View Full Version : We lost a true Patriot today...
As I watched Mitt Romney deliver the message that he was suspending his campaign, I became overwhelmed with the realization that this man truly cared more about America than his own political career. In a world where we have come to know our politicians as cutthroats who will do anything to get elected and further their career, Romney demonstrated a pure unselfishness, putting the well being of our country FIRST.
The race wasn't over. Romney still had a shot at the nomination, and certainly had the money to go on... but he stood before the crowd of his supporters and proudly said "if this was about me, I'd fight on. But it's never been about me... it's about our country." Romney chose to bow out so as not to prolong the unification of the Republicans, which he believed would increase the likelihood of Clinton or Obama winning in November. And a win for Obama/Clinton, Romney believes, would be a loss for America in the war on terror, and he would not continue to campaign if he believed his campaign would hurt America.
Only now that he's gone can we see just what kind of fabric that Romney was made out of. He is neither a Mormon, a Republican or a conservative... he is a true Patriot; with only the well-being of our country in mind.
I salute you, Mr. Romney, and I deeply hope we will see you running for President again in the future.
bulldawg
02-07-2008, 04:29 PM
He should shoot for a vice pres spot. I think McCaine wants Criss from FL as his running mate.
geechee
02-07-2008, 04:32 PM
he is a true Patriot; with only the well-being of our country in mind.
Sorry dog but, the guy made his money on Wall Street. There are no patriots making his kind of money on Wall Street.
He should shoot for a vice pres spot. I think McCaine wants Criss from FL as his running mate.
Too much bad blood between Romney and McCain, plus I think Romney has too many fundamental differences from McCain.
McCain would be wise to ask Huckabee to run with him; Huck could help bring the conservatives to his side, and lock up the Southern states.
Sorry dog but, the guy made his money on Wall Street. There are no patriots making his kind of money on Wall Street.
So patriots can only be blue-collar? Bullshit.
GetEmGamecocks
02-07-2008, 05:09 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NY6UTnS6Z-A
Patriot my ass. What a dick.
Sabanocchio
02-07-2008, 05:13 PM
While he did answer the guy's question to my satisfaction, I don't agree with his stance. It is too pro-government for my liking.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NY6UTnS6Z-A
Patriot my ass. What a dick.
What are you talking about? That was a complete set-up, and he saw through it. The guy was trying to trap him, and he wasn't playing along.
By the way, pandering to every special interest isn't a qualifier for being a patriot, either.
Bburton86
02-07-2008, 05:14 PM
Romney gets owned by old dude (http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=3e9_1180550096)
While he did answer the guy's question to my satisfaction, I don't agree with his stance. It is too pro-government for my liking.
Bottom line; that whole question with his friend there with the camera was a set-up. And the issue of medical marijuana isn't a forefront issue either. You really expect Romney to endorse medical marijuana use to some guy with a camcorder when the majority of his supporters are against it?
Surely you guys can see through the amateurish hijinks these two were pulling.
Sabanocchio
02-07-2008, 05:22 PM
Bottom line; that whole question with his friend there with the camera was a set-up. And the issue of medical marijuana isn't a forefront issue either. You really expect Romney to endorse medical marijuana use to some guy with a camcorder when the majority of his supporters are against it?
Surely you guys can see through the amateurish hijinks these two were pulling.
Yeah, I agree. My first thought after seeing it was that it was a set-up. But it did it's job as such, I think. I certainly decided from it that I don't agree with him on that issue.
GetEmGamecocks
02-07-2008, 05:25 PM
Here's Obama, same guy, same question. He's obviously tired and stressed, but in the end, he was not an ass to a guy in a wheelchair
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GUze-oYsswI
Sabanocchio
02-07-2008, 05:28 PM
Yay, Obama. Anyone see the guy in the diner that wouldn't shake Romney's hand. Hilarious.Watch here (http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=3e9_1180550096)
Tator
02-07-2008, 06:52 PM
Romney answered the question. He ignored the "Hey everybody! He said he would arrest a cripple guy in a wheel chair" set up.
the Paradox
02-07-2008, 06:57 PM
New Zealand
RTR
Here's Obama, same guy, same question. He's obviously tired and stressed, but in the end, he was not an ass to a guy in a wheelchair
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GUze-oYsswI
How was Romney an ass??? Obama's reaction was no different... he saw it as a setup as well, and he obviously didn't care much about the question. He just said "I wouldn't have the justice dept. prosecute you." Well guess what genius? The President doesn't prosecute people. And Congress makes legislation, not the President. So this f'ing idiot in the "wheelchair" ought to research the American government a little more before he runs around with his camcorder trying to be famous.
