Disappointed in Bush

[ClydeR]

I am terribly, depressingly, perhaps irredeemably disappointed in President Bush for saying this.


Sarah Palin's as-yet-undeclared bid for the presidency has just received a stinging blow from none other than George W Bush.

Bush has told friends that Palin, the darling of the Tea Party and a rising Republican star, is not qualified to be President, according to reports.

The former President has also attacked John McCain as being 'less of a man' for putting Palin on the GOP ticket in 2008.

More... (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1327103/George-Bush-blasts-Sarah-Palin-unqualified-President.html)


In next week's interview Bush is also to tell Oprah: 'I'm through with politics'.

Instead he is playing golf, making lucrative speeches - up to $100,000 a speech - and eating out with friends.

He has no regrets, friends said.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

Why? He isn't allowed to have an opinion?

I agree with the Palin comment, if true, but I don't think being a man has anything to do with why Palin was on the ticket. It was just a poor choice, IMO.

[Firestorm Killa]

Why? He isn't allowed to have an opinion?

I agree with the Palin comment, if true, but I don't think being a man has anything to do with why Palin was on the ticket. It was just a poor choice, IMO.

She definately wouldn't be my first choice. But she is qualified, even more so then Obama who maybe had a few years of Political experience before he became president?

[Warriorbird]

She definately wouldn't be my first choice. But she is qualified, even more so then Obama who maybe had a few years of Political experience before he became president?

Ha ha ha.

[Firestorm Killa]

Ha ha ha.

Backing Palin huh? Lmao!

[NocturnalRob]

But she is qualified, even more so then Obama who maybe had a few years of Political experience before he became president?
Please explain how this is even remotely true.

[Androidpk]

One of the smartest comments ever made by Bush.

[Firestorm Killa]

Please explain how this is even remotely true.

Well Obama had what? like 1 term as a Senator? and before that he was just a lawyer?

[Back]

Yeah. How could he? After all, manipulating the public into a war of aggression on a sovereign nation who never attacked us resulting in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocents was nothing compared to this.

[Firestorm Killa]

Yeah. How could he? After all, manipulating the public into a war of aggression on a sovereign nation who never attacked us resulting in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocents was nothing compared to this.

Which nation are you talking about? Cause Saddam Hussein and his cronies were hardly innocent especially with the crimes against humanity. Or the Taliban? Which raped and killed women and children?

[Firestorm Killa]

"Crimes against humanity" or not, there was the bait and switch against the country over Bin Laden.

I also don't see us invading Nigeria, North Korea, or Rwanda.

Personally I think at the time we needed to do it. But over there for years? I think we should pull the troops back state side and have them patrol the mexican border. That would help with the debt by cutting the cost of a constant war, and our border would be much more secured.

[g++]

Why? He isn't allowed to have an opinion?

I agree with the Palin comment, if true, but I don't think being a man has anything to do with why Palin was on the ticket. It was just a poor choice, IMO.


I would imagine he meant for being too much of a pussy to stand up to the GOP campaigning machine not because Palin was a women but because shes so obviously a token candidate for the extreme right. Not that Im defending George Bush's presidency but I think his opinion on this issue is echoed by a lot of people myself included. When I found out Palin was going to be running vice I pretty much decided on the spot not to vote for McCain.

[NocturnalRob]

Well Obama had what? like 1 term as a Senator? and before that he was just a lawyer?
And Palin was...mayor of a 6,000 person "city," and governor of Alaska for 2.5 years. So once again, you're full of shit.

[Cephalopod]

Palin was also a sports reporter, though.

[Firestorm Killa]

And Palin was...mayor of a 6,000 person "city," and governor of Alaska for 2.5 years. So once again, you're full of shit.

How am I full of shit? He doesn't even know the damn constitution.

[NocturnalRob]

How am I full of shit? He doesn't even know the damn constitution.
Palin can't even spell "constitution."

[Firestorm Killa]

Palin can't even spell "constitution."

I don't even care about Palin, so I'm not defending her. LMAO

[Firestorm Killa]

Palin can't even spell "constitution."

She is hotter then Obama tho, unless your into dudes.

[NocturnalRob]

She is hotter then Obama tho, unless your into dudes.
I couldn't give a shit if our President has a hunchback as long as he/she is qualified. Palin is less qualified than Obama. That is a simple fact that only the most right-winged lunatic would disagree with.

[diethx]

Well we all know that hotness is the most important characteristic our leaders can have.

[Cephalopod]

How am I full of shit? He doesn't even know the damn constitution.

I somehow think Obama likely has a better grasp of the constitution than you do...

[Firestorm Killa]

I somehow think Obama likely has a better grasp of the constitution than you do...

Yeah? Even I being an Atheist wouldn't Omit Creator, especially if I had a teleprompter following me everywhere.

[Firestorm Killa]

Well we all know that hotness is the most important characteristic our leaders can have.

Has to be why Pelosi is still in Congress. Because she is a milf.

[g++]

Well we all know that hotness is the most important characteristic our leaders can have.


Its pretty much the only explanation for why I know Christine O'Donnell's name.

[Cephalopod]

Yeah? Even I being an Atheist wouldn't Omit Creator, especially if I had a teleprompter following me everywhere.

I wasn't aware the Declaration of Independence, which he was quoting, was part of the Constitution. Learn something new every day!

[Cephalopod]

Has to be why Pelosi is still in Congress. Because she is a milf.

Pelosi is SO not a milf, by anyone's standards. The thought makes me vomit.

[Atlanteax]

I would imagine he meant for being too much of a pussy to stand up to the GOP campaigning machine not because Palin was a women but because shes so obviously a token candidate for the extreme right. Not that Im defending George Bush's presidency but I think his opinion on this issue is echoed by a lot of people myself included. When I found out Palin was going to be running vice I pretty much decided on the spot not to vote for McCain.

This ... McCain should had picked a VP that he could have confidence in.

If anyone recalls seeing Palin's speech at the Republican Convention, McCain was nervous before and after her speech.

Unfortunately, not saying "no" to Palin as his VP costed him the election.

[Keller]

Which nation are you talking about? Cause Saddam Hussein and his cronies were hardly innocent especially with the crimes against humanity. Or the Taliban? Which raped and killed women and children?

So if we have evidence a soverign nation is involved in the sexually assaulting children, is that justification for war?

[diethx]

Pelosi is SO not a milf, by anyone's standards. The thought makes me vomit.

He was the only kid in kindergarten (anywhere, ever) that had a boner for Cruella deVil.

[Rinualdo]

Unfortunately, not saying "no" to Palin as his VP costed him the election.

Being a Republican following Bush cost him the election.

[Firestorm Killa]

He was the only kid in kindergarten (anywhere, ever) that had a boner for Cruella deVil.

Pelosi is a paper bag milf. Cruella deVil was hot because she was a total sadistic bitch <DROOL>

[Firestorm Killa]

Being a Republican following Bush cost him the election.

Being a Democrat then flip flopping to the Republican party is what cost him.

[Keller]

How am I full of shit? He doesn't even know the damn constitution.

Dear Conservative Bot Number Two,

Didn't he teach constitutional law at Chicago for nearly a decade?

Sincerely,
Guy who thinks you are either trolling or autistic, and has not ruled out either.

