RE: Is B. Hussein O. the biggest threat to our country in history?
View related threads:
(in this forum
| in all forums)
|
Logged in as: Guest
|
|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: Is B. Hussein O. the biggest threat to our country ... - 8/14/2008 3:59:44 PM
|
|
|
SwedishCovenant
Posts: 606
Joined: 8/8/2008
Status: offline
|
Never mind, I found it.
Here is the bill before the Senate, (presumably) the one that it isd claimed Obama supports:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c110:4:./temp/~c110Y9jCLj::
I read it, and couldn't find anything "that would do away with secret voting as it pertains to whether or not a union is allowed into a work place" OTHER than in a situation where a MAJORITY of a workplace's work force had already de facto waived their secret-vote need by PUBLICLY signing an organization petition.
I think whoever you heard commenting "on the radio" about this legislation is someone who has either misread this legislation or is being delibrately misleading about what it states. May I ask who it was who you listened to making this statement?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Is B. Hussein O. the biggest threat to our country ... - 8/14/2008 5:03:35 PM
|
|
|
leonfigg3
Posts: 377
Joined: 5/7/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: SwedishCovenant
Never mind, I found it.
Here is the bill before the Senate, (presumably) the one that it isd claimed Obama supports:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c110:4:./temp/~c110Y9jCLj::
I read it, and couldn't find anything "that would do away with secret voting as it pertains to whether or not a union is allowed into a work place" OTHER than in a situation where a MAJORITY of a workplace's work force had already de facto waived their secret-vote need by PUBLICLY signing an organization petition.
I think whoever you heard commenting "on the radio" about this legislation is someone who has either misread this legislation or is being delibrately misleading about what it states. May I ask who it was who you listened to making this statement?
Like I said, this bit of legislation was brought to my atention as I was listening to the radio. It wasn't the first time I had heard of it, but what caught my ear was the fact that Obama was a co-sponsor of the bill. Though I have since learned that he was not a co-sponsor of H.R. 800, he did vote for it.
Though I fail to see through whom I learned of this legislation has any bearing on the matter I will say that here in Illinois I do manage to listen to fairly conservative talk radio station out of Chicago. The subject came up as a result of some comments made by Dick Durbin on how and why he supported the legislation (elimination of courts in the decision making process)
After going to your link and other links associated with the legislation, I do not see how the legislation was "misread" on the radio. One of the considerations of the committee meeting addressed the very real concern that this legislation actually has very little to do with "free choice". What it does tend to do is increase the possibility of coercion not by employers so much as by coercion by union organizers since it does away with the protection of secret ballot elections.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Is B. Hussein O. the biggest threat to our country ... - 8/14/2008 5:30:34 PM
|
|
|
SwedishCovenant
Posts: 606
Joined: 8/8/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: leonfigg3
quote:
ORIGINAL: SwedishCovenant
Never mind, I found it.
Here is the bill before the Senate, (presumably) the one that it isd claimed Obama supports:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c110:4:./temp/~c110Y9jCLj::
I read it, and couldn't find anything "that would do away with secret voting as it pertains to whether or not a union is allowed into a work place" OTHER than in a situation where a MAJORITY of a workplace's work force had already de facto waived their secret-vote need by PUBLICLY signing an organization petition.
I think whoever you heard commenting "on the radio" about this legislation is someone who has either misread this legislation or is being delibrately misleading about what it states. May I ask who it was who you listened to making this statement?
Like I said, this bit of legislation was brought to my atention as I was listening to the radio. It wasn't the first time I had heard of it, but what caught my ear was the fact that Obama was a co-sponsor of the bill. Though I have since learned that he was not a co-sponsor of H.R. 800, he did vote for it.
Though I fail to see through whom I learned of this legislation has any bearing on the matter I will say that here in Illinois I do manage to listen to fairly conservative talk radio station out of Chicago. The subject came up as a result of some comments made by Dick Durbin on how and why he supported the legislation (elimination of courts in the decision making process)
After going to your link and other links associated with the legislation, I do not see how the legislation was "misread" on the radio. One of the considerations of the committee meeting addressed the very real concern that this legislation actually has very little to do with "free choice". What it does tend to do is increase the possibility of coercion not by employers so much as by coercion by union organizers since it does away with the protection of secret ballot elections.
Your reply falls into the category of a syllogistic error - Fallacy of Drawing an Affirmative Conclusion From a Negative Premise. The Senate bill (*) simply does not contain language which supports the claim. Your premise is unproven, hence your entire argument does not support your conclusion.
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s110-1041
(*) By the way, Obama, a US Senator, would not be sponsoring or voting on an HR bill - that is a HOUSE bill. He would, however, act on a SENATE bill, S.1041 in this case, of which he is, indeed, a co-sponsor, along with fifty-plus other Senators.
In any event, it is a moot point - the GOP, is might have been expected, blocked cloture on this, yet another legislative effort to stand up for the common citizens of this country.
Why does the GOP ALWAYS come down on the side of big corporations, the wealthiest 1% of the population, the restriction of individual liberty - at the expense of the vast majority of Americans?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Is B. Hussein O. the biggest threat to our country ... - 8/14/2008 5:52:22 PM
|
|
|
tafkam
Posts: 1951
Joined: 9/23/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
Why does the GOP ALWAYS come down on the side of big corporations, the wealthiest 1% of the population, the restriction of individual liberty - at the expense of the vast majority of Americans?
Probably because the big coprprations are the one who provide the jobs for the vast majority of Americans to work.
Have YOU ever gotten a job from a poor person?
And can you name a single individual liberty that has been denied to you by the GOP?
_____________________________
"The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help.' - Ronald Reagan
Tafkam
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Is B. Hussein O. the biggest threat to our country ... - 8/14/2008 6:04:50 PM
|
|
|
ljmac
Posts: 1310
Joined: 11/20/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: RichLP
quote:
ORIGINAL: ljmac
quote:
ORIGINAL: RichLP
quote:
ORIGINAL: ljmac
I never read any "fact-based" argument, only a blame America pep-talk for terrorists. Like Harry Reid you have a war "which we will not win" at the top of your Christmas list. Give up, the good old days of Saddam are over.
On the contrary, all the points I made which you cheaply qualified as a "nice motivational speech for terrorists" are ALL factually correct, and for several of these I have provided validation right here on Crosswalk.
Christmas list? Sorry, I do not believe in Santa Claus.
"Give up, the good old days of Saddam are over" - considering that there was running water and electricity, that women and girls were allowed to have jobs and schooling, and that Iraqi Christians were permitted to attend their churches and to worship the God of the Bible freely during that time, it's ironic you use yet another cheap shot towards me - now, an attempt to portray me as a Hussein apologist.
Ljmac, I am willing to debate you one-on-one about the horrors the Iraq war brought at any time. But I speculate you will simply refuse, as have others I've offered to engage with one-on-one. Then again, considering your tactics (cheap, uncalled-for personal attacks), I fathom that ad hominems are the extent of your repertoire.
Should I be wrong, prove it.
You don't believe in Santa Clause, but a lost war is on your wish list.
It is what I believe - I believe that due to the disastrous policies of the Bush administration, that we will lose this war. I never said it is what I "wish" for.
So, do you accept my offer for a one-on-one debate on the horrors of the Iraqi war? Or will you simply make yet another mischaracterization of what I say (you falsely accused me of a "wish list" after falsely stating that what I said before, which are all FACT, are NOT fact and are a "nice motivational speech for terrorists?"
"wish list." "Santa Claus." LOL...
You'd do better hanging out with Code Pink. Anyone who champions how much better Iraqis had it with Saddam in power and then denies being a Hussein apologist can't be debated. You hold too many conflicting ideas. Debate yourself.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Is B. Hussein O. the biggest threat to our country ... - 8/14/2008 6:07:32 PM
|
|
|
tafkam
Posts: 1951
Joined: 9/23/2005
Status: offline
|
It's a well known fact that our friends on the left are invested in our defeat in Iraq. That's the only way their side can get or hold power.