Jeez, Romney doesn't suck the guys dick, and that makes him an ass, but Obama has the exact same reaction but you say "he's obviously very tired." I'd say you're being extremely biased.
BamaFanNKy
02-07-2008, 07:11 PM
Yay, Obama. Anyone see the guy in the diner that wouldn't shake Romney's hand. Hilarious.Watch here (http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=3e9_1180550096)
Yeah..... we saw it like three replys above yours:brick:
I agree D3. As much as I didn't supports Romney I see him as a man who was trying to do right for his country. He didn't take others people money he used his own. He also has been a public servant as well. Plus, he did a wonderful job on the Winter Olympics.
GeauxTo
02-07-2008, 08:17 PM
Romney could very well be the Republican guy in 2012.
crawfish
02-07-2008, 08:36 PM
Romney out....and the field gets even uglier! Man, I love our country, but this election is getting depressing.
GeauxTo is right, Romney could very well be a popular pick in 2012. Probably would have won it this time if not for Huckabee IMO.
BamaFanNKy
02-07-2008, 09:02 PM
Romney could very well be the Republican guy in 2012.
You guys think 2012? I just don't see him getting another shot. It's not like the old days. You usually have one big shot. It's kind of like McCain. I just don't see him beating the Dems.
I see (if he decides to run) Charlie Crist as a big threat to win GOP nod in 2012. Some may blast him on Terri Schiavo. But his Pro-life stances with an A+ rating from the NRA make him a conservative's dream. Plus black politicians in Florida call him the first black governor of Florida. I don't know where he stands on the social issues on federal, but he looks to be a guy who could make a run. Plus he played QB at Wake Forest. He did however finish his undergrad at FSU. At FSU they named him Mr. Seminole. He has a law degree from the Cumberland School of Law at Samford in Alabama.
Some say McCain may try to make him his VP nominee. The one draw back is he's single.
http://www.miamisunpost.com/archives/2006/08-10-06/images/a2_charlie%20crist.jpg
adamsputnik
02-07-2008, 09:50 PM
New Zealand
RTR
Enjoy the rain and the sheep-shaggers :closedeye
You guys think 2012? I just don't see him getting another shot. It's not like the old days. You usually have one big shot. It's kind of like McCain. I just don't see him beating the Dems.
Romney gained a lot of support in his campaign, and if not for Huckabee, likely could have beaten McCain. After his unselfish bowing out, his support only grows. He will remain at the forefront of the GOP and return as the favorite in the re-vitalized conservative GOP in 2012. Candidates that do as well as Romney their first time running usually run again. And Romney will start out in 2012 with the popularity that he built for himself in this campaign. And NEXT time, ALL of the conservatives will be on his side from the beginning.
the Paradox
02-07-2008, 11:51 PM
Enjoy the rain and the sheep-shaggers :closedeye
Enjoy/Endure 4 years of Hilliary/Keeting5.
RTR
WayzUp
02-08-2008, 08:14 AM
I'd like Romney a lot more if he actually stuck to his opinions/stances. He's done 180's on a lot of issues including abortion, gay rights, immigration, stem cell research and environment.
But the point when I put a line through his name for good was when he was asked in an early debate whether he'd seek Congressional approval before attacking some country & he responded with, "You sit down with your attorneys and have them tell you what you have to do…but obviously the president of the United States has to do what's in the best interest of the United States to protect us against a potential threat." Say WHAT?? That answer was worse than the Miss South Carolina beauty queen’s response that had “the iraq” and such as. If you go by the Constitution at all (which seems to be more of a rare thing for our "leaders"), YOU'RE REQUIRED TO GET CONGRESSIONAL APPROVAL FOR A DECLARATION OF WAR. HELLO! Ask your lawyers.....lol OKIE DOKEY MITT! :thumbsdow
\
But the point when I put a line through his name for good was when he was asked in an early debate whether he'd seek Congressional approval before attacking some country & he responded with, "You sit down with your attorneys and have them tell you what you have to do…but obviously the president of the United States has to do what's in the best interest of the United States to protect us against a potential threat." Say WHAT?? That answer was worse than the Miss South Carolina beauty queen’s response that had “the iraq” and such as. If you go by the Constitution at all (which seems to be more of a rare thing for our "leaders"), YOU'RE REQUIRED TO GET CONGRESSIONAL APPROVAL FOR A DECLARATION OF WAR. HELLO! Ask your lawyers.....lol OKIE DOKEY MITT! :thumbsdow
Yeah, you need congressional approval for a declaration of war, but not to use force. Big difference. The President doesn't need the approval of congress to use force. Which, by the way, is important, because if a situation arises the requires immediate action, The President can't wait for Congress to decide what to do. Thats why we call The President the "Commander in Chief."
If Romney's a Patriot, then I'm the son of God.
