid. The whole thing. Running my Motor Vehicle record when I get on a plane? wtf is that? reporting to the Govt what meal I order?

Other shit to. No lighters on planes? I got tired of landing in stopover airports in the middle of the night with no matches. Now I sneak my lighter on easy. I figured out a way to beat the AIR machine they use now. ( btw have you seen those MULTI MILLION dollar wastes of time?) Forget hiding it in the bin....I lost 5 lighters that way. That machine ALWAYS sees it... ... I'm just an old school rule breaker and I figured out how to beat the system after 2 or 3 tries.

Its all stupid.... and it cost so much money... and that's all I have to say.

[Tom]

I notified Logan you would be hiding a lighter. They were very interested.
I also told then you had lamb for diner tonight. Double takes all around! :lol::lol:

[JPinMaryland]

The cold war turned out pretty much to our advantage, did it not? I guess all those nukes built didn't go to waste afterall.

Same theory in play here.


But doesnt this argument work both ways? I mean lots of people on the right say we are making the same mistake in Iraq that we did in Vietnam, i.e. to pull out is a big mistake.

This will embolden the terrorists, this will prove Bin Laden is right, this will reward bad guys etc.

But didnt America become the sole superpower in the world after it with drew from VN?

And didnt the Soviet Union's campaign in Afghanistan contribute in no small measure to its downfall?

So is reliving the "mistake" of VN really a big mistake?

[PaceAdvantage]

Its all stupid.... and it cost so much money... and that's all I have to say.

Then how can you scoff at my idea to rid the US of any and all expensive security measures put into place since 9/11 and giving all those savings to the poor and hungry? I don't get you.

[PaceAdvantage]

But doesnt this argument work both ways? I mean lots of people on the right say we are making the same mistake in Iraq that we did in Vietnam, i.e. to pull out is a big mistake.

This will embolden the terrorists, this will prove Bin Laden is right, this will reward bad guys etc.

But didnt America become the sole superpower in the world after it with drew from VN?

And didnt the Soviet Union's campaign in Afghanistan contribute in no small measure to its downfall?

So is reliving the "mistake" of VN really a big mistake?

You make a valid point.

However, my main argument in this instance was my defense of what HAPPENED post 9/11....ie our response (invading Afghanistan and Iraq). I happen to think that both were instrumental in deterring future attacks on our country.

As for what is going on NOW....well, we're between a rock and a hard place as far as Iraq is concerned. I think one final ramp-up of troops should take place, and an all-out effort made to quell what is going on over there.

If that fails, then pull out....I don't see a reason to pull out now without giving things one good last try....it seems we've been sitting on our collective asses over there during the entire campaign season, probably a main reason why things have gotten out of hand (or so it's reported).

Lsbets for President!

[Indulto]

You make a valid point.

However, my main argument in this instance was my defense of what HAPPENED post 9/11....ie our response (invading Afghanistan and Iraq). I happen to think that both were instrumental in deterring future attacks on our country.

As for what is going on NOW....well, we're between a rock and a hard place as far as Iraq is concerned. I think one final ramp-up of troops should take place, and an all-out effort made to quell what is going on over there.

If that fails, then pull out....I don't see a reason to pull out now without giving things one good last try....it seems we've been sitting on our collective asses over there during the entire campaign season, probably a main reason why things have gotten out of hand (or so it's reported).

Lsbets for President!Famous last words!

One last try for WHAT, exactly? Even Republicans agree that a POLITICAL solution is what’s required, and not a MILITARY one. Check out today's Meet the Press:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032608/

BTW didn't lsbets say the other option was to withdraw immediately? ;)

[JPinMaryland]

I would tend to think that a ramp up might make sense from a military stand pt. The security situation over there must be atrocious if these news headlines are anywhere near accurate.

But I dont see them doing it as it seems politically suicidal. The dems wont want to be for it as it seems when more troops are sent there the numbers never go down; they remain there. If Bush wants to do this it is his call, but he is already under a lot of pressue for what has happened so far. Seems politically bad...

It looks like a withdrawl is pretty much inevitable at this pt. People like Powell, the Baker commission, everyone seems to be saying this.

[PaceAdvantage]

BTW didn't lsbets say the other option was to withdraw immediately? ;)

Only if "taking care of business" was off the table.

[lsbets]

Lsbets for President!

Only if Tom could be my secretary of state, I think diplomacy is his strong suit! JR would be SecDef, and of course PA I'd need a running mate. Are you interested? :lol: :lol: Does this mean I have to announce that I'm forming an exploratory committee to consider exploring the possibilities of forming an official exploratory committee that will explore running? :lol:

[betchatoo]

LS:

If you run, does this mean our agenda of legalizing pot, ending tax breaks for churches and forcing all race tracks to give free admission and have a 5 % takeout is back on the table?

[lsbets]

LS:

If you run, does this mean our agenda of legalizing pot, ending tax breaks for churches and forcing all race tracks to give free admission and have a 5 % takeout is back on the table?

Between the taxes collected on pot and churches we'd run a huge surplus, enough to fund the national racing commission that would have the authority to execute or otherwise punish (waterboarding maybe?) any racing executive who failed to provide outstanding service to the patrons at the track. I'd even reach out across the aisle and pull some strings to give the NYRA franchise to Suff.

[betchatoo]

I'm ready to campaign for you here in Illinois.

[Tom]

ls, reporting for duty......SIR!
(Darth Templar)