(In case this affects anyones view point of this post, i lean EXTREMELY conservative).
First of all, democrats do not support the war in Iraq.
Why is this bad? Well, if you notice now terrorist attacks are not happening now in America (exception to 9/11). This is because of the troops in Iraq. They are keeping the terrorists there under control.
Now, a republican president puts racial profiling in airports and puts up huge homeland security operations and plans. This really does well for security.
I would like to make an example.
Bill Clinton is the reason for 9/11. This is because he eliminated racial profiling in airports. Because of this, when the terrorists behind 9/11 arrived, they arrived with no luggage, they arrived RIGHT before the plane took off, AND they payed with cash. Those are three very obvious reasons to do a security check on someone. BUT, because they were Arabic, they were not allowed to be investigated legally because Bill Clinton had eliminated racial profiling. And he was a Democrat, wasn't he.
So, the terrorists are also holding off on attacks on purpose. They do this because then the people realize that there is not a threat when there is. Then they vote for the peace high democrat. He then removes the troops from terrorist infested areas. This gives the terrorists free reign. Then the attacks begin. it is as simple as that people.
Tell me, what do you think on this sibject. Please give me feedback.
- 18 Replies
Whoa, hold up. Bill clinton rather hated the army.
Clinton does too, I dun like her.
But, as a democrat, we believe in negotiations over peace. And BEFORE 9/11, we had no Terror attacks, with Daddy bush we had none, with the guys before him we had none. Maybe a few conflicts. Now, Bill killed the army, I didn't like it, either. The racial profiling was moronic, too. But, he's done great things, that doesn't just define a democrat.
Also, at a point in time when our annual defence budget could hit 1.2 Trill annual and above, and a time when were spending so much on a draggy war that should have started better is bad. So I don't see why this republican candidate speaks of spending less with a war running and a defence budget that rises while troops decline. Its pathetic.
Now, I'm sure that after these draggy years that somethings possible by the Iraqi's. The Terror free reign is already dying.
Attacks will not begin, were slowly fixing the whole how to enter the country problem. Expeccially with the bombardment of illegals.
I'm strongly, STRONGLY conservative. At least on most issues. My personal opinion is that a liberal president would want to put all the strain on the government and, ideally, make it so that people don't have to do ANYTHING. BS. People should have to work to survive. The government should interfere as little as reasonably possible. Welfare sucks - that's one system we need to do away with completely - start from scratch and build something else to help people in need - and HELP them by have someone go out and talk to them and help them in finding a job, not just by giving them money. Sure, we'd have to pay the counselors, but at least people wouldn't be mooching off the system anymore. And implement the same sort of thing for medicare - yes, if the people really need help, then by all means, the government could provide assistance. But don't just hand out free health care to everyone. That's just wrong. If we reduce government, we reduce taxes, and thusly increase wealth.
I'm 50-50 moderate (quite literally, and I've taken several political-alignment tests) so we'll see how it goes.
In theory, any political system would work, whether conservative or liberal. However, because we are human, something will always mess it up. The main problem, as a liberal would see it, with a conservative president is that with a truly laissez-faire system the Invisible Hand doesn't work; the individual's needs rarely coincide with the needs of society.
Concerning welfare, however, I think all Americans who have never been on it dislike it. As a friend of mine says frequently, welfare should be harder to get than a building permit. But there are snags here too--namely, dependent children. If a parent can't (or won't) work, that child can do nothing about it. Sure, you can call upon the foster care system, but that system can be abused too.
I guess my argument is that yes, there will be problems. No, we can't eliminate them. No, there is not one single solution to all problems. What we need is someone who is willing to consider EVERY option--even the ones he or she doesn't particularly like--to see what's best for the country as a whole. If it's hands off, so be it. If it's involved, so be it.
Im a dem and about the war thing...Bush is causing it.Im not kidding.He said there was WMDs there(There wasnt)Why?Cuz he gets PAID.All he cares about is MONEY.
Hes dumping chemicals in the air to
'test the ozone' but its causing global warming.and hes a republican.my opinion is that a Dem. SHOULD be pres.but thats just me.
By your first post you're saying that 9/11 was caused by terrorists? WE have no proof of that. Maybe if we had proof that they planted the 10 pipe bombs in the building 3 hours before. There had been beliefs that the Fed actually planted those bombs in preperation for this. Ridiculous? Maybe. Possible? Maybe. And true, B. Clinton did racial profiling in airports but that was also because of immigrants trying to get across the border. I bet that rate would be double at least if he didn't do that.