Bottom line, he's a self-serving, egotistical, worthless to people who have a net worth under 25Million, self-absorbed jackass. We didn't lose crap today except another worthless politician. Good Riddance. D3, you're naievity (sp?) is admirable, when you get a few years older, skepticism will set in..., that's not a shot at you at all btw, I'm just telling you how the aging process is. I long for my youthful idealism of just 5 years ago.....:)
If Romney's a Patriot, then I'm the son of God.
Bottom line, he's a self-serving, egotistical, worthless to people who have a net worth under 25Million, self-absorbed jackass. We didn't lose crap today except another worthless politician. Good Riddance. D3, you're naievity (sp?) is admirable, when you get a few years older, skepticism will set in..., that's not a shot at you at all btw, I'm just telling you how the aging process is. I long for my youthful idealism of just 5 years ago.....:)
Youthful idealism? Naive? Screw you. Nobody is as jaded with the politicians and political system than I am. But I know a good person when I see one, and Romney was a good guy. Was he perfect? No, but he actually cared.
Quit cramming that stupid democratic propaganda about Republicans only caring about rich people down your throat. Its really old, and rarely true.
WayzUp
02-08-2008, 08:41 AM
Yeah, you need congressional approval for a declaration of war, but not to use force. Big difference. The President doesn't need the approval of congress to use force. Which, by the way, is important, because if a situation arises the requires immediate action, The President can't wait for Congress to decide what to do. Thats why we call The President the "Commander in Chief."
What do you call Iraq? We never got Congressional approval (never even sought it!) for that & that definitely wasn't a situation that required immediate action. This B.S. of using the UN as a vehicle to go to war without Congressional approval is basically a loophole to go against specifically what the Constitution says you have to do. Checks & balances be damned as long as we're the police force for the UN! :angry:
But that's all beside the point & it was my point you missed but made for me at the same time. The question was whether he'd seek Congressional approval and instead of answering the obviously correct answer of "of course you do, it's in the Constitution!" or the say-what-they-want-to-hear answer that you gave regarding the "use of force", he's going to go consult his lawyers and have them tell him what to do???? :blink: :wacko:
That's why he should never be "Commander in Chief"....consult lawyers, pfft, whatever dood.
But that's all beside the point & it was my point you missed but made for me at the same time. The question was whether he'd seek Congressional approval and instead of answering the obviously correct answer of "of course you do, it's in the Constitution!" or the say-what-they-want-to-hear answer that you gave regarding the "use of force", he's going to go consult his lawyers and have them tell him what to do???? :blink: :wacko:
That's why he should never be "Commander in Chief"....consult lawyers, pfft, whatever dood.
I'm pretty sure that the comment about consulting lawyers was a comparison, which probably should have been preceded by "in the business world." He's a businessman, so he was likely drawing from his experience in the corporate world, and in the case of saying "consult your lawyers" he was referring to advisors and staff.
As far as the UN goes, the UN didn't sanction the Iraq invasion, and the UN has never bypassed our Congress.
BamaFanNKy
02-08-2008, 08:47 AM
D3 you could be right about Romney. But watch Crist will be making a move. Heck Newt mentioned him to be the VP candidate for McCain. Rising star.
Youthful idealism? Naive? Screw you. Nobody is as jaded with the politicians and political system than I am. But I know a good person when I see one, and Romney was a good guy. Was he perfect? No, but he actually cared.
Quit cramming that stupid democratic propaganda about Republicans only caring about rich people down your throat. Its really old, and rarely true.
I'm a Huckabee supporter so you have no idea what you're talking about, suprise suprise, a young person who is naive and ignorant! As far as being a patriot, look at John McCain, 5 years as a POW, that's longer than you have been in high school. You cheapen the word "patriot" starting threads like this. Shame on you for that.
I'm a Huckabee supporter so you have no idea what you're talking about, suprise suprise, a young person who is naive and ignorant! As far as being a patriot, look at John McCain, 5 years as a POW, that's longer than you have been in high school. You cheapen the word "patriot" starting threads like this. Shame on you for that.
Huckabee supporter? Maybe YOU are the naive one.
I've never questioned John McCain's motives... but I HAVE questioned his stance on the issues. I can't stand the guy, he doesn't stand for anything that I find vital to our country. He is spineless on immigration, apathetic about tax reform, uneducated on the economy and a bit of a dumbass about global warming.
I've never questioned John McCain's motives... but I HAVE questioned his stance on the issues. I can't stand the guy, he doesn't stand for anything that I find vital to our country. He is spineless on immigration, apathetic about tax reform, uneducated on the economy and a bit of a dumbass about global warming.