_____________________________
"The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help.' - Ronald Reagan
Tafkam
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Is B. Hussein O. the biggest threat to our country ... - 8/14/2008 6:50:33 PM
|
|
|
RichLP
Posts: 1511
Joined: 5/4/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: ljmac
You'd do better hanging out with Code Pink.
ANOTHER indirect personal attack, completely unrelated to previous posts.
quote:
ORIGINAL: ljmac
Anyone who champions how much better Iraqis had it with Saddam in power and then denies being a Hussein apologist can't be debated.
A few facts for you:
BEFORE THE WAR:
- no sectarian violence
- no civil war
- running water was available
- electricity was available
AFTER THE WAR:
- ethnic cleansing
- internecine sectarian violence
- utilities not available as much as before the war
- women and girls subjected to strict Islamic mores; now forbidden from attending school and work
- kidnapping rampant
- 4 million refugees, half abroad, out of a nation of 25 million (equivalent to 48 million displaced Americans, as the USA population is about 300 million)
- hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqis
quote:
ORIGINAL: ljmac
You hold too many conflicting ideas. Debate yourself.
You resort to unintelligent and lowly comments, not to mention your obvious fear and fright of any one-on-one debate in a serious manner, which would expose your glaring failure to grasp the facts and to understand this war in an even more vivid manner than these posts already do.
You are unable to discuss in a rational, intellectual, and serious manner, and your posts convey your attitude that the employment of ad hominems is fair game towards anybody whose views differ from yours - never mind your customary mischaracterization of others' views (I believe we will lose in Iraq, and you accuse me of having that on my "wish list.").
But, I will concede that your vacuous writings are amusing. Feel free to resume your flaming.
_____________________________
"We have removed an ally of Al Qaeda" - G.W. Bush lies to America and to the world, 5/1/2003
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Is B. Hussein O. the biggest threat to our country ... - 8/14/2008 6:52:06 PM
|
|
|
RichLP
Posts: 1511
Joined: 5/4/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: tafkam
It's a well known fact that our friends on the left are invested in our defeat in Iraq. That's the only way their side can get or hold power.
It's a well-known fact that many Americans, and definitely some on Crosswalk, don't like to be told to their faces that the US-led war of aggression against sovereign Iraq has destroyed hundreds of thousands of Iraqi lives and brought much physical and emotional suffering to dozens of thousands of heroic American military personnel.
_____________________________
"We have removed an ally of Al Qaeda" - G.W. Bush lies to America and to the world, 5/1/2003
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Is B. Hussein O. the biggest threat to our country ... - 8/14/2008 8:00:24 PM
|
|
|
tafkam
Posts: 1951
Joined: 9/23/2005
Status: offline
|
I'm sure that Saddam Hussein would be proud of people like you who leap to his defense so readily...
quote:
don't like to be told to their faces that the US-led war of aggression against sovereign Iraq has destroyed hundreds of thousands of Iraqi lives
No, I don't mind being told. Civilians die in war. Either our people are going to die or their's are. You'll pardon me if I say I would much rather it be them.
quote:
and brought much physical and emotional suffering to dozens of thousands of heroic American military personnel.
From the TV show MASH, there are certain rules about a war, and rule #1 is that young men die. It is most regrettable, but it happens...
< Message edited by tafkam -- 8/14/2008 8:28:33 PM >
_____________________________
"The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help.' - Ronald Reagan
Tafkam
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Is B. Hussein O. the biggest threat to our country ... - 8/14/2008 8:32:54 PM
|
|
|
tafkam
Posts: 1951
Joined: 9/23/2005
Status: offline
|
Hussein is a threat to our country by the very fact that he's the guy our enemies would like ot see win the White House.
They KNOW he is an appeaser, they KNOW he doesn't have the stones to pursue the War On Terror, they know he will make every attempt to pull troops from Iraq and completely destabilize the region.
Personally I predict another major attack on our home soil, possibly several, within a year of his inauguration. (Of course the same could be said for McCain, but Barck's actions wil make it MUCH easier for them to succeed...)
_____________________________
"The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help.' - Ronald Reagan
Tafkam
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Is B. Hussein O. the biggest threat to our country ... - 8/14/2008 9:09:53 PM
|
|
|
todd_t
Posts: 1621
Joined: 6/21/2006
From: The North Woods
Status: offline
|
quote:
I'm sure that Saddam Hussein would be proud of people like you who leap to his defense so readily
This claim is cheap and utterly gutless. Persons like myself who always believed the Iraq War was a mistake did so precisely because Saddam was no threat to the United States.
A threat against his own people? That's another story.
But if you recall, Bush's war cry (which began bubbling up in the Oval Office before 9-11) never said anything about going into Iraq to strike a blow for human rights. His argument was all about fear-mongering, and he and Cheney played it to the hilt.
quote:
No, I don't mind being told. Civilians die in war. Either our people are going to die or their's are. You'll pardon me if I say I would much rather it be them.
This, from someone I assume has never seen the human toll of war in-person. If you had, perhaps you wouldn't be so cocky about the notion of innocent men, women, and children being killed.
quote:
Hussein is a threat to our country by the very fact that he's the guy our enemies would like to see win the White House.
Anyone who gives an ounce of concern as to whom Bin Laden or his inner circle want to win this election only plays the part of Al Qaeda's lackey by allowing such concerns to sway his/her vote.
I could not (nor should any other American) care less who Bin Laden, or any other terrorist leader, wants to win in November.
Anyone who does is simply doing such terrorists a favor by granting them political influence they should never have.
_____________________________
In Memoriam: 1st Sgt. Obediah Kolath, US Army, Died in Iraq War (1973-2005)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Is B. Hussein O. the biggest threat to our country ... - 8/14/2008 9:14:47 PM
|
|
|
tafkam
Posts: 1951
Joined: 9/23/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
I could not (not should any other American) care less who Bin Laden, or any other terrorist leader, wants to win in November.
Sorry, but when your enemies are cheering for one candidate, chances are it's not the guy you need in power...
_____________________________
"The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help.' - Ronald Reagan
Tafkam
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Is B. Hussein O. the biggest threat to our country ... - 8/14/2008 9:18:54 PM
|
|
|
todd_t
Posts: 1621
Joined: 6/21/2006
From: The North Woods
Status: offline
|
quote:
Sorry, but when your enemies are cheering for one candidate, chances are it's not the guy you need in power
And who told you that "our enemies" are cheering for Obama?
Fox News? WorldNutDaily? Some drunk screaming at passing cars on a corner?
Never mind, I don't care.
You are entitled to vote for whomever you wish; either way, as long as you take part in the electoral process that's all that matters.
_____________________________
In Memoriam: 1st Sgt. Obediah Kolath, US Army, Died in Iraq War (1973-2005)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Is B. Hussein O. the biggest threat to our country ... - 8/14/2008 10:17:40 PM
|
|
|
tafkam
Posts: 1951
Joined: 9/23/2005
Status: offline
|
C'mon, Todd, do you honestly think our enemies want somebody like John McCain in the White House, who will continue to take the fight to them and thwart their efforts at future attacks, or somebody like Obama who actually thinks we can sit down and talk to these people (virtually all of the historyof warfare notwithstanding?)
Who do you honestly think the terrorists want to win in Nov?
_____________________________
"The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help.' - Ronald Reagan
Tafkam
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Is B. Hussein O. the biggest threat to our country ... - 8/14/2008 10:33:53 PM
|
|
|
RichLP
Posts: 1511
Joined: 5/4/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: tafkam
I'm sure that Saddam Hussein would be proud of people like you who leap to his defense so readily...
Another Crosswalker who considers the use of ad hominems - and in this case (as in Ljmac's before you) a most egregious one: to accuse a critic of the war of being a Hussein apologist, to state Hussein would be proud of me... ONLY BECAUSE I stated FACTS about how pre-2003 Iraq had more electricity and running water than it does now; about how Iraqi women and girls were permitted to go to schools and colleges and to get jobs and how that is much more difficult now.
Any of you who view personal attacks - whether overt ones or the ones of the indirect variety, sophisticated or cheap... I am not fazed by such frivolous accusations, and neither is my constant preference for FACT-BASED POSTS.
quote:
ORIGINAL: tafkam
No, I don't mind being told. Civilians die in war. Either our people are going to die or their's are. You'll pardon me if I say I would much rather it be them.
It's this callousness that troubles me when I visit this website. People profess faith in Christ yet have such nonchalant attitudes towards the suffering of foreign civilians, such as those in an unhappy country like Iraq, which has suffered so much damage thanks to the Bush-led war.
Besides, Iraqi civilians posed no threat to American civilians, so for you to justify your views (rather them than us) is absolutely groundless.
quote:
ORIGINAL: tafkam
From the TV show MASH, there are certain rules about a war, and rule #1 is that young men die. It is most regrettable, but it happens...
If fictitious sources are your preferred means to get information about war... I hear ya.
_____________________________
"We have removed an ally of Al Qaeda" - G.W. Bush lies to America and to the world, 5/1/2003
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Is B. Hussein O. the biggest threat to our country ... - 8/14/2008 10:48:39 PM
|
|
|
RichLP
Posts: 1511
Joined: 5/4/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: tafkam
C'mon, Todd, do you honestly think our enemies want somebody like John McCain in the White House, who will continue to take the fight to them and thwart their efforts at future attacks, or somebody like Obama who actually thinks we can sit down and talk to these people (virtually all of the historyof warfare notwithstanding?)
Who do you honestly think the terrorists want to win in Nov?
You're wrong on both counts - and fearmongering, my dear, is really outdated by now. That some actually fall for it is both frightening and sad.
John McCain is the likelier of the two to establish a continuation of the disastrous, idealistic, neocon-inspired policies of the first Bush administration. It was the advent of the realist faction (Condolezza Rice is its embodiment) in the 2nd term and the eclipse of the 1st term neocons that contributed in part to an adjustment in policy and strategy in Iraq.
Middle East experts have agreed that Bush actually did Osama Bin Laden a favor by invading Iraq. In one fell swoop, Bush removed from power a secular dictator whom Bin Laden had previously denounced as a Muslim infidel and whom Bin Laden hated. Bin Laden bitterly attacked Hussein when the latter invaded Kuwait in 1991 and called for a holy Muslim army to expel the Baath military from Kuwait.
More bluntly: Bush's policies facilitated the entry of Islamic extremism into Iraq. And while it is true that Al-Qaeda, a Salafi Sunni faction, is diametrically opposed to the Shiite Ayatollahs of Iran, neither side is particularly saddened by the damage and losses our country has incurred via Bush's foolhardy venture in Iraq. And since McCain is an extremely hawkish politician who is not beholden to diplomacy (let's not speak much of McCain's pathetic statements this summer, which all but proved he may be even more ignorant than Dubya about the Middle East), the "enemies of America" can only hope that McCain will continue belligerent policies in the region - what better way to recruit bitter and furious young men to attack American/western targets?
As for Barak Obama, the man may seem like a beacon of change, but I have been skeptical all along and I have seen little to believe he will truly deviate course from Bush 43 in any significant manner (I am referring to foreign policy). Suffice it to say that if there is anything that sets Obama apart from John Kerry or Al Gore, is that these two men always held a profound disdain for the American left and took the progressive vote for granted. Obama may be too savvy to repeat their mistake, but if he doesn't, those who had been hoping in 2000 and in 2004 for a Democrat may have their hearts broken come November. But even if Obama defeats McCain, there is not much to show that he will be too different - he has spoken of attacking Iran and Pakistan (the latter has nuclear weapons and shares a loosely defined border with Afghanistan, which Al-Qaeda's senior leaders are believed to operate - not to mention it has been a staunch US ally in the war on terror).