Having a democratic president right now isn't good. It isn't horrible either. Like the anarchist thread argument, George W. Bush isn't the best choice. Not like I'm saying Kerry would be better, but he just isn't the greatest president of all time. Now if we got McCain who just wants to start more wars and conflict (and who is old enough to die in office), that would be bad. Even though he is now the only Republican with a chance. Hillary would be as bad, or worse, as Bush. I am not supporting Obama, but he is basically the only good canidate right now if there is any.
To respond to the first post. You made a whole lot of assertions about things, not based on any sort of evidence. How do you know all terrorism comes from Iraq? Many of the 9/11 terrorists were from Saudi Arabia. We aren't there, but no attacks; Why? There were terrorist attacks in the London subway, coming from locally bred Muslim terrorists; how come? I would suggest it is because of a larger, poorer muslim community in England (which is more susceptible to fundamentalism), and all the war and death created in the Middle East by occupation. Our muslim community in the U.S. is small and relatively prosperous, which may explain the lack of homegrown terrorism.
You say that Republicans will put up racial profiling and homeland security; did the democratic candidates say they would take away profiling and tear down homeland security? I doubt that.
And terrorist attacks have occurred throughout the 20th century, during many presidencies. I doubt that electing a republican will keep terrorism from flourishing, and neither will electing a democrat.
You all need to realize that war is a common thing. We have not gone more than, I'm guessing, 10 years without getting involved with another war.
Anyways I am going to keep this one short and simple... I do not suport any one who is running for president this year.
Racial profiling is not a conservative idea...it's common sense. Of which, both parties are running on empty. Conservatism should be about small government, strong military, and individual empowerment...
Bush gave us back a strong military, but ballooned the government and empowered corporations.
McCain is the same as Bush,(in the pocket of special interests)and so is Hillary. Obama hasn't been around long enough to be completely bought out, but he will be just the same.
My point is...politics are evil, and we're all screwed no matter who gets the nod in November.
Noname, 20 is a more accurate figure. What you people don't realize about the war in Iraq is that we DID have evidence from the CIA that they had WMDs, and we DO have evidence that suggests they HAD WMDs but moved them across the border before the US came in. Assume you are the president. You've just recieved word from one of the most reliable sources that a country is aiding some of your greatest enemies by providing them with so-called weapons of mass destruction. What would you do in that situation? Would you stand idly by and watch as they continue to harbor Al Quida fugitives, or would you go in and do something about it? Would you have the guts to do something to protect our freedom?
Yes, Megamickel and No name.
That is so right.
I mean, we had solid evidence that one of the world's biggest terrorist leaders, linked with Al Quida, had weapans of mass destruction. You can just ignore that and let your people get blow to bits.
Correction *you can NOT*
I thought it was well established that the threat of WMDs was fabricated. And once they found none, well then why not bring the focus back to the terrorists in AFGHANISTAN? That's where Al Qaeda was supposed to be at that time, and where Bin Laden was said to be cloistered.
you guys are so hung on terrorists that you sound like your against the whole world. terrorists are not a coolition or a group of people, the word terrorism has ovr 100 meanings. your government is terrorising you american people to be afraid of things that do not exist
I don't know if that comment really aids in the discussion. Whether or not you call them terrorists, there are people who at one time had the means and the intentions to hurt innocent people in the U.S. and Europe (and the Middle East for that matter). They may or may not have the means, but they certainly have the same intentions (I can't imagine why that would have changed given world events).
Truth to that, the CIA is alot worse than terrorists. They've proven it, along with blowing up a fat and large supply of oil in the 70's. They have more innocent lives and prisoners than any other organization.
Anyway, To be a terrorist is to use the act of force without a majority of your countries help, and then to use this force for a political common dream goal.
Terrorists will NOT be harbored in Iraq. After the devestation to the country, I hope their president will allow the capture of terrorists. If not, we go slap him in the face, not the poor people. Innocent lives die everyday, for what? To kill one terrorist in a home or one poor man that was unfortunate to be outside when troops started fire?. If Iraq cannot establish itself, then there is no way for Iraq to receive such power. Also, Muslim communities in England are treated poorly, due to the fact of the extra harbor of whites in comparison to blacks. [I've felt it too, I'd get along fine with an african american that isn't gangster or an Asian raced person than someone thats white]. Not tah say I haven't had a white friend, just saying I get along better.
And terrorists doesn't even work, as Garifu said it, were partying in Iraq while troop expectations are huge in the taliban. And where are they? [Guesses, anyone? Afghanistan..]
Dunno, It seems like were fighting a lost cause, it seems like were fighting a civil war for a country who can take care of it itself. It seems as though were spending cash on defence that doesnt' exist.
I would vote for a democrat for that, and also I know they will cut the defence budget after stopping the war. Clinton will kill the army, Barack Obama won't. ^^ He'll cut it down to troop expectations.
Obviously I can't vote yet. But its the support that counts. XD
Thread is locked!