[g++]

Theres so many trolls and people posting on alts in this folder now a days its hardly worth posting honestly. You need to read 8 pages of horse shit to get a post by a real user.

[pabstblueribbon]

Okay.. Firestorm Killa is like a Clyder, right...?

God I hope so..

[CrystalTears]

Palin can't even spell "constitution."
Winnar!

[Rinualdo]

Okay.. Firestorm Killa is like a Clyder, right...?

God I hope so..

Daragon; et, al.

[diethx]

Okay.. Firestorm Killa is like a Clyder, right...?

God I hope so..

Seems like he's trying to be... but not quite succeeding.

[Cephalopod]

I'm fairly certain Rocktar tied ClydeR up in his hypno-lacto-dungeon for a few weeks, and Firestorm Killa / Daragon was the offspring.

[Keller]

I'm fairly certain Rocktar tied ClydeR up in his hypno-lacto-dungeon for a few weeks, and Firestorm Killa / Daragon was the offspring.

Sounds plausible, except that ClydeR hasn't pretended to be a female and Rocktar only gor-cybers with purported females.

[Firestorm Killa]

Dear Conservative Bot Number Two,

Didn't he teach constitutional law at Chicago for nearly a decade?

Sincerely,
Guy who thinks you are either trolling or autistic, and has not ruled out either.

And didn't he also Omit the word creator from his speeches on the constitution several times?

[Cephalopod]

Sounds plausible, except that ClydeR hasn't pretended to be a female and Rocktar only gor-cybers with purported females.

In the world of hypno-lactation-BDSM, I'm not sure any particular person has to be the female, and things like Firestorm Killa aren't necessarily incubated in a womb.

[Cephalopod]

And didn't he also Omit the word creator from his speeches on the constitution several times?


I wasn't aware the Declaration of Independence, which he was quoting, was part of the Constitution. Learn something new every day!

.

[Firestorm Killa]

In the world of hypno-lactation-BDSM, I'm not sure any particular person has to be the female, and things like Firestorm Killa aren't necessarily incubated in a womb.

Happens every time someone makes a point liberals don't like and can't defend, they turn to bashing and defamation. Tsk tsk. maybe you guys should have learned from your leaders that were voted out and the ones which will get the pink slips in 2012.

[Rinualdo]

Happens every time someone makes a point liberals don't like and can't defend, they turn to bashing and defamation.

Look, I'm busy right now so just imagine that I searched through all your posts (on all your accounts) and quoted the very large number of statements you've made that show the hypocrisy with the above statement.

And all the chuckles we all get from pointing these things out, over and over again.

m'kay?

[diethx]

He defended his point twice now. You're choosing to ignore it.

[Firestorm Killa]

Look, I'm busy right now so just imagine that I searched through all your posts (on all your accounts) and quoted the very large number of statements you've made that show hypocracy.

And all the chuckles we all get from pointing these things out, over and over again.

m'kay?

Ah, so what your saying is, you guys are stuck in the past? LMAO!

[Warriorbird]

Yeah. Stuck in the past. Knowing the difference between the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. What dumbasses.

[Latrinsorm]

Palin was also a sports reporter, though.I would take Palin over Tafoya, that's for sure. Obviously Suzy still reigns supreme, but Palin makes for a solid #2.

I read excerpts of the interview with President Bush. I thought it was frank and free of partisan bickering/whining, which is exactly what I expected. The story about then-Vice President Cheney getting huffing mad is also perfectly conceivable.

[Firestorm Killa]

Yeah. Stuck in the past. Knowing the difference between the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. What dumbasses.

So tell me Warriorbird then. If Obama is such a constitutional buff, then why does he avoid Jurisprudence, by having an american citizen on a kill or capture list, in which there is no proof he had a direct hand in any terrorist attacks?

[Warriorbird]

So tell me Warriorbird then. If Obama is such a constitutional buff, then why does he avoid Jurisprudence, by having an american citizen on a kill or capture list, in which there is no proof he had a direct hand in any terrorist attacks?

How exactly is the pursuit of a suspect somehow against existing jurisprudence? This isn't a David Icke website or anything.

[Firestorm Killa]

How exactly is the pursuit of a suspect somehow against existing jurisprudence? This isn't a David Icke website or anything.

The pursuit of isn't against, but the killing of without a trial.

[Gan]

I couldn't give a shit if our President has a hunchback as long as he/she is qualified. Palin is less qualified than Obama. That is a simple fact that only the most right-winged lunatic would disagree with.

I believe Firestorm killa would refudiate that.

[Firestorm Killa]

How exactly is the pursuit of a suspect somehow against existing jurisprudence? This isn't a David Icke website or anything.

What I am getting at is, doesn't the killing of an american citizen without a trial fly in the face of civil liberties?

[Stanley Burrell]

Ah, so what your saying is, you guys are stuck in the past? LMAO!

This is like ~(n+3) tangents away and I'm too tired to explain. And I hate stupid cat memes, but:

http://images.cheezburger.com/completestore/2009/7/13/128919852209765616.jpg

[Firestorm Killa]

I believe Firestorm killa would refudiate that.

As I said before I would not vote for her, but if its a choice of her or obama I would choose, none of the above.

[Warriorbird]

The pursuit of isn't against, but the killing of without a trial.

So armed and dangerous suspects are never killed? I see.

[Firestorm Killa]

So armed and dangerous suspects are never killed? I see.

Armed and dangerous yes. However they have no evidence he is armed and dangerous. So with no evidence?

[Warriorbird]

Who exactly are we talking about? Declared enemy combatants fall under different rules if you're suddenly feeling John Walker Lindh-loving.

[Rinualdo]

I'm pretty sure FK doesn't even know what his own point is.

[Suppressed Poet]

I wish we had Bush in office right now, or even Palin for that matter...

Before you crazy liberal acid-dropping hippies start bitching let me preface by saying that I think George W Bush was without doubt the dumbest president to ever have entered the white house. If Steve Forbes won the republican nomination back in 2000 the world would have been a better place. Anyways I digress...

As much as I disliked Bush's foreign policy (I still think it was necessary to enter Iraq but he should have been honest), the dreaded patriot act, and no child left behind bill...at least he wasn't bankrupting our nation. It really comes down to this:

http://blog.heritage.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/wapoobamabudget1.jpg

*This is an older graph and it's actually even worse*

And for what? Yeah we bailed out the big banks who really got the best deal in everything. Fuck Skank of America. Should have let it burn - let the regional banks rise up and lets be a nation of free trade and competition in the business world. His healthcare plan is absolutely an overly expensive piece of shit. All the economic stimulus plans had little to no impact on unemployment or the recession. And the worst of it is, for everyone old enough to read this, it's going to be your children that will have to pay for this damn mess.

Thank God the republicans took back the House and can put some checks in balances back in government and finally reduce the spending. Obama will be a sitting duck for his next two years which is exactly what he deserves.

[Warriorbird]

I wish we had Bush in office right now...

Before you crazy liberal acid-dropping hippies start bitching let me preface by saying that I think George W Bush was without doubt the dumbest president to ever have entered the white house. If Steve Forbes won the republican nomination back in 2000 the world would have been a better place. Anyways I digress...