On those issues you and I ENTIRELY agree
Sabanocchio
02-08-2008, 09:06 AM
Thank you Mitt Romney for saving us all from the terrorists. :glare:
Noah.Dreams
02-08-2008, 09:07 AM
Now that comment made me actually laugh out loud!
Thank you Mitt Romney for saving us all from the terrorists. :glare:
WayzUp
02-08-2008, 09:12 AM
As far as the UN goes, the UN didn't sanction the Iraq invasion, and the UN has never bypassed our Congress.
Someone else may have to verify this but I'm fairly certain there was a host of our allies who all got together through the UN and agreed to attack Iraq if Saddam didn't give up his WMD's. He didn't have any, the UN inspectors all said he didn't have any, we were sold a line by Powell, Rice, Cheney, Bush and others that he did indeed have them & had to have moved them & went in anyway.
The rest, they say, is history. So yes, the UN was the vehicle we used to get the idea of going into Iraq off the ground with our allies (who've all since left us there) & the fabricated/outrageously errant intel regarding WMD's that was spread to the American public via mainstream media so we wouldn't contest it either. This 'war' perhaps wasn't sanctioned per se by the UN but it certainly made it easier to get Congress to at least approve going in with a B.S. caveat. And here we are, almost $500 BILLION, over 4,000 Americans dead and another 40,000 injured later.....
Someone else may have to verify this but I'm fairly certain there was a host of our allies who all got together through the UN and agreed to attack Iraq if Saddam didn't give up his WMD's. He didn't have any, the UN inspectors all said he didn't have any, we were sold a line by Powell, Rice, Cheney, Bush and others that he did indeed have them & had to have moved them & went in anyway.
The rest, they say, is history. So yes, the UN was the vehicle we used to get the idea of going into Iraq off the ground with our allies (who've all since left us there) & the fabricated/outrageously errant intel regarding WMD's that was spread to the American public via mainstream media so we wouldn't contest it either. This 'war' perhaps wasn't sanctioned per se by the UN but it certainly made it easier to get Congress to at least approve going in with a B.S. caveat. And here we are, almost $500 BILLION, over 4,000 Americans dead and another 40,000 injured later.....
WayzUp, let me remind you that prior to the invasion, the information we had pointed to Saddam having nukes. From what I can tell, you buy into the whole "Bush lied and made it up" deal... but the fact is, we had faulty intelligence and acted on it.
You're flat out wrong, the UN inspectors did NOT say he didn't have them, because the UN inspectors weren't allowed in the country to look, and I might remind you, Saddam never did anything to put anybodies mind at ease. Hindsight is, as they say, 20/20... and I would remind you that the large majority of the politicians supported the move. I think you know that Bush isn't quite clever enough to pull the wool over that many peoples eyes.
Sabanocchio
02-08-2008, 09:32 AM
WayzUp, let me remind you that prior to the invasion, the information we had pointed to Saddam having nukes. From what I can tell, you buy into the whole "Bush lied and made it up" deal... but the fact is, we had faulty intelligence and acted on it.
You're flat out wrong, the UN inspectors did NOT say he didn't have them, because the UN inspectors weren't allowed in the country to look, and I might remind you, Saddam never did anything to put anybodies mind at ease. Hindsight is, as they say, 20/20... and I would remind you that the large majority of the politicians supported the move. I think you know that Bush isn't quite clever enough to pull the wool over that many peoples eyes.The bottom line is that Bush used the threat of WMDs at a time when we as a nation were vulnerable to such fears as an excuse to invade Iraq. Years later we can look back on it and see that it was a situation that a company he and his VP were affiliated with profited immensely.
While most agree Sadam was a tyrant and a ruthless murderer, he was not enough of an immediate danger to the safety of our country to warrant a full-scale invasion. Most of the world agreed with this notion which is why the UN never gave us the go-ahead to mount one.
This country needs to be better run in the future. These wars for personal gain should not be supported by a democratic nation. We need to worry about defending our own soil. Not sending thousands of our own to their deaths in a needless, senseless war. It's time for a change.
GamecockDieHard
02-08-2008, 09:55 AM
WayzUp, let me remind you that prior to the invasion, the information we had pointed to Saddam having nukes. From what I can tell, you buy into the whole "Bush lied and made it up" deal... but the fact is, we had faulty intelligence and acted on it.
You're flat out wrong, the UN inspectors did NOT say he didn't have them, because the UN inspectors weren't allowed in the country to look, and I might remind you, Saddam never did anything to put anybodies mind at ease. Hindsight is, as they say, 20/20... and I would remind you that the large majority of the politicians supported the move. I think you know that Bush isn't quite clever enough to pull the wool over that many peoples eyes.
You're wasting your time. They've already figured it all out 'cause they've heard it on the news in 30 second sound bytes about a zillion times. It's ingrained. That one poster, