And the Next Vice President is going to be....

[1stdeadeye]

Originally posted by Albinonewt
Facts:

who do you think will take the primary? I still think it will be Dean. His lead is too commanding too late in the game for Clark to pull anything but a come from behind miracle win, and I just don't see that happening. Clark would have to be brilliant and Dean would have to cave and I think both of those happening is slim.

I think Dean will take it. He is just pulling away from the rest. His VP choice will be interesting now though. Clark just knocked himself out of the running for it, so who is left? It will most likely have to be a southerner to offset Dean's New England roots. Maybe Edwards out of Carolina?

[FactsOfLife]

Originally posted by Albinonewt
Facts:

who do you think will take the primary? I still think it will be Dean. His lead is too commanding too late in the game for Clark to pull anything but a come from behind miracle win, and I just don't see that happening. Clark would have to be brilliant and Dean would have to cave and I think both of those happening is slim.

Dean by a long ways.

How bad must Kerry be feeling to be BEHIND Al Sharpton in the polls???

[Albinonewt]

Originally posted by 1stdeadeye
Maybe Edwards out of Carolina?

That's very possible. He's already decided not to run for the Senate again.

Personally, I think that Edwards is only running as a way to raise his profile and go back into a lucrative law practice.

[1stdeadeye]

Originally posted by Albinonewt


That's very possible. He's already decided not to run for the Senate again.

Personally, I think that Edwards is only running as a way to raise his profile and go back into a lucrative law practice.

Wait it is all about the money?

Where is CB? I guess Edwards is a Republican and not a Democrat after all!

[Rooster]

Watching the democrats flop around like a dying fish tossed up on the shore is hilarious to me. A military man that the military hates, a jew who is too conservative, party mascots who are going to have trouble winning their old jobs back after they get rolled in the primaries, and a liberal who is stupid enough to actually think he has a snowballs chance of winning anything in the general election.

To be able to view the destruction of the American liberal is absolutely thrilling to me. It can't happen quick enough.

[Collegeboy]

Please read up on the crisis in the Balkans before responding to his orders. His orders would have caused a huge diplomatic problem, but since those diplomats don't do anything for us, they have nothing else to do but work on it. Read up on the problems up to and after Dayton, and what the Russians were doing (Can you say supporting the Serbs.)

Maybe you should ask, why did the great humanitarian republicans go against peace actions in the former Yugoslavia, I mean it was only the greatest ethnic cleansing since WWII, nothing important. I mean what is in Bosnia and Kosovo for the republicans to have?

There was nothing wrong with what Clark said, he did not stick his foot in his mouth, he just stated what seems to be a fact. Of course Dean will deny it, it will hurt him if he said it is true.

If Bush is elected to another 4 year term, I dread the world that we will live in. "Protection" will turn into warfare with most of the war. We will be forced into a economic battle with the EU, with either Russia or China winning (for they are not in either systems). Morality, please don't make me laugh, Bush is the least moralist president in a long time. How can he be moralist he is the only one with a criminal record, openly used drugs, etc..... I love the false since of morality people have.

[cphilip]

...well maybe it wasn't his foot?

Hmmm... even hard line anti Bushers are admitting the strategy has started to ripple into a positive effect. Libya rolling over is a prime example. No discounting results! Even they admitting they were wrong. Try as you might doing nothing wasn't working. So doing something seems to be. Time will tell. I personaly am not for sitting around hopeing they will leave us alone. I just don't think it was working. And I think doing something is. But will you when it becomes evident that is is... admit it?

[Albinonewt]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Collegeboy
Please read up on the crisis in the Balkans before responding to his orders. His orders would have caused a huge diplomatic problem, but since those diplomats don't do anything for us, they have nothing else to do but work on it. Read up on the problems up to and after Dayton, and what the Russians were doing (Can you say supporting the Serbs.)

We don't for certain know what it would have caused, but it had serious potential to be a real problem. A problem that frankly nobody needed and had virtually no upswing.

And we know they were supporting the Serbs. Not for nothing, but the Russians are ALWAYS supporting someone they shouldn't. They seem to have that knack.

Maybe you should ask, why did the great humanitarian republicans go against peace actions in the former Yugoslavia, I mean it was only the greatest ethnic cleansing since WWII, nothing important. I mean what is in Bosnia and Kosovo for the republicans to have?

Because there was zero national security issues at stake. None, zero, zip. It was the right thing to do, BUT it didn't have an national security implications that we were aware of and that is usually the point that we need to advocate war.

There was nothing wrong with what Clark said, he did not stick his foot in his mouth, he just stated what seems to be a fact. Of course Dean will deny it, it will hurt him if he said it is true.

It was a stupid gaffe. He had to know that Dean would deny it and then they would have "he said she said" moment that makes him (and Dean to some extent) look supid. And who says it's a fact? One guy says no and the other says yes. And frankly, both have a pretty major credibilty gap right now.

