WARNING POLITICS - questions for/about republicans

[OnePimpTiger]

Clinton came closer than Bush at this but the Republicans said he was only taking attention away from Monica not trying to really kill bin Laden.

But he didn't and he should have...what does it matter what the Reps said? And it's not that he "came closer"...he had the opportunity and chose not to. Bush never had a chance to kill the mastermind behind the whole 9/11 plot, so how can he possibly be more to blame?

"but you haven't mentioned anything showing the Dems are doing any better"

They haven't had any power since Clinton left office, it has been all republican run for the last 7 years. That's why there are no investigations into any wrong doing and will not be. Yes the last year the Dems have had more people in senate but you can not get anything done with a 1 person majority and a veto by the president. They passed a law banning torture but the president when signing it used his signing statement giving him the power to torture.

Again, the torture part I care nothing about...I'm more concerned about national security. They may not have had enough power to pass anything, but do you have any examples where they've at least tried to do any better? Even if they haven't gotten it passed, what have they proposed that would make the country safer? What have they done that makes you believe they'll make the country any safer than the Reps? Is a law banning torture supposed to keep the US safe?

If you watch Iraq for sale you will see that the the mercinaries are better armed then the troops and have armored vehicles and the newes bulletproof vests available all at the expense of the taxpayers. What I wonder is why can they not buy this stuff for the soldiers and raise their pay?

That just shows how government is much more inefficient than private sector...and we want them to run our healthcare?

If you seriously think we are more prepared today than we were on sept. 11 just look at the response to Katrina. The homes are still not torn down and people are still living in dangerous trailors or on the street.

First of all, comparing the Iraq war and/or national security to Katrina is like comparing apples to electronic floor buffers. Secondly, when a person decides to live in an area where hurricanes and flooding are a regular occurrence, why do they feel the government should bail them out when the inevitable happens? If I put myself or my possessions in harm's way, then it is my responsibility if something happens to me or them, not someone else's. It's called personal responsibility and it's a rarity today. That sentiment aside, why does the state and local governments never get any flack for not keeping the levies up to standard or having an effective evacuation process in place? That's their responsibility, not the federal government. FEMA was just trying to clean up the mess made by other people, granted inefficiently and ineffectively...which again begs the question: Why do we want government running more things when they do so badly at the things already in their charge?

[11chaos]

Torture, ah yes torture. Guess what if I can save one of my guys by working over a scum of the earth I will do it.

**disclaimer**
Of course this is all hypithetical speaking because I would never do that, I was doing my impression of butt man by Jim Carey

[Yanksfan396]

Editorial articles in The Guardian are generally to the left of the political spectrum. This is reflected in the paper's readership: a MORI poll taken between April and June 2000 showed that 80% of Guardian readers were Labour Party voters [1]; according to another MORI poll taken in 2004, 44% of Guardian readers were Labour voters and 37% Liberal Democrat voters.[2]

Founded by textile traders and merchants, the Guardian had a reputation as ‘an organ of the middle class’ [3], or in the words of C.P. Scott’s son Ted ‘a paper that will remain bourgeois to the last’ [4]. "I write for the Guardian," said Sir Max Hastings in 2005,[5] "because it is read by the new establishment", reflecting the paper's growing influence.

Three of the Guardian's four leader writers joined the Social Democratic Party on its foundation in 1981, but the paper was enthusiastic in its support for Tony Blair in his bid to lead the Labour Party, [6] and to become Prime Minister [7].

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Guardian

Dude,
you quotes are coming from a paper/site that has curve. If I wanted to find one to support a different point of view it wouldn't be hard.

The great thing about wikipedia is ANYONE can go in and alter definitions. College papers are immediately failed if they have wikipedia as a source.

[Yanksfan396]

...the president before Clinton had the chance to kill Hussein, but he didn't--now look what happened.

[haybierman]

College papers are immediately failed if they have wikipedia as a source.

Yes but it can be copied, pasted, and paraphrased!

[Yanksfan396]

Yes but it can be copied, pasted, and paraphrased!

God, I miss highschool term papers...

[Yanksfan396]

I used to actually invent sources to back up my outlandish claims, heh.

[haybierman]

I used to actually invent sources to back up my outlandish claims, heh.

And to think, you could have written for the NY Times.

[TheTGB]

And to think, you could have written for the NY Times.

Hahaha.

But streicher...give someone a few facts about an issue and they can write a book on how true it is. Look at Global Warming.