As much as I disliked Bush's foreign policy (I still think it was necessary to enter Iraq but he should have been honest), the dreaded patriot act, and no child left behind bill...at least he wasn't bankrupting our nation. It really comes down to this:

http://blog.heritage.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/wapoobamabudget1.jpg

And for what? Yeah we bailed out the big banks who really got the best deal in everything. Fuck Skank of America. Should have let it burn - let the regional banks rise up and lets be a nation of free trade and competition in the business world. His healthcare plan is absolutely an overly expensive piece of shit. All the economic stimulus plans had little to no impact on unemployment or the recession. And the worst of it is, for everyone old enough to read this, it's going to be your children that will have to pay for this damn mess.

Thank God the republicans took back the House and can put some checks in balances back in government and finally reduce the spending. Obama will be a sitting duck for his next two years which is exactly what he deserves.

Somebody's got a 4th personality.

[Keller]

And didn't he also Omit the word creator from his speeches on the constitution several times?

Interestingly enough, the drafters of the Constitution also ommitted the word "creator" from the Constitution.

PS - I don't think you need to capitalize omit.

[Suppressed Poet]

I know its comming so I will say it first. Yes I am aware the bank bailouts began under the Bush administration. Obama ran with it and overdid it big time. I didn't agree with Bush's plan either. Nationalization is always a bad idea and kills the free market.

[Keller]

So tell me Warriorbird then.

Go on WB, tell him "then".


If Obama is such a constitutional buff, then why does he avoid Jurisprudence, by having an american citizen on a kill or capture list, in which there is no proof he had a direct hand in any terrorist attacks?

It's not your worst run-on, Rocktard, but it's still a run-on.

Why is jurisprudence capitalized but American is not? Show our country some respect.

And, most importantly, what the fuck are you talking about?

[Warriorbird]

I know its comming so I will say it first. Yes I am aware the bank bailouts began under the Bush administration. Obama ran with it and overdid it big time. I didn't agree with Bush's plan either. Nationalization is always a bad idea and kills the free market.

Here's the bit that's really mind-blowing, personality 4. Inappropriate corporate advantages destabilize the free market too and Republicans pull that shit all the time.

I'm also really curious about when in the past 31 years of my life Republicans have cut spending or the debt.

Republicans getting shredded by Reagan's Budget director for the past 30 years of actual action.

http://abcnews.go.com/ThisWeek/week-transcript-rand-paul-rep-mike-pence-david/story?id=12078824

EDIT:

Disappointed in Bush 11-08-2010 06:56 PM Go fuck a donkey you liberal ass-sucker.

Sorry I just crushed your world view. I really fear grey rep.

[NocturnalRob]

I don't know if anyone is watching "Decision Points- George W. Bush" on NBC, but it's pretty damn fascinating.

[Warriorbird]

I agree.

[Tgo01]

I'm also really curious about when in the past 31 years of my life Republicans have cut spending or the debt.

Hasn't spending and the debt gone up the past 30 years no matter who was in office?

[Paradii]

Who exactly are we talking about? Declared enemy combatants fall under different rules if you're suddenly feeling John Walker Lindh-loving.

I am assuming he is talking about Anwar al-Awlaki. A dual U.S.-Yemen citizen.


And despite FK's belief that there is no evidence that he is a killer. Yemen is currently trying him in absentia for plotting to kill foreigners and being a member of al-Qaeda.

[Warriorbird]

I am assuming he is talking about Anwar al-Awlaki. A dual U.S.-Yemen citizen.


And despite FK's belief that there is no evidence that he is a killer. Yemen is currently trying him in absentia for plotting to kill foreigners and being a member of al-Qaeda.

Yes. I'm still seeing a disconnect between that case and 'no evidence.' The Court's ruled that Americans can be declared enemy combatants a bit back under a President that the four multiple personalities voted for. Not that far from there to the kill list.

[radamanthys]

I'm disappointed in Bush, too!

I didn't get my weekly fix of Chuck!

<grumbles>

[Suppressed Poet]

I'm also really curious about when in the past 31 years of my life Republicans have cut spending or the debt.

http://abcnews.go.com/ThisWeek/week-transcript-rand-paul-rep-mike-pence-david/story?id=12078824

EDIT:

Disappointed in Bush 11-08-2010 06:56 PM Go fuck a donkey you liberal ass-sucker.

Sorry I just crushed your world view. I really fear grey rep.

First, if you read what I said and looked at the graph, you would realize that the first two years of Bush's presidency we had a surplus on our budget (before the 9/11 shot-storm).

Yes I did put that on your rep because you are a doushe bag that first gave me bad rep and said "you don't know what you're talking about." It is apparently obvious by your ignorance in politics that I know a bit more than you. Next time, come up with an appropriate rebutal instead of of posting private negative rep and being a total pussy saying I have a "4th personality" you mindless ABC brainwashed ass-pirate.

This is the politics forum. Like me, or anyone else for that matter, I am free to voice my own opinion and that is mine. I challenge anyone that is a suporter of Obama to name one thing he had contributed, in the historical sense, to aid our country. I will say this...I believe he has the right ideals but lacks both the experience and has the wrong politics to achieve his goals. Perhaps some other supporter of our current President besides the idiot who calls himself Warrior Bird may support his/her opinion based on logic and not cowardace. At least you would have my respect.

[Paradii]

First, if you read what I said and looked at the graph, you would realize that the first two years of Bush's presidency we had a surplus on our budget (before the 9/11 shot-storm).

Yes I did put that on your rep because you are a doushe bag that first gave me bad rep and said "you don't know what you're talking about." It is apparently obvious by your ignorance in politics that I know a bit more than you. Next time, come up with an appropriate rebutal instead of of posting private negative rep and being a total pussy saying I have a "4th personality" you mindless ABC brainwashed ass-pirate.

This is the politics forum. Like me, or anyone else for that matter, we are free to voice our opinion and that is mine. I challenge anyone that is a suporter of Obama to name one thing he had contributed, in the historical sense, to aid our country. I will say this...I believe he has the right ideals but lacks both the experience and has the wrong politics to achieve his goals.

Your well-founded arguments and amazing grammar have convinced me you are correct.

[Tgo01]

First, if you read what I said and looked at the graph, you would realize that the first two years of Bush's presidency we had a surplus on our budget (before the 9/11 shot-storm).

According to your graph (which I really have to wonder where you found it) the US showed a surplus during the years of 2000 and 2001. Bush was inaugurated in January of 2001.

[Warriorbird]

First, if you read what I said and looked at the graph, you would realize that the first two years of Bush's presidency we had a surplus on our budget (before the 9/11 shot-storm).

Yes I did put that on your rep because you are a doushe bag that first gave me bad rep and said "you don't know what you're talking about." It is apparently obvious by your ignorance in politics that I know a bit more than you. Next time, come up with an appropriate rebutal instead of of posting private negative rep and being a total pussy saying I have a "4th personality" you mindless ABC brainwashed ass-pirate.

This is the politics forum. Like me, or anyone else for that matter, we are free to voice our opinion and that is mine. I challenge anyone that is a suporter of Obama to name one thing he had contributed, in the historical sense, to aid our country. I will say this...I believe he has the right ideals but lacks both the experience and has the wrong politics to achieve his goals.