If Bush is elected to another 4 year term, I dread the world that we will live in. "Protection" will turn into warfare with most of the war.

Huh? warfare with most of the war? What's that mean?

We will be forced into a economic battle with the EU, with either Russia or China winning (for they are not in either systems).

No, we won't. We backed off the steel tarrifs (which we should have never done in the first place). As for Russia and China winning a trade war! HAH! Talk about not knowing a thing about economics.

Morality, please don't make me laugh, Bush is the least moralist president in a long time. How can he be moralist he is the only one with a criminal record, openly used drugs, etc..... I love the false since of morality people have.

While I'm not thrilled about every aspect of Bush's past that doesn't make him an immoral person. He sure did somethings that I don't think was such a hot idea, but it was a while ago and he's been relativly honest about it. But, stop using that drug nonsense. I call you on it as being unproved every time you say it and you keep repeating it without even once listing a credible reference to it. So stuff it with that nonsense.

And how can anyone claim that Bush is less moral then Clinton (or Carter or even Bush I for that matter). Bush is a very moral and decent person. You may not agree with him, but that doesn't mean he's Satan, he's just a guy you disagree with.

[Collegeboy]

Originally posted by cphilip
...well maybe it wasn't his foot?

Hmmm... even hard line anti Bushers are admitting the strategy has started to ripple into a positive effect. Libya rolling over is a prime example. No discounting results! Even they admitting they were wrong. Try as you might doing nothing wasn't working. So doing something seems to be. Time will tell. I personaly am not for sitting around hopeing they will leave us alone. I just don't think it was working. And I think doing something is. But will you when it becomes evident that is is... admit it?

Attacking Iraq has nothing for our security. There are many ways I would suppose (for I do not feel like coming up with my own right now) of which you could have handled this situation better. Illegally attacking a foreign country is not how you do it.

Gandhi himself said that you must have to first be the one you wish others to follow. What would have happened if the US was to open its boarders to inspectors. I mean we have nothing to hide, or do we. I wonder what is in Anniston.

I will say one thing, Bush was smart when he declared the war was over with the entry into Baghdad. For he as now separated it up into two parts. "war" and rebuilding. So when he has to pull the troops out (say in 10 months or so) he can say we won the war, and it is time the Iraqis do their fair share. I do believe he didn't even think he could have handled Iraq like he claimed. Their is no way a western person with a totally different culture, language, etc.. can do what Bush wants in a different country. It is just not going to happen.

We will just have to wait and see. .

[Collegeboy]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Albinonewt

Originally posted by Collegeboy
Please read up on the crisis in the Balkans before responding to his orders. His orders would have caused a huge diplomatic problem, but since those diplomats don't do anything for us, they have nothing else to do but work on it. Read up on the problems up to and after Dayton, and what the Russians were doing (Can you say supporting the Serbs.)

We don't for certain know what it would have caused, but it had serious potential to be a real problem. A problem that frankly nobody needed and had virtually no upswing.

And we know they were supporting the Serbs. Not for nothing, but the Russians are ALWAYS supporting someone they shouldn't. They seem to have that knack.

Maybe you should ask, why did the great humanitarian republicans go against peace actions in the former Yugoslavia, I mean it was only the greatest ethnic cleansing since WWII, nothing important. I mean what is in Bosnia and Kosovo for the republicans to have?

Because there was zero national security issues at stake. None, zero, zip. It was the right thing to do, BUT it didn't have an national security implications that we were aware of and that is usually the point that we need to advocate war.

There was nothing wrong with what Clark said, he did not stick his foot in his mouth, he just stated what seems to be a fact. Of course Dean will deny it, it will hurt him if he said it is true.

It was a stupid gaffe. He had to know that Dean would deny it and then they would have "he said she said" moment that makes him (and Dean to some extent) look supid. And who says it's a fact? One guy says no and the other says yes. And frankly, both have a pretty major credibilty gap right now.

If Bush is elected to another 4 year term, I dread the world that we will live in. "Protection" will turn into warfare with most of the war.

Huh? warfare with most of the war? What's that mean?

We will be forced into a economic battle with the EU, with either Russia or China winning (for they are not in either systems).

No, we won't. We backed off the steel tarrifs (which we should have never done in the first place). As for Russia and China winning a trade war! HAH! Talk about not knowing a thing about economics.

Morality, please don't make me laugh, Bush is the least moralist president in a long time. How can he be moralist he is the only one with a criminal record, openly used drugs, etc..... I love the false since of morality people have.

While I'm not thrilled about every aspect of Bush's past that doesn't make him an immoral person. He sure did somethings that I don't think was such a hot idea, but it was a while ago and he's been relativly honest about it. But, stop using that drug nonsense. I call you on it as being unproved every time you say it and you keep repeating it without even once listing a credible reference to it. So stuff it with that nonsense.

