ikol Posted February 8, 2008 Share Posted February 8, 2008 Terrorism is, I think, in many ways, a subjective term, after all, we went into Iraq with a full on Shock and Awe Link to post Share on other sites
bobbob1313 Posted February 8, 2008 Share Posted February 8, 2008 I didn't think a McCain nom would ever be a cake walk for the dems. Link to post Share on other sites
mountain bed Posted February 8, 2008 Share Posted February 8, 2008 Political observation. With Romney out of the race on the GOP side, McCain is going to have 6 months of attacking Obama and Clinton and shoring up the conservative base. The Democrats are going to undergo a bloodletting here as Obama and Clinton will go at each other tooth and nail until the convention. Is it possible that McCain can win now? I think there are divisions showing up in the Democratic base that should be troubling to any political observer (i.e. the race question...specifically the hispanic vs. black dynamic). What looked like a cake walk now looks interesting.I concur heartily Crow. And thanks for bringing things back around to the topic at hand. Link to post Share on other sites
bjorn_skurj Posted February 8, 2008 Share Posted February 8, 2008 I didn't think a McCain nom would ever be a cake walk for the dems.I agree, but it hinges on the economy, which is not McCain's strong suit. Link to post Share on other sites
giraffo Posted February 8, 2008 Share Posted February 8, 2008 So terrorism that isn't by Al Queada isn't as bad, according to some people here.now you're putting words in my mouth. I never said anything like that...nice try, I never even said anything regarding terrorism being bad or good, I was talking about how it fits into a certain context. and instead of trying to take a passive aggressive stab at me, instead just use my name since everyone knows who you're referring to anyway. Link to post Share on other sites
bobbob1313 Posted February 8, 2008 Share Posted February 8, 2008 Do you not agree that there's a fundamental difference between our actions and those of Islamic fundamentalist terrorists? Civilians may be killed as an unfortunate side effect to some of our military actions, but for them, civilian deaths are the goal. Well, more precisely, civilian deaths are the means to which they hope to attain their goals. Whereas for the American Military, civilian deaths are an unintended and unfortunate reality of the situation. They certainly aren't the intention. I agree, but it hinges on the economy, which is not McCain's strong suit. Hilary and Obama aren't economic scholars either. I don't think it's fair to say one way or the other that any of them are worse on economics. Link to post Share on other sites
tugmoose Posted February 8, 2008 Share Posted February 8, 2008 Well, more precisely, civilian deaths are the means to which they hope to attain their goals.Oh, you know they torture/kill because they like it. Link to post Share on other sites
bobbob1313 Posted February 8, 2008 Share Posted February 8, 2008 Huh? Link to post Share on other sites
bjorn_skurj Posted February 8, 2008 Share Posted February 8, 2008 I would interpret that as a commentary on moral hypocrisy. If we are morally superior, we are not supposed to revel in killing our enemies. Link to post Share on other sites
bobbob1313 Posted February 8, 2008 Share Posted February 8, 2008 There is no difference between Osama Bin Laden planning the murder of some 3,000 civilians and a company cashing in on people's idiocy by making paper cutouts of Bin Laden for said idiots to shoot at. Anybody who believes there is a difference is a moral hypocrit. Link to post Share on other sites
tugmoose Posted February 8, 2008 Share Posted February 8, 2008 Actually, I went looking for an image of a scary terrorist, and this came up, and I thought it was kinda goofy. Anyone wants to read more into it than that, be my guest. Link to post Share on other sites
bjorn_skurj Posted February 8, 2008 Share Posted February 8, 2008 No, I'll take your word for it. Link to post Share on other sites
bobbob1313 Posted February 8, 2008 Share Posted February 8, 2008 Communists. All of you. Link to post Share on other sites
mountain bed Posted February 8, 2008 Share Posted February 8, 2008 I watched replays of the CPAC get together tonight. I saw Cheney speak, and McCain and Romney. I saw Ron Paul speak. I've never watched him speak for more than 5 minutes at a time. He did a half-hour tonight. Really intereseting. That guy is truly a maverick candidate if ever I've seen one. He had the folks in the room almost recoiling in horror at some of the things he said. Of course I didn't agree with most of what he had to say but it was still wild to see the reactions of the reactionaries. Link to post Share on other sites
bjorn_skurj Posted February 8, 2008 Share Posted February 8, 2008 Communists. All of you.Eliot Spitzer once took a long look at my Che Guevara poster I have at my desk at work. Link to post Share on other sites
giraffo Posted February 8, 2008 Share Posted February 8, 2008 Eliot Spitzer once took a long look at my Che Guevara poster I have at my desk at work. despite the troubles he's had in office, I hope that man runs for president one day. Link to post Share on other sites
bjorn_skurj Posted February 8, 2008 Share Posted February 8, 2008 Albany ain't for pussies. New York state government is power politics taken to just short of fascism. Link to post Share on other sites
giraffo Posted February 8, 2008 Share Posted February 8, 2008 Albany ain't for pussies. New York state government is power politics taken to just short of fascism.wow, and you're from Albany. a real, actual New Yorker, not like those city hipsters. but yeah, if the guy can do it in Albany, the White House should be no problem. edit: but yeah, a few little problems and people are willing to give the boot to somone actually promising in a split second. it's a shame. Link to post Share on other sites
Good Old Neon Posted February 8, 2008 Share Posted February 8, 2008 One could argue that the Twin Towers and the Pentagon were both viable military targets, the towers for economic reasons, and the Pentagon, military. And, using the US Link to post Share on other sites
Spawn's dad Posted February 8, 2008 Share Posted February 8, 2008 While republicans try and find a way to get the party to unite behind McCain a Hillary nomination sure couldgo a long way towards that goal. Link to post Share on other sites
ikol Posted February 8, 2008 Share Posted February 8, 2008 despite the troubles he's had in office, I hope that man runs for president one day. I hate to break it to you, but Che's dead. One could argue that the Twin Towers and the Pentagon were both viable military targets, the towers for economic reasons, and the Pentagon, military. And, using the US Link to post Share on other sites
Gobias Industries Posted February 8, 2008 Share Posted February 8, 2008 I hate to break it to you, but Che's dead. I hate to break it to you, but I think he was talking about the guy who's, in fact, not dead. Link to post Share on other sites
ikol Posted February 8, 2008 Share Posted February 8, 2008 I hate to break it to you, but I think he was talking about the guy who's, in fact, not dead. I hate to break it to you, but I knew that and was merely being a smartass. Link to post Share on other sites
Good Old Neon Posted February 8, 2008 Share Posted February 8, 2008 One would be wrong. They weren't using the US's logic. The death of civilians wasn't unfortunate to them. It was the goal. Not necessarily: Link to post Share on other sites
Spawn's dad Posted February 8, 2008 Share Posted February 8, 2008 Politics is no place for joking around! Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts