US Presidential Elections thread - the fate of the world to be decided (4 Viewers)

Who would you vote to be the next President of the United States?

  • John McCain

  • Barack Obama

  • undecided


Results are only viewable after voting.
Status
Not open for further replies.

swag

L'autista
Administrator
Sep 23, 2003
83,483
Saddam was a dictator and a murderous thug, clearly. But if that were the true criteria by which we entered Iraq, we would have been in 18 other armed conflicts in the couple years before the second Iraq invasion.

The Saddam story is window-dressing. It's a ruse. It's a "Hey, look! There goes Elvis!" distraction to make people think there was actually a motivation afterall.

Humanitarian mission my ass. The U.S. invaded Iraq because if they didn't think they could find WMDs, they thought that they could take out the government, be greeted as liberators, and every Iraqi in country would worship the praises of their best new friend -- their democratic brother, the United States. And yes, the clincher was about securing energy. Iraq wasn't about oil, and it was only about oil -- at the same time. The Balkans held nothing of the same strategic interests to the U.S.

Talk about :smoke:
 

Buy on AliExpress.com

swag

L'autista
Administrator
Sep 23, 2003
83,483
That's part of being French -- or at least the roots. I mean, now those Frenchies are paranoid that SMS is going to kill off the language.

You always have to have something to freak out over...
 

Marko

GhostDog
May 1, 2006
3,289
Your English was fine.

But you're right... much of our foreign policy relies upon corporate influence. However, I have got to say it is much worse when the Republicans are in office. Even though our response to the ethnic cleansing in the former Yugoslavia was late during Clinton's time, I think that situation is much different than just invading random nations just for natural resources. That is what Bush has done in Iraq, and also probably why we have an independent Kosova now... just because governments want to exploit their natural resources without having to deal with the Russian-influenced Serbia. That's just the way it is unfortunately.

But looking at the big picture, the Democrats in the past 30 years are always more concerned with our own infrastructure and spending on a national level. While corporations do influence the government through lobbyists, they're much more "appeased" by the people on the right, like Reagan with NAFTA and Bush with... well, pretty much everything that cunt and his controlling Cheney have done.
As I said, Democrats have more style, or as you said, they are more concerned with infrastructure (logistics, media). But, it's a big question mark was that late response on Balkan in nineties accidental (talking about style). Also, I don't know if you heard that gas pipeline will pass through Serbia (from Russia to south-west Europe). So we helped fucking Russia in that energetic battle by slowing down US, but what I wanted to say is that Democrats were building that road from west to east, while Republicans were building in opposite way (talking about corporate influence, and again Democrats had more style). And they still do, both, and Democrats will be in charge, that's for sure, and Serbia will probably get ultra-nationalist government, and I'm scared.
 

GordoDeCentral

Diez
Moderator
Apr 14, 2005
69,402
I don't think the Democrats would have supported a major ratcheting of the war budget to run roughshod over Iraq and put us in a financial quagmire there. Democrats are much better at domestic financial quagmires.

The only thing keeping me from totally vilifying Bush is the incompetency/intent divide. Clearly, Bush had advisers who were out to invade Iraq since the mid 1990s -- and he could have used much better judgment in ignoring them. Basically making him a spineless wuss. But you have to take some responsibility for allowing the likes of Paul Wolfowitz, whom I consider evil incarnate, to drive national policy based on bad info, selling the U.S. public with a false bill of goods, and sticking it to them with 4,000+ dead Americans (never mind the innocent Iraqi casualties for a moment) and a multi-trillion-dollar budget sinkhole for it. And no one is held accountable for the royal clusterf*ck of the new millennium.

Half the reason for why food and gas prices are so ridiculously high in this country is because failed financial policy supporting this war is devaluating the American dollar on the world markets faster than England's hopes for another national team trophy. If congresspeople want to look like they're doing something for the "pain at the pump" of their mainstream American constituents, how about have the balls and tell us that they're partly responsible by voting to put our nation's finances in a sewer hole the size of Iraq??

great post as always and i love how you re careful in your last paragraph to say "half the reason"; you sir are , and forgive my redundancy, an irreplaceable asset of high parage no doubt
 

swag

L'autista
Administrator
Sep 23, 2003
83,483
Get the mustard, and open up your buns.
We call it tenderizing the tenderloin.

ßöмßäяðîëя;1653743 said:
I call the leftover mustard!
Recycled condiments are a green technology, you know.

This makes you wonder? REALLY now?
I have to admit. I first thought that e-mail was from Vinman, and then I realized he was the one quoting it. :p
 

Vinman

2013 Prediction Cup Champ
Jul 16, 2002
11,481
kudos to pat Buchanan for telling like it is :tup: -

Pat Buchanan's message to Barack



Pat Buchanan is one of the few in the media who has the guts to tell it like it is, i.e., no political correctness here.



My hope is that you are not offended.




by Patrick J. Buchanan

Posted 03/21/2008 ET

Barack says we need to have a conversation about race in America .

Fair enough. But this time, it has to be a two-way conversation. White America needs to be heard from, not just lectured to.

This time, the Silent Majority needs to have its convictions, grievances and demands heard. And among them are these:

First, America has been the best country on earth for black folks. It was here that 600,000 black people, brought from Africa in slave ships, grew into a community of 40 million, were introduced to Christian salvation, and reached the greatest levels of freedom and prosperity blacks have ever known.

Wright ought to go down on his knees and thank God he is an American.

Second, no people anywhere has done more to lift up blacks than white Americans. Untold trillions have been spent since the '60s on welfare, food stamps, rent supplements, Section 8 housing, Pell grants, student loans, legal services, Medicaid, Earned Income Tax Credits and poverty programs designed to bring the African-American community into the mainstream.

Governments, businesses and colleges have engaged in discrimination against white folks -- with affirmative action, contract set-asides and quotas -- to advance black applicants over white applicants.

Churches, foundations, civic groups, schools and individuals all over America have donated time and money to support soup kitchens, adult education, day care, retirement and nursing homes for blacks.

We hear the grievances. Where is the gratitude?

Barack talks about new "ladders of opportunity" for blacks.

Let him go to Altoona and Johnstown , and ask the white kids in Catholic schools how many were visited lately by Ivy League recruiters handing out scholarships for "deserving" white kids.

Is white America really responsible for the fact that the crime and incarceration rates for African-Americans are seven times those of white America ? Is it really white America 's fault that illegitimacy in the African-American community has hit 70 percent and the black dropout rate from high schools in some cities has reached 50 percent ?

Is that the fault of white America or, first and foremost, a failure of the black community itself?

As for racism, its ugliest manifestation is in interracial crime, and especially interracial crimes of violence. Is Barack Obama aware that while white criminals choose black victims 3 percent of the time, black criminals choose white victims 45 percent of the time?

Is Barack aware that black-on-white rapes are 100 times more common than the reverse, that black-on-white robberies were 139 times as common in the first three years of this decade as the reverse?

We have all heard addnauseam from the Rev. Al about Tawana Brawley, the Duke rape case and Jena . And all turned out to be hoaxes. But about the epidemic of black assaults on whites that are real, we hear nothing.

Sorry, Barack, some of us have heard it all before, about 40 years and 40 trillion tax dollars ago.
 

Bjerknes

"Top Economist"
Mar 16, 2004
111,601
What a load of piss and vomit, which is usually what we hear from somebody like Buchanan who doesn't understand anything out of the realm of his own conservative upbringing.

I will respond to each facet of his idiocy in due time.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 4)