Didn't rep you until I caught the grey rep. People sign fake rep a bunch. Given the last stream of three knee-jerk Republicans were actually discovered to be the same poster, assumptions get made.

All that aside. You're using a chart from the Heritage Foundation. You're neglecting the TARP legacy. There isn't much point to 'debate.'

Right now, because of Obama's current legacy, my mother could potentially buy private insurance in America. Without it, she couldn't. There's a lot of other people out there like her.

I guess the Department of Homeland Security and the Patriot Act are Bush's legacy. Do they benefit your family?

[Suppressed Poet]

According to your graph (which I really have to wonder where you found it) the US showed a surplus during the years of 2000 and 2001. Bush was inaugurated in January of 2001.

You are correct. The original question was something about when in the last 31 years has either party shown a balanced or surplus budget. I was merely showing both parties can do it.

[Warriorbird]

You are correct. The original question was something about when in the last 31 years has either party shown a balanced or surplus budget. I was merely showing both parties can do it.

Wasn't at all what I said (which was have Republicans cut spending or the deficit?) With that said was Bush responsible for the 2001 budget?

Think for a while on that one.

[Tgo01]

You are correct. The original question was something about when in the last 31 years has either party shown a balanced or surplus budget. I was merely showing both parties can do it.

The question asked was when has a Republican in the past 31 years cut spending or the debt. The answer is never, then again neither has a Democrat. Both have gone up every year for decades now. During the end of Clintons second term we managed to show a small surplus due to increased tax revenues and by slowing the rate of our spending but it still increased.

[Warriorbird]

The question asked was when has a Republican in the past 31 years cut spending or the debt. The answer is never, then again neither has a Democrat. Both have gone up every year for decades now. During the end of Clintons second term we managed to show a small surplus due to increased tax revenues and by slowing the rate of our spending but it still increased.

Pretty much correct. I just find it ridiculous when Republicans suggest that they'll somehow cut spending or the deficit. They've shown as little (if not slightly less, given Clinton) evidence as Democrats of that.

David Stockman's recent takedowns of Mike Pence have been very instructive.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plum-line/2010/11/even_with_tax_cuts_republicans.html

[Suppressed Poet]

Didn't rep you until I caught the grey rep. People sign fake rep a bunch. Given the last stream of three knee-jerk Republicans were actually discovered to be the same poster, assumptions get made.

All that aside. You're using a chart from the Heritage Foundation. You're neglecting the TARP legacy. There isn't much point to 'debate.'

Right now, because of Obama's current legacy, my mother could potentially buy private insurance in America. Without it, she couldn't. There's a lot of other people out there like her.

I guess the Department of Homeland Security and the Patriot Act are Bush's legacy. Do they benefit your family?

Thank you for your response about the rep. Quite frankly I think rep is a joke and if you have an issue with something said then post it in the same thread.

To answer your question, I already stated my distaste in the patriot act and will not argue that. The department of homeland security is an unfornuate neccissary evil. I believe it should have checks and balances.

As to your mother, I completely understand your position. Many Americans are without health care. Something has to be done. My stance is Obama's bill simply isn't the right answer. If it were up to me, I would subsidise the insurance and
drug companies much like we do with agriculture. Perhaps also expand the CHIPS plan ( for those who don't qualify for Medicaid).

The bottom line is, we simply can't afford Obama's health care bill.

Last - I am drunk right now at my girlfriends house and typing on a goddamn iPhone. If my grammar or spelling isn't 100% correct that is my explanation why (no Internet connection at her house). If you can't understand that then you are either gay or have more patience then I do on a tiny thumb keyboard.

[Tgo01]

Pretty much correct. I just find it ridiculous when Republicans suggest that they'll somehow cut spending or the deficit. They've shown as little (if not slightly less, given Clinton) evidence as Democrats of that.

David Stockman's recent takedowns of Mike Pence have been very instructive.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plum-line/2010/11/even_with_tax_cuts_republicans.html

In the past 30 years Republicans have increased spending at a higher rate than Democrats have, Republicans have managed to increase the debt at a faster rate and Republicans have increased the GDP at a slower rate than Democrats.

Then again that is before Obama and also doesn't take into account who actually controls congress at the time of all of this happening. Let's not forget Clinton accomplished much with a Republican congress.

[Suppressed Poet]

Last thing to comment tonight - the recent ellections say it all. This time it was for republicans much like in 2006 it went in favor of democrats. I think America is sending a clear message that the political party in power is not getting the job done. It's more a message to the incumbrent party rather than republican or democrat. I am generally conservative by nature but I consider myself a moderate. Lately I have been disappointed in both parties.

[Back]

It seems like a downward spiral of “I am not happy with this” since we were kicked out of England.

Americans were born to fight. Indeed, it is in our culture. Our survival over getting thrown away as criminals or radicals by high society. Our survival over getting traded as labor. We have a certain mindset. And, to our benefit, the highest minds of the time recognized that we could forge a secular and humanist path.

[Parkbandit]

Pretty much correct. I just find it ridiculous when Republicans suggest that they'll somehow cut spending or the deficit. They've shown as little (if not slightly less, given Clinton) evidence as Democrats of that.


Let's give them a chance. They were voted into office because the American people believed that the current majority was screwing things up.. and the Republicans ran on a platform of cutting spending and cutting taxes.

If one of your major concerns in politics is cutting spending.. what harm will it do to give them the opportunity to prove it?

Unless of course... that's not really what you care about and only seem to worry about it with it's a Republican in the White House...............

[Parkbandit]

It seems like a downward spiral of “I am not happy with this” since we were kicked out of England.

Americans were born to fight. Indeed, it is in our culture. Our survival over getting thrown away as criminals or radicals by high society. Our survival over getting traded as labor. We have a certain mindset. And, to our benefit, the highest minds of the time recognized that we could forge a secular and humanist path.

http://i36.photobucket.com/albums/e6/belike53/club-roor5.jpg

[Tea & Strumpets]

It seems like a downward spiral of “I am not happy with this” since we were kicked out of England.

Americans were born to fight. Indeed, it is in our culture. Our survival over getting thrown away as criminals or radicals by high society. Our survival over getting traded as labor. We have a certain mindset. And, to our benefit, the highest minds of the time recognized that we could forge a secular and humanist path.

Well said. You stuck to the facts and didn't romanticize anything. I would even go so far as to say that your well thought out insight proves that you are one of the "highest minds of the time".

[Parkbandit]

Well said. You stuck to the facts and didn't romanticize anything. I would even go so far as to say that your well thought out insight proves that you are one of the "highest minds of the time".

Maybe even perhaps... a political pundit? Backlash should create an avatar that proclaims this title and immediately grants him the respect and honor that he has earned and rightfully deserves.

[EasternBrand]

Please explain how [Palin being more qualified than Obama] is even remotely true.

This is obvious. There are only two qualifications to be elected President: 35 years of age or older, and born in the United States. They both are--probably--over 35 (but how can we know about Obama for sure?), but only Palin is not a secret foreign-born Muslim. QED!

[Tgo01]

http://i36.photobucket.com/albums/e6/belike53/club-roor5.jpg

Amazing, that's almost exactly how I pictured Back when I read that post.

[Suppressed Poet]

Let's give them a chance. They were voted into office because the American people believed that the current majority was screwing things up.. and the Republicans ran on a platform of cutting spending and cutting taxes.

If one of your major concerns in politics is cutting spending.. what harm will it do to give them the opportunity to prove it?

Unless of course... that's not really what you care about and only seem to worry about it with it's a Republican in the White House...............

This. Spot on the reason why they retook the House, gained seats in the Senate, and many states now have a republican governor. The budget has spiraled out of control and it makes sense to elect a party that promises to reduce spending.

[Rinualdo]

Didn't they vote in the Democrats in 2006 and 2008 for the same "they are screwing things up" reason?

Don't confuse anti-incumbent with pro-Republican.

[ClydeR]

This is obvious. There are only two qualifications to be elected President: 35 years of age or older, and born in the United States. They both are--probably--over 35 (but how can we know about Obama for sure?), but only Palin is not a secret foreign-born Muslim. QED!

Beat me to it. I was just about to post the same thing.

[Parkbandit]

Didn't they vote in the Democrats in 2006 and 2008 for the same "they are screwing things up" reason?

Don't confuse anti-incumbent with pro-Republican.

Not really. 2006 was more about anti-Bush and the war in Iraq. 2008 was economy and the Dems running more effective campaigns using conservative principles (lower spending, lower taxes, etc...). 2010 was mainly about the economy and who had a bad voting record regarding it.

Don't confuse anti-incumbent with the issues that were on the top of most Americans lists: jobs and economy

[Fallen]

I guess the Department of Homeland Security and the Patriot Act are Bush's legacy. Do they benefit your family?

Though it is impossible to implicitly attribute anything to these organizations, do you not think they have played a role in stopping successful terrorist attacks on this country since their inception? This most recent terrorist attempt comes specifically to mind. Do you think neither of these organizations/functions had a hand in gaining intel on the bombing attempt?

[Parkbandit]

Amazing, that's almost exactly how I pictured Back when I read that post.

That's pretty much how I envision him making most posts on this forum; it's the only way they make much sense.

[Rinualdo]

Not really. 2006 was more about anti-Bush and the war in Iraq. 2008 was economy and the Dems running more effective campaigns using conservative principles (lower spending, lower taxes, etc...). 2010 was mainly about the economy and who had a bad voting record regarding it.

Don't confuse anti-incumbent with the issues that were on the top of most Americans lists: jobs and economy

You've made my point on both accounts.

Jobs and the economy are at the top of most American's list. I don't think they blame the Democrats for that state, they blame Congress and those in any sort of leadership position.

[Parkbandit]

Though it is impossible to implicitly attribute anything to these organizations, do you not think they have played a role in stopping successful terrorist attacks on this country since their inception? This most recent terrorist attempt comes specifically to mind. Do you think neither of these organizations/functions had a hand in gaining intel on the bombing attempt?

I guess your family being alive would count as a benefit...

[Parkbandit]

You've made my point on both accounts.

Jobs and the economy are at the top of most American's list. I don't think they blame the Democrats for that state, they blame Congress and those in any sort of leadership position.

Again, not really. Look at who got trampled in primaries and elections. Look at how successful candidates of the Tea Party were.. with very little political experience. Let's be honest.. without glaring personal flaws in some of them, it would have been an even bigger disaster for Dems.

If it were really about pinning the blame on the economy... Half of this country still believe Obama's story about how he inherited it from Bush. Wouldnt that give Dems a Better shot of not getting kicked to the curb?

While there was a definite anti incumbent force, it was more about the Republicans having a better platform of how they will reduce taxes and not raise taxes that swept them back into power after only 4 years.

[Suppressed Poet]

You've made my point on both accounts.

Jobs and the economy are at the top of most American's list. I don't think they blame the Democrats for that state, they blame Congress and those in any sort of leadership position.

I am not following you logic. Prior to the recent change, democrats had a majority in the senate and the house of reps and the white house. The dems were in power and just about anything they wanted to pass they had the opportunity to do so for the last two years. Many Americans are blaming them, anti-incumbent or not.

[Rinualdo]

I am not following you logic. Prior to the recent change, democrats controlled congress and the house and the white house. The dems were in power and just about anything they wanted to pass they had the opportunity to do so for the last two years. Many Americans are blaming them, anti-incumberent or not.


There is a difference between blaming the Democrats and blaming the people in charge. Look at the strong challenges, in some cases losses, career Republicans underwent. Look at the polling for the incumbents vs the President. People aren't happy with Congress, and the Democrats were the ones in charge. The same thing occurred 2 years ago and will occur 2 years from now.

If the economy doesn't turn around, in 2 years you won't see even more Republicans elected to the House.

[Parkbandit]

There is a difference between blaming the Democrats and blaming the people in charge. Look at the strong challenges, in some cases losses, career Republicans underwent. Look at the polling for the incumbents vs the President. People aren't happy with Congress, and the Democrats were the ones in charge. The same thing occurred 2 years ago and will occur 2 years from now.

If the economy doesn't turn around, in 2 years you won't see even more Republicans elected to the House.

Hopefully, Democrats in power are under the same delusions you seem to be in. That will be good news to Conservatives in 2012.

[Rinualdo]

Hopefully, Democrats in power are under the same delusions you seem to be in. That will be good news to Conservatives in 2012.

Because it worked so well for Conservatives in 2006? 2008?

[Latrinsorm]

Let's give them a chance. They were voted into office because the American people believed that the current majority was screwing things up.. and the Republicans ran on a platform of cutting spending and cutting taxes.

If one of your major concerns in politics is cutting spending.. what harm will it do to give them the opportunity to prove it?

Unless of course... that's not really what you care about and only seem to worry about it with it's a Republican in the White House...............Fool me for 31 years, shame on you. Fool me for 32 years, shame on me.

Wait, is that how the expression goes?

[Warriorbird]

Though it is impossible to implicitly attribute anything to these organizations, do you not think they have played a role in stopping successful terrorist attacks on this country since their inception? This most recent terrorist attempt comes specifically to mind. Do you think neither of these organizations/functions had a hand in gaining intel on the bombing attempt?

Work smarter, not harder. I think we could've achieved those same things with a re-examination of existing tools. For all Ron and Rand Paul's railing against the Department of Education, Bush made a Cabinet level agency that didn't need to exist.

[Parkbandit]

Work smarter, not harder. I think we could've achieved those same things with a re-examination of existing tools. For all Ron and Rand Paul's railing against the Department of Education, Bush made a Cabinet level agency that didn't need to exist.

One of the basic reasons for having a federal government is to protect its citizens from attack. While I am a big fan of a smaller government, I don't believe we should just hope we won't get attacked again. Our gov't is doing something right because we haven't had a major attack since 9-11-01. Now, if we can have that same security with a smaller department, then let's do it.

[Rinualdo]

One of the basic reasons for having a federal government is to protect its citizens from attack. While I am a big fan of a smaller government, I don't believe we should just hope we won't get attacked again. Our gov't is doing something right because we haven't had a major attack since 9-11-01. Now, if we can have that same security with a smaller department, then let's do it.

