Jump to content

General Political Thread


Recommended Posts

Of course she would answer yes.  If the war is justified and necessary.    

 

I respectfully disagree with you.  I can totally see the first lady saying, in another set of circumstances: "this war is necessary, so we shall all make sacrifices and dig in, blah blah blah" but not "yes, I want the country to be involved in another war."  The question posed was "do we want to be involved in another war?"

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 3.8k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

 

http://www.abcactionnews.com/dpp/news/region_tampa/lake-mary-police-are-now-calling-into-question-several-statements-shellie-zimmerman-made-to-911

 

"We did not find a gun, did not locate a weapon," said Zach Hudson, public information officer with the Lake Mary Police Department. "Nobody ever saw a gun. A gun is not part of this story."

Link to post
Share on other sites

you realize that claiming you've proven someone's motive in making a post by posting links to, well, really pretty much anything is a logical fallacy, right?

 

I have never claimed to prove his motive, remember Crow himself claimed there was no vocal opposition and already knew the answers to why not.  He had a preconceived narrative in his mind to make a larger point about the President.  He notion was wrong.  I wasn't trying to prove his motive, I was showing that the central tenant of his argument is wrong.  He wanted to know where the opposition was, I provided links to do so.      

 

 

I respectfully disagree with you.  I can totally see the first lady saying, in another set of circumstances: "this war is necessary, so we shall all make sacrifices and dig in, blah blah blah" but not "yes, I want the country to be involved in another war."  The question posed was "do we want to be involved in another war?"

 

I am taking the First Lady's statement in the context of Syria.  You are taking it out of context and applying it to wars in general.  You can draw two different conclusions that way.  99% of Americans when asked the question should we be in another war would say no.  But in the context of Syria only 40% do.    

 

In the context of Syria to disagree, and do so semi-publicly, is a pretty big deal for a First Lady to do.   

Link to post
Share on other sites

KevinG I guess they are saying we should equate bombing Syria with two major land wars with half a million or more servicemembers having served and over 5000 DEAD and God knows how many maimed for life.
Same thing and if they don't hear from every single person on the left within one week then were a bunch of hypocrites.
Save the fact that President Bush and Vice President Cheney (it seems to me) lied their asses off and President Obama (it seems to me) is actually trying to save civilian lives.
How many civilians were killed in Iraq I wonder?

Does President Obama get any credit for winding the two wars down successfully? Seems like a job well done to me and all with Osama Bin Laden floating in the ocean.


 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Does President Obama get any credit for winding the two wars down successfully? Seems like a job well done to me and all with Osama Bin Laden floating in the ocean.

 

Nope, he gets zero credit. We need to see photographs, and also have experts testify that they have not been Photoshopped. :lol

 

"We conservatives have an uncanny ability to know what Ronald Reagan would do at any given time. Syria conflict? Invade. Obamacare? Repeal. Soup or salad? Jelly beans." - Stephen Colbert

Link to post
Share on other sites

Does President Obama get any credit for winding the two wars down successfully? Seems like a job well done to me

Before you start running your victory lap, I think it's important to remember 3 things:

 

1) The Iraq war was wound down based on an agreement between Iraq and the United States that was hammered out and signed by President Bush in 2008.

 

2) The United States military lost 645 troops in Afghanistan during 87 months of Bush's presidency; 1626 troops have died during 56 months of Obama's presidency.

 

3) The war in Afghanistan is far from over and American casualties are certain to increase. It's far too early to call the wind-down a success. As it stands, Afghanistan is a mess.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Afghanistan is a nut which will not ever be cracked by traditional U.S. nation-building techniques. They do not want our law or our ways there.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I just want to know what kind of criteria has to be satisfied to call a wind-down a success at all. 

There are a thousand possible answers, but I think we can all agree that a war has to actually end before we can debate whether or not the war was ended successfully.

Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.abcactionnews.com/dpp/news/region_tampa/lake-mary-police-are-now-calling-into-question-several-statements-shellie-zimmerman-made-to-911

 

"We did not find a gun, did not locate a weapon," said Zach Hudson, public information officer with the Lake Mary Police Department. "Nobody ever saw a gun. A gun is not part of this story."