And how can anyone claim that Bush is less moral then Clinton (or Carter or even Bush I for that matter). Bush is a very moral and decent person. You may not agree with him, but that doesn't mean he's Satan, he's just a guy you disagree with.

So why did we go into Iraq, there was no NS reasons. According to your own mouth, it wasn't mainly for the WOMD idea but humanitarian reasons. So why Iraq, and not the former Yugoslavia.

War is suppose to be world.

It will happen, wait and see.

Bush is anything but moral. So what Clinton lied about having sex, that is a far cry from lying about supporting terrorist that lead to 911, or how about lying about WOMD to invade a foreign country illegally. Great morals.

What am i getting at. YOU CAN NOT USE MORALS TO ELECT A PERSON.

[cphilip]

Originally posted by Collegeboy
Attacking Iraq has nothing for our security.

After being wrong on that fact (and its preceeding facts that lead up to the action) there then there is not much more to anything you have to say on the subject I am afraid. Thats the central crux of the whole thing. I think your wrong on your premise so therefore you then are wrong on the rest of your supporting arguments. Most of which consist of twisting a spin on what's going on in the world. And resulting world events are continuing to prove you are wrong. The thing that is snowballing is that dictatorships are now becoming afraid to harbor terrroists and afraid to develop weapons of mass destruction. They are afraid they can lose it all like Saddam did. And thats now not in thier best interest. Funny thing is now what is in the best interest of the people they dictate to is also in the best interest of the leadership for once. And that indeed is in the security interest of the United States! And this is all coming about because they now realize we mean business. Facts... they are presenting themselves in real world events. Wait and watch.

[cphilip]

Originally posted by Collegeboy
.. lying about supporting terrorist that lead to 911, or how about lying about WOMD to invade a foreign country illegally. Great morals.

All those things will be proven true. Some extent of them have all ready been proven. But not as MUCH as you want. So you belittle the fact that its not as Gross as you think it should have been. So far! Oh ye of little faith. When they are you still will not believe it. But it's all true. Patently so. And so far proven to be so.

[FactsOfLife]

Originally posted by Collegeboy


So why did we go into Iraq, there was no NS reasons.

Clueless and dangerous.

Here's a few clues for you Boy, I doubt you'll figure out what president was in charge when this all happened.

President calls a strike on a fatory in the Sudan that is suspected of generating nerve gas.

Factory is being run by Hussein's chemical scientists.

Factory is being funded by tah-dah.... Al Qaeda and Bin Laden.

But there's no connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda according to the Bush hating morons on the left.

Is this too much info for you Boy? Care to guess who the President at the time was? HMMMM?

I doubt you will, you have yet to answer a single direct question put to you with anything other than nonsense.

And as for your comparison of morals between President Bush and Clinton, all I have to ask is who I'd trust with my daughter.

Pretty easy answer kid. Too bad your abject hate for Bush makes you look stupid as well.

[Collegeboy]

Originally posted by cphilip


After being wrong on that fact (and its preceeding facts that lead up to the action) there then there is not much more to anything you have to say on the subject I am afraid. Thats the central crux of the whole thing. I think your wrong on your premise so therefore you then are wrong on the rest of your supporting arguments. Most of which consist of twisting a spin on what's going on in the world. And resulting world events are continuing to prove you are wrong. The thing that is snowballing is that dictatorships are now becoming afraid to harbor terrroists and afraid to develop weapons of mass destruction. They are afraid they can lose it all like Saddam did. And thats now not in thier best interest. Funny thing is now what is in the best interest of the people they dictate to is also in the best interest of the leadership for once. And that indeed is in the security interest of the United States! And this is all coming about because they now realize we mean business. Facts... they are presenting themselves in real world events. Wait and watch.

I didn't spin anything. What I said is the truth. Like it or not, it will happen. Bush put forth something that not even he can control.

Iraq posed no threat to us, did not support terrorist (not including Palestinians for we can argue that day in and day out), had no weapons that could harm us. N. Korea poses a threat, but we will deal with them diplomatically and give into their demands.

The Steel Tariffs are illegal and should be done away with. But read Bush's words, he really did not get rid of them.

[FactsOfLife]

Originally posted by Collegeboy
or how about lying about WOMD to invade a foreign country illegally.

Lying about WOMD? Which is it? Didn't he have the nerve gas that killed as you say the Kurdish terrorists before we went in there?

Do you really think that he just decided to get rid of all the KNOWN stuff for humanitarian reasons? Or maybe because the UN told him to?

I can't belive even you could be that stupid. But I am willing to try.

Your asserion that the invasion of Iraq was illegal is pure nonsense.

Illegal according to whom? Some anti American group of internationalists? Please spare me your world court crap. We answer to no kangaroo court no matter how badly you may want us to.

So far your crystal ball is looking pretty crappy Boy. Better take it back to Wal-Mart and see if you can get your nickel back.