Isn't that faulty cause and effect logic?
By that, could you not argue that we were doing something right without DHS for 200 years or so?

[Parkbandit]

Isn't that faulty cause and effect logic?
By that, could you not argue that we were doing something right without DHS for 200 years or so?

Prior to 9-11-01, there were quite a few terrorist attacks... USS Cole, the most recent. Since 9-11-01, there have been 0 major terrorist attacks against the US.

Your logic also fails you.. since radical Islam hasn't been at war with the US for 200 years... nor did they have the technological ability to wage an effective terrorist war against us.

Now.. if you somehow believe that after 9-11-01, radical Islam called a truce and stopped trying.. then we should probably address that first.

[Rinualdo]

Prior to 9-11-01, there were quite a few terrorist attacks... USS Cole, the most recent. Since 9-11-01, there have been 0 major terrorist attacks against the US.

Your logic also fails you.. since radical Islam hasn't been at war with the US for 200 years... nor did they have the technological ability to wage an effective terrorist war against us.

Now.. if you somehow believe that after 9-11-01, radical Islam called a truce and stopped trying.. then we should probably address that first.

You do realize the Cole wasn't attacked in a US port, no? Unless you and I have different definitions of Homeland in "Department of Homeland Security".

So when exactly did radical Islam start its war with the US? I believe they have been at war with Christianity for significantly longer...

[Latrinsorm]

Prior to 9-11-01, there were quite a few terrorist attacks... USS Cole, the most recent. Since 9-11-01, there have been 0 major terrorist attacks against the US.

Your logic also fails you.. since radical Islam hasn't been at war with the US for 200 years... nor did they have the technological ability to wage an effective terrorist war against us.

Now.. if you somehow believe that after 9-11-01, radical Islam called a truce and stopped trying.. then we should probably address that first.What, specifically, has the DHS done that has thwarted potential terrorist attacks? What specific technological ability was required to carry out the 9/11 attacks? Given that "radical Islam" comprises a tiny minority of the world's Muslims, isn't it conceivable that the masterminds simply ran out of guys willing to go all the way to America on suicide missions?

[Rinualdo]

To be fair, they did give us the color code system.

[Tgo01]

Given that "radical Islam" comprises a tiny minority of the world's Muslims, isn't it conceivable that the masterminds simply ran out of guys willing to go all the way to America on suicide missions?

Is this sarcasm?

[Parkbandit]

What, specifically, has the DHS done that has thwarted potential terrorist attacks?

Unless you have top secret clearance, you will never know any of this information... unless someone leaks it.


What specific technological ability was required to carry out the 9/11 attacks?

Serious? You think they had jet planes and skyscrapers for 200 years?



Given that "radical Islam" comprises a tiny minority of the world's Muslims, isn't it conceivable that the masterminds simply ran out of guys willing to go all the way to America on suicide missions?

A tiny minority? Let's take CAIR's word for it and say there is 1.2 billion Muslims in the world today. What "tiny minority" can you make up that would make that number seem as insignificant as you come across?

[Parkbandit]

You do realize the Cole wasn't attacked in a US port, no? Unless you and I have different definitions of Homeland in "Department of Homeland Security".

You do realize that it was a ship in the United States armed forces, right? I'll assume you just didn't realize that American warships are considered sovereign US territory. Consider this something you learned today. Glad I could help.



So when exactly did radical Islam start its war with the US? I believe they have been at war with Christianity for significantly longer...

You tell me. You made the assumption that for 200 years the US Government has been keeping us safe from radical Islamic terrorist attacks. I simply said you were incorrect.

[Parkbandit]

Is this sarcasm?

Latrinsorm isn't very good at remedial math.. it's unlikely he's very good at sarcasm either.

[Suppressed Poet]

So last post in this thread because the arguments are really starting to become nonsense..

Whether you call the recent elections the result of a surge in voters faith in conservative economic policies or simply "anti-incumbent", the bottom line is many people are fed up with the liberal spending without any real results. Call the kettle black.

Back to the original topic of the thread, my opinion is that McCain did indeed make a poor choice with Palin. It was a campaign decision that backfired. I have to agree with Bush's comments on that one. It did not affect my vote but I did lose respect for him based on that decision.

[Rinualdo]

Unless you have top secret clearance, you will never know any of this information... unless someone leaks it.

What a coincidence! I do!



You do realize that it was a ship in the United States armed forces, right? I'll assume you just didn't realize that American warships are considered sovereign US territory. Consider this something you learned today. Glad I could help.

Are you seriously suggesting that somehow the DHS could have prevented this attack? Are you that ignorant to how US Intelligence works?

[Jack]

You tell me. You made the assumption that for 200 years the US Government has been keeping us safe from radical Islamic terrorist attacks. I simply said you were incorrect.

The Barbary States, in northern Africa were muslim pirates. The correlation to modern day terrorists and islamic extremism is shakey at best, but the first Barbary War began in 1801 which is more than 200 years ago...

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

Isn't there a difference between war and terrorism?

[Jack]

Isn't there a difference between war and terrorism?

The Barbary wars were essentially wars on state sanctioned piracy. It wasn't a war in the same sense as the War of Independance, or the Napoleonic wars.

[Latrinsorm]

Is this sarcasm?No.
Unless you have top secret clearance, you will never know any of this information... unless someone leaks it.If not relevant information, what is your belief founded on?
Serious? You think they had jet planes and skyscrapers for 200 years?I was trying to get a bead on your timeline; hence, I asked a question. Now you have answered it, and now I know you are referring to the period following World War II. Though DHS was still decades away, there weren't any foreign terrorist attacks on America or Americans between 1945 and 1972. Every one of your criticisms has been answered - you can hold onto your original point out of spite, I suppose, but not out of reason.
A tiny minority?Yes.

[Parkbandit]

What a coincidence! I do!

I would say that's highly unlikely.. but given our hiring practices in Government, I can't anything past them.




Are you seriously suggesting that somehow the DHS could have prevented this attack? Are you that ignorant to how US Intelligence works?

Says the idiot who didn't know that warships are sovereign territory.

And DHS has reportedly stopped less sophisticated potential attacks.. ala toner bombs recently.

[Parkbandit]

If not relevant information, what is your belief founded on?

Leaked information.



I was trying to get a bead on your timeline; hence, I asked a question. Now you have answered it, and now I know you are referring to the period following World War II. Though DHS was still decades away, there weren't any foreign terrorist attacks on America or Americans between 1945 and 1972.

So, you believe we were at war with radical Islam from 1945 - 1972? Were they attempting to attack us ala World Trade Center bombings #1 / 9-11 / USS Cole / Beruit / etc.. ?


Every one of your criticisms has been answered - you can hold onto your original point out of spite, I suppose, but not out of reason.

You haven't really answered anything... just speculation and bad math so far.


Yes

Case in point...

[Tgo01]

Is this sarcasm?


No.

With people blowing themselves up on a weekly basis you're honestly suggesting it's possible they can't be bothered to travel to the US before they kill themselves?

Suicide bombing isn't a spur of the moment decision, they don't pull someone aside, hand them a vest with explosives and say "Run into that store and detonate this." It takes months even years of brainwashing to convince someone to do such a thing, and even then there is still planning involved in such an attack. I can see these 'masterminds' now, all giddy with anticipation that they get to send another poor fool off to their dooms until they find out the person is afraid to fly.