This is interesting especially since his lawyer said that yes he definitely had a gun on his person. He might want to get a new attorney.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Before you start running your victory lap, I think it's important to remember 3 things:

 

1) The Iraq war was wound down based on an agreement between Iraq and the United States that was hammered out and signed by President Bush in 2008.

 

2) The United States military lost 645 troops in Afghanistan during 87 months of Bush's presidency; 1626 troops have died during 56 months of Obama's presidency.

 

3) The war in Afghanistan is far from over and American casualties are certain to increase. It's far too early to call the wind-down a success. As it stands, Afghanistan is a mess.

 

This is an example of the no win ever situation Obama faces with the right. When the troops were drawing down and he honored the agreement from the Bush era he was hammered by the right for doing so and he lost Iraq. Syria is the same sort of political trap, enough republicans are on each side of the issue that regardless of the outcome the choice he didn't make will be used against him. There is not a single situation he can be in or decision he can make that the right has not hedged their bets against him already. Politics 24-7.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is interesting especially since his lawyer said that yes he definitely had a gun on his person. He might want to get a new attorney.

Assuming he was carrying a concealed weapon properly and legally, his firearm would not have been brandished or displayed if he wasn't in a life-threatening situation. That would make both the attorney's statement and the police department's statement accurate and truthful.

Link to post
Share on other sites

When the troops were drawing down and he honored the agreement from the Bush era he was hammered by the right for doing so and he lost Iraq.

I do not recall hearing much of that. The Iraq war was considered lost by most during 2006-2007 until the surge turned things around. It ended rather well, at least as far as things looked a couple of years earlier.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Assuming he was carrying a concealed weapon properly and legally, his firearm would not have been brandished or displayed if he wasn't in a life-threatening situation. That would make both the attorney's statement and the police department's statement accurate and truthful.

Well I will withhold judgement on legality or guilt/innocence bit the fact that he destroyed the IPad being used to record the confrontation is not a good fact for everything being on the up and up.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Assuming he was carrying a concealed weapon properly and legally, his firearm would not have been brandished or displayed if he wasn't in a life-threatening situation. That would make both the attorney's statement and the police department's statement accurate and truthful.

huh? you believe George Zimmerman like hes God almighty or Abe Lincoln or what? Forget that guy

Link to post
Share on other sites

supposed to be less than 20K by years end.

I have not seen any figures that are even close to that. It'll likely be about twice that number.

 

 

 down from a 150K or whatever is what you call "winding down"

There were never that many American troops in Afghanistan; I think the number was about 100,000 at its peak. And more than half that amount were added after Obama took office, so I guess he deserves credit for winding down a war that he wound up?

 

 

 

 what do they know? they weren't there.

Evidence: no gun was found.

Sworn statement: Zimmerman's wife admits that she never saw a gun and that he never threatened her with a gun.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 Trayvon Martin's death was tragic but I don't understand why it has such a higher level of outrage than say, the child shot while in it's stroller, the child shot while in the woman's arms, the recent child killed in a drive by, etc., etc. I don't get it. They are at least equally outrageous to Zimmerman/Martin. Personally, I am far more outraged by those tragedies than by Martin's death.

 

Of course, I have an idea about what accounts for the difference...

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd like to see the media approach the Syrian chemical weapons issue a little more critically. Russia and Syria jumped at a chance to make John Kerry's offhand remark a reality, but I can't see how they can possibly disarm themselves in a reasonable time period. The United States, Russia and many other nations vowed to eliminate their chemical weapons stockpiles more than 15 years ago, but despite huge budgets and more than a decade of work, much of the stockpile still remains more than a year after the deadline.

 

Syria is believed to have the third-largest stockpile of chemical weapons in the world. I don't see how they can reveal, gather and turn over control of their stockpile in a matter of days or even weeks -- especially in the middle of a civil war. I'm going to assume it's just a stalling tactic at best.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...