In summary, either man is highly likely if not almost guaranteed to perpetuate a US foreign policy which will persist in generating anti-American sentiment, and it's this kind of animus that some within our government's intelligence community has designated as the key element for the execution of blowback.
_____________________________
"We have removed an ally of Al Qaeda" - G.W. Bush lies to America and to the world, 5/1/2003
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Is B. Hussein O. the biggest threat to our country ... - 8/14/2008 11:00:38 PM
|
|
|
leonfigg3
Posts: 377
Joined: 5/7/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: SwedishCovenant
Your reply falls into the category of a syllogistic error - Fallacy of Drawing an Affirmative Conclusion From a Negative Premise. The Senate bill (*) simply does not contain language which supports the claim. Your premise is unproven, hence your entire argument does not support your conclusion.
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s110-1041
(*) By the way, Obama, a US Senator, would not be sponsoring or voting on an HR bill - that is a HOUSE bill. He would, however, act on a SENATE bill, S.1041 in this case, of which he is, indeed, a co-sponsor, along with fifty-plus other Senators.
In any event, it is a moot point - the GOP, is might have been expected, blocked cloture on this, yet another legislative effort to stand up for the common citizens of this country.
Why does the GOP ALWAYS come down on the side of big corporations, the wealthiest 1% of the population, the restriction of individual liberty - at the expense of the vast majority of Americans?
Dah, I didn't know that for every House of Representative Bill/ legislation there is a Senate version of the same bill/ legislation. (High School Civics class)
I am sorry my research into the matter did not get as far as learning the proposed Senate version of the bill.
You must be a lawyer or someone who only goes by what is written and not what the end result of legislation may be, or may actually mean.
If you read Section 2, subsection 6 you may very well find the "lanugage" that supports my concern, and the concern of many people about this bill.
It requirs only a majority of the employees to petition for a union for that petition to be considered valid.
How is that majority arrived at?
Say I have 7 people working for me. Four of those seven meet together and decide they need a union. They get the cards, and file a petition. I not only soon find myself having to deal with a union I had no knowledge about, but so are my three other employees who had no knowledge about, and absolutely no voice in the matter, who may also have to pay the price because I can no longer afford to have them.
Expediency at the price of freedom.
Dictatorship by the majority.
Is this what the Democratic Party is now about?
Is this what Obama is about?
Where is the Democratic Party's concern for the common citizen?
Where is the Democratic party's concern that everyone have a voice in the process?
Sounds more like they are more concerned with the welfare of the wealthy union bosses that keep them in power.
And if one goes by the justification some have used for this legislation I do not believe it will be too long before our whole election process is changed with this as its model.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Is B. Hussein O. the biggest threat to our country ... - 8/14/2008 11:19:58 PM
|
|
|
todd_t
Posts: 1621
Joined: 6/21/2006
From: The North Woods
Status: offline
|
quote:
Who do you honestly think the terrorists want to win in Nov?
I repeat: I don't care who they want to win.
I assure you, the opinions of gutless, murdering terrorists hiding in a cave will be the furthest thought from my mind when I enter that voting booth in November.
_____________________________
In Memoriam: 1st Sgt. Obediah Kolath, US Army, Died in Iraq War (1973-2005)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Is B. Hussein O. the biggest threat to our country ... - 8/15/2008 1:35:17 AM
|
|
|
relady
Posts: 1211
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Greater St. Louis Metro
Status: offline
|
quote:
I never read any "fact-based" argument, only a blame America pep-talk for terrorists. That's because you can't get past your own biases to take a look at what a "fact-based" argument has to offer.
quote:
It's this callousness that troubles me when I visit this website. People profess faith in Christ yet have such nonchalant attitudes towards the suffering of foreign civilians, such as those in an unhappy country like Iraq, which has suffered so much damage thanks to the Bush-led war. I couldn't agree more and feel the same way. People who claim Christ are some of the most callous towards human suffering and it is very disturbing. No wonder the world continues to get worse and worse, with Christians helping it right along!