[Rinualdo]

I would say that's highly unlikely.

But none the less true.



Says the idiot who didn't know that warships are sovereign territory.

I claimed they weren't?


I said that it is not the mandate of the DHS to stop attacks abroad, even against US entities or sovereignty. Even a 9 year old can google/wiki to verify that.

You've yet to show even a minute shred of evidence that the creation of DHS has in any way prevented or increased our national security posture.

[Back]

Well said. You stuck to the facts and didn't romanticize anything. I would even go so far as to say that your well thought out insight proves that you are one of the "highest minds of the time".

Coming from you that really touches me in ways I could not describe in polite conversation. That you have taken the time out of your busy schedule for this generous adulation that has at once lifted me to such altitudes of incomprehensible pleasure that I may never set foot upon terra firma again and will no doubt reverberate throughout the span of my remaining years as a small golden treasure nestled in my bosom to peek in on when the wind may not be at my sails has given my entire existence meaning. Dick.

[Tgo01]

Someone take Backs thesaurus away.

[Tgo01]

You've yet to show even a minute shred of evidence that the creation of DHS has in any way prevented or increased our national security posture.

How exactly does one prove that DHS has prevented a terrorist attack by the way? If the number of murders in a city goes down how do you prove it has anything to do with better police enforcement? You can say the police are more active in the community, patrolling, gathering and sharing information but does that really prove anything? Because if it does I can show you information like that all day long in regards to the DHS.

[Parkbandit]

I claimed they weren't?


I said that it is not the mandate of the DHS to stop attacks abroad, even against US entities or sovereignty. Even a 9 year old can google/wiki to verify that.


Actually, what you stated was this:


You do realize the Cole wasn't attacked in a US port, no?

Makes no difference if the warship was at a US port, a foreign port or drydocked in Antarctica. Perhaps you should have asked for help on google to get this very easy concept.



You've yet to show even a minute shred of evidence that the creation of DHS has in any way prevented or increased our national security posture.

You proclaim top secret clearance.. but have difficulty with what US territorial sovereignty is?

We will hire just about anyone in the government, won't we?

[Latrinsorm]

Leaked information.So when I ask "What, specifically, has the DHS done that has thwarted potential terrorist attacks?", your position is that you are privy to information, but don't want to share it?
So, you believe we were at war with radical Islam from 1945 - 1972? Were they attempting to attack us ala World Trade Center bombings #1 / 9-11 / USS Cole / Beruit / etc.. ?It is irrelevant whether attacks were attempted. You don't seem to follow the analogy here. There was a period of peace from foreign terrorism from 2002-2010. There was a similar period from 1945-1972. Do you see?
With people blowing themselves up on a weekly basis you're honestly suggesting it's possible they can't be bothered to travel to the US before they kill themselves?I think it's not only possible but plausible that many of the people convinced to kill themselves and others are finally convinced in a group environment, like a rally or a mob. People often do terrible things in those situations, but if you remove the mob, you will soon remove the motivation. You need a sociopath if you want a reliable sleeper terrorist - it's essentially the definition, really.
How exactly does one prove that DHS has prevented a terrorist attack by the way?If you could show the police catching someone in the act, that's a great way. You could at least show the police having caught someone. How many people have been arrested for suspected or prospective terrorism due to the DHS? For instance, what contribution did they make to the Faisal Shahzad case?

[Rinualdo]

Actually, what you stated was this:



Makes no difference if the warship was at a US port, a foreign port or drydocked in Antarctica. Perhaps you should have asked for help on google to get this very easy concept.



You proclaim top secret clearance.. but have difficulty with what US territorial sovereignty is?

We will hire just about anyone in the government, won't we?

It's so difficult to follow you so time, so I'll simply ask a direct question:

Is it the job of the DHS to stop attacks on US Naval vessels docked in foreign ports?

[Tgo01]

I think it's not only possible but plausible that many of the people convinced to kill themselves and others are finally convinced in a group environment, like a rally or a mob.

Really? You think people are convinced at a rally to strap on a vest of explosives and leave the rally to blow themselves up before they have time to cool off? That's how you honestly believe these suicide bombers are created?


If you could show the police catching someone in the act, that's a great way. You could at least show the police having caught someone. How many people have been arrested for suspected or prospective terrorism due to the DHS? For instance, what contribution did they make to the Faisal Shahzad case?

You do realize DHS mostly just gathers and analyzes information and shares that information with other agencies right? Also a lot of it happens behind the scenes, just like having a working police department deters crime without the cops needing to actually arrest anyone so does having border security and a coast guard.

[Rinualdo]

You do realize DHS mostly just gathers and analyzes information and shares that information with other agencies right? Also a lot of it happens behind the scenes, just like having a working police department deters crime without the cops needing to actually arrest anyone so does having border security and a coast guard.

Which is exactly why they are unnecessary. In a practical sense, they just provide an additional layer of bureaucracy.

[Parkbandit]

It's so difficult to follow you so time, so I'll simply ask a direct question:

Is it the job of the DHS to stop attacks on US Naval vessels docked in foreign ports?

First and foremost, it is up to the battlegroup to defend themselves against attacks... but it is the intelligence agencies to accumulate, decipher and disseminate any and all intelligence that can prevent an attack on the United States.

[Latrinsorm]

Really? You think people are convinced at a rally to strap on a vest of explosives and leave the rally to blow themselves up before they have time to cool off? That's how you honestly believe these suicide bombers are created?I think people, especially Americans, severely underestimate the power and pervasiveness of the mob. Obviously there's more to it than walking by the wrong crowd, but for the final step, for the part where rhetoric and slogans are converted into actually putting on the vest and actually setting it off, most humans need a big push.
You do realize DHS mostly just gathers and analyzes information and shares that information with other agencies right? Also a lot of it happens behind the scenes, just like having a working police department deters crime without the cops needing to actually arrest anyone so does having border security and a coast guard.Which is why I phrased my question the way I did. I don't need to see a guy with DHS on his back handcuffing someone, I (and any reasonable person) would like to know what specifically they have contributed before I give them any credit for keeping a country safe for nearly a decade.

[Rinualdo]

First and foremost, it is up to the battlegroup to defend themselves against attacks... but it is the intelligence agencies to accumulate, decipher and disseminate any and all intelligence that can prevent an attack on the United States.

I'll address the battlegroup in a separate post, but yes or no, is it the job of the DHS to protect US Naval vessels in foreign ports?

[Tgo01]

I think people, especially Americans, severely underestimate the power and pervasiveness of the mob. Obviously there's more to it than walking by the wrong crowd, but for the final step, for the part where rhetoric and slogans are converted into actually putting on the vest and actually setting it off, most humans need a big push.

A big push how exactly? I'm really curious why you think a suicide bomber is more than willing to blow himself up in countries such as Pakistan, Iraq, Iran and Afghanistan yet they all seem to change their mind when comes to doing so in the US?


Which is why I phrased my question the way I did. I don't need to see a guy with DHS on his back handcuffing someone, I (and any reasonable person) would like to know what specifically they have contributed before I give them any credit for keeping a country safe for nearly a decade.

What exactly are you looking for then? DHS maintains a no fly list which has presumably prevented would be terrorists from boarding planes bound for the US, there are many more Air Marshals than ever before on flights, they search and screen every passenger and piece of luggage before they board a plane. And that's just flight security. Maybe they haven't actually tackled anyone trying to set off an explosive on a plane yet but that doesn't mean they aren't doing anything to keep Americans safe.

[Parkbandit]

I'll address the battlegroup in a separate post, but yes or no, is it the job of the DHS to protect US Naval vessels in foreign ports?

It's never as black and white like you are poorly attempting to make it. I've already addressed this in the previous post.. as the DHS is part of our Intelligence community.

Or are you suggesting that if DHS had some credible intelligence of a pending attack, that they shouldn't give it to the battlegroup?

[Cephalopod]

Did someone call for the TSA?
http://i.imgur.com/HB635.png

[Rinualdo]

It's never as black and white like you are poorly attempting to make it. I've already addressed this in the previous post.. as the DHS is part of our Intelligence community.

Or are you suggesting that if DHS had some credible intelligence of a pending attack, that they shouldn't give it to the battlegroup?

I'm suggesting you are completely and totally full of shit.
Your attempt to suggest even a remote connection between a possible foreign attack on a US Naval vessel and the DHS is a total fallacy.

The DHS, first and foremost, is not a producer of intelligence, only a consumer. Secondly, they only deal in issues related to the 50 states, and those duties are split between the FBI, ATF, etc.

For a Battlegroup, that intelligence would come from, or be routed through
NSA, CIA, DIA, ONI, and the various TYCOMs for that Battlegroup. In this case, CENTCOM and their subcommand COM 5th Fleet/COMUSNAVCENT.

Slight anecdote about the Cole. I was onboard her 2.5 weeks before she docked in Aden and was attacked. I was on the GW coordinating some offensive activities she was to be part of in a few weeks. We were able to clean up our preparations early. My original schedule had me docking in Aden and then jumping from Aden to Bahrain, then catching a cod.
I feel pretty fortunate the schedule changed. Sadly I got to know some of the people who were injured in the attack, though none really well.

[Parkbandit]

I'm suggesting you are completely and totally full of shit.
Your attempt to suggest even a remote connection between a possible foreign attack on a US Naval vessel and the DHS is a total fallacy.

The DHS, first and foremost, is not a producer of intelligence, only a consumer. Secondly, they only deal in issues related to the 50 states, and those duties are split between the FBI, ATF, etc.

For a Battlegroup, that intelligence would come from, or be routed through
NSA, CIA, DIA, ONI, and the various TYCOMs for that Battlegroup. In this case, CENTCOM and their subcommand COM 5th Fleet/COMUSNAVCENT.

Slight anecdote about the Cole. I was onboard her 2.5 weeks before she docked in Aden and was attacked. I was on the GW coordinating some offensive activities she was to be part of in a few weeks. We were able to clean up our preparations early. My original schedule had me docking in Aden and then jumping from Aden to Bahrain, then catching a cod.
I feel pretty fortunate the schedule changed. Sadly I got to know some of the people who were injured in the attack, though none really well.

So... you have top level security and have been onboard warships... and had no idea that they are considered US territory? I mean heck, I learned that from an episode of NCIS.. I would think they might teach someone like you during the first week of super top secret school.

[Rinualdo]

So... you have top level security and have been onboard warships... and had no idea that they are considered US territory? I mean heck, I learned that from an episode of NCIS.. I would think they might teach someone like you during the first week of super top secret school.

Holidays slowing you down? You used to be somewhat better at trolling then this.

[Parkbandit]

Holidays slowing you down? You used to be somewhat better at trolling then this.

I just find your level of ignorance an incredible waste of tax money.

But hey.. maybe you filled a diversity quota.

[Rinualdo]

I just find your level of ignorance an incredible waste of tax money.

But hey.. maybe you filled a diversity quota.

Deflect much? Since I never said US Naval vessels weren't sovereign, I can only assume this is what you're doing. Rather shallow and pedantic, but I suppose after being shown, yet again, that you're talking out of your ass on yet another subject you are woefully ignorant and unqualified to comment on, I suppose its an expected recourse on your part.

[Parkbandit]

Deflect much? Since I never said US Naval vessels weren't sovereign, I can only assume this is what you're doing. Rather shallow and pedantic, but I suppose after being shown, yet again, that you're talking out of your ass on yet another subject you are woefully ignorant and unqualified to comment on, I suppose its an expected recourse on your part.

PB: USS Cole was a terrorist attack
Ren: That didn't happen in a US port

Seems like you didn't pay attention in your supposed top secret government class.

You make the claim that the DHS does nothing and should be dismantled. I disagree. Perhaps there are areas in it that can be scaled back as long as it doesn't jeopardize our safety... but I doubt a full shutdown will accomplish the government's #1 priority.. Keeping it's citizens safe.

[Tgo01]

The mission statement of the DHS when it comes to terrorism is to protect US citizens from terrorist threats. Would this not include helping to protect military personal aboard military ships?

[Rinualdo]

The mission statement of the DHS when it comes to terrorism is to protect US citizens from terrorist threats. Would this not include helping to protect military personal aboard military ships?

No.

[Jack]

The department of homeland security was a good idea, that was poorly implemented. Pretty typical of anything run by the government. At this point it is just another layer of beauracracy that slows the flow of intelligence from the source, to the people who need it. The entire US intelligence machine needs to be revamped from the ground up. There are too many risk averse beaurocrats concerned with their own little empires that they have carved out of the NSA, CIA, etc. They don't want to do anything that might risk their career, so they try not to make waves, and produce the intelligence they think the higher ups want to hear. We rely too heavily on technology, and too little on actual boots on the ground. It's innefficiency at it's best, but good luck trying to change it now.

[Warriorbird]

The department of homeland security was a good idea, that was poorly implemented. Pretty typical of anything run by the government. At this point it is just another layer of beauracracy that slows the flow of intelligence from the source, to the people who need it. The entire US intelligence machine needs to be revamped from the ground up. There are too many risk averse beaurocrats concerned with their own little empires that they have carved out of the NSA, CIA, etc. They don't want to do anything that might risk their career, so they try not to make waves, and produce the intelligence they think the higher ups want to hear. We rely too heavily on technology, and too little on actual boots on the ground. It's innefficiency at it's best, but good luck trying to change it now.

I agree.

[Gan]

x2

[Cephalopod]

Since it was a topic earlier in this thread...
Wtf has Sarah Palin done so far? (http://wtfhassarahpalindonesofar.com/)

[Warriorbird]

Disappointed in Bush 11-14-2010 04:25 PM You sound as dumb as Backlash every day.

I totally love it when people wait a week to complain about posts in unsigned negative rep about me sounding like somebody 'every day.' Especially posts that are actually made from a position of the historical record (If we'd gone to Pakistan after Afghanistan, instead of Iraq, Bin Laden might be dead. This isn't actually some sort of 'liberal' viewpoint) rather than because I'm trying to piss you off.

I'd love to think it means I'm doing well. Sadly, I'm afraid it means you're sort of like "Person doesn't agree with my viewpoint! Can't cope! Must skip!"