< Message edited by relady -- 8/15/2008 1:46:03 AM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Is B. Hussein O. the biggest threat to our country ... - 8/15/2008 1:49:44 AM
|
|
|
lightshineon
Posts: 3462
Joined: 4/11/2005
Status: offline
|
I am sorry, that was funny, and yet very true.
quote:
ORIGINAL: tafkam
quote:
I could not (not should any other American) care less who Bin Laden, or any other terrorist leader, wants to win in November.
Sorry, but when your enemies are cheering for one candidate, chances are it's not the guy you need in power...
_____________________________
Remember, whenever you have pearls, there are always plenty of pigs nearby who would be glad to step on them.
F.T., 2007
Be sure you vote for those, whose views you want your children to emulate.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Is B. Hussein O. the biggest threat to our country ... - 8/15/2008 2:58:11 AM
|
|
|
ljmac
Posts: 1310
Joined: 11/20/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
But if you recall, Bush's war cry (which began bubbling up in the Oval Office before 9-11) never said anything about going into Iraq to strike a blow for human rights.
I recall. You have selective memory.
The Commander repeatedly cited gross abuses of human rights by the Hussein well before the war. He spoke of children's prisons, using rape to terrorize political opponents, ordering mass murder, looting money from the UN destined for Iraqi people and systemic oppression. If that sounds like "never said anything," then B. Obama never said anything about change.
Here are some examples both from his speech to the UN and in others in the fall of 2002.
"The dictator of Iraq is a student of Stalin, using murder as a tool of terror and control, within his own cabinet, within his own army, and even within his own family."
"On Saddam Hussein's orders, opponents have been decapitated, wives and mothers of political opponents have been systematically raped as a method of intimidation, and political prisoners have been forced to watch their own children being tortured."
"...all people are entitled to hope and human rights, to the non-negotiable demands of human dignity. People everywhere prefer freedom to slavery; prosperity to squalor; self-government to the rule of terror and torture...The oppression of Kurds, Assyrians, Turkomans, Shi'a, Sunnis and others will be lifted. The long captivity of Iraq will end, and an era of new hope will begin."
"Freed from the weight of oppression, Iraq's people will be able to share in the progress and prosperity of our time."
"If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will immediately end all illicit trade outside the oil-for-food program. It will accept U.N. administration of funds from that program, to ensure that the money is used fairly and promptly for the benefit of the Iraqi people."
"His regime once ordered the killing of every person between the ages of 15 and 70 in certain Kurdish villages in northern Iraq. He has gassed many Iranians, and 40 Iraqi villages."
You're awfully loose with the truth.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Is B. Hussein O. the biggest threat to our country ... - 8/15/2008 9:05:22 AM
|
|
|
huangshan
Posts: 869
Joined: 8/6/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: tafkam
C'mon, Todd, do you honestly think our enemies want somebody like John McCain in the White House, who will continue to take the fight to them and thwart their efforts at future attacks, or somebody like Obama who actually thinks we can sit down and talk to these people (virtually all of the historyof warfare notwithstanding?)
Who do you honestly think the terrorists want to win in Nov?
If the terrorists want more political influence and recruits, they will want a continuation of Bush policies.
Terrorists don't exist in a vacuum. They exist for reasons, and they have real grievances.
Suggesting that McCain will thwart future attacks while Obama will not is baseless. If anything, McCain has shown a far more bull-headed and Cold War era approach to dealing with them. Terrorism is not something one can smash to pieces.
As the Anbar Awakening has shown, working with enemies can be very effective at producing mutually beneficial outcomes.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Is B. Hussein O. the biggest threat to our country ... - 8/15/2008 9:06:12 AM
|
|
|
SwedishCovenant
Posts: 606
Joined: 8/8/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: tafkam
Sorry, but when your enemies are cheering for one candidate, chances are it's not the guy you need in power...
Quite so:
>Abu Hafs al-Masri (note - the al Qaeda group responsible for the Spanish terror bombins) supports the re-election campaign of President Bush: "We are very keen that Bush does not lose the upcoming elections." <
per your own beloved Fox News:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,114489,00.html
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Is B. Hussein O. the biggest threat to our country ... - 8/15/2008 9:13:09 AM
|
|
|
SwedishCovenant
Posts: 606
Joined: 8/8/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: ljmac
quote:
But if you recall, Bush's war cry (which began bubbling up in the Oval Office before 9-11) never said anything about going into Iraq to strike a blow for human rights.
I recall. You have selective memory.
The Commander repeatedly cited gross abuses of human rights by the Hussein well before the war. He spoke of children's prisons, using rape to terrorize political opponents, ordering mass murder, looting money from the UN destined for Iraqi people and systemic oppression. If that sounds like "never said anything," then B. Obama never said anything about change.
Here are some examples both from his speech to the UN and in others in the fall of 2002.
"The dictator of Iraq is a student of Stalin, using murder as a tool of terror and control, within his own cabinet, within his own army, and even within his own family."
"On Saddam Hussein's orders, opponents have been decapitated, wives and mothers of political opponents have been systematically raped as a method of intimidation, and political prisoners have been forced to watch their own children being tortured."
"...all people are entitled to hope and human rights, to the non-negotiable demands of human dignity. People everywhere prefer freedom to slavery; prosperity to squalor; self-government to the rule of terror and torture...The oppression of Kurds, Assyrians, Turkomans, Shi'a, Sunnis and others will be lifted. The long captivity of Iraq will end, and an era of new hope will begin."
"Freed from the weight of oppression, Iraq's people will be able to share in the progress and prosperity of our time."
"If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will immediately end all illicit trade outside the oil-for-food program. It will accept U.N. administration of funds from that program, to ensure that the money is used fairly and promptly for the benefit of the Iraqi people."
"His regime once ordered the killing of every person between the ages of 15 and 70 in certain Kurdish villages in northern Iraq. He has gassed many Iranians, and 40 Iraqi villages."
You're awfully loose with the truth.
Odd that even the so-called War Resolution - which Bush violated anyway - says absolutely nothing about these matters. Isn't that the sacred Legal Document that pro-Bush, pro-war partisans have been flogging as The Ultimate Source of Legality for Bush's ill-considered adventuring?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Is B. Hussein O. the biggest threat to our country ... - 8/15/2008 9:17:15 AM
|
|
|
SwedishCovenant
Posts: 606
Joined: 8/8/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: leonfigg3
If you read Section 2, subsection 6 you may very well find the "lanugage" that supports my concern, and the concern of many people about this bill.
It requirs only a majority of the employees to petition for a union for that petition to be considered valid.
How is that majority arrived at?
Say I have 7 people working for me. Four of those seven meet together and decide they need a union. They get the cards, and file a petition. I not only soon find myself having to deal with a union I had no knowledge about, but so are my three other employees who had no knowledge about, and absolutely no voice in the matter, who may also have to pay the price because I can no longer afford to have them.
Frankly, I don't see your argument.
In your example, if your FOUR employees have already PUBLICLY *voted* for a union, a secret ballot is an exercise in foregone conclusions. AT LEAST the same four would vote 'yes', IF NOT ALL SEVEN - and simply confirm the PUBLIC *vote* already taken.
As I have been pointing out all along on this issue - trying to somehoe paint Obama's (and a majority of the rest of Congress, I might add)support for this bill as 'anti-democracy' is a subverted support error of rationale - the described phenomenum simply does not exist.
|
|
| | |
Forum Tools
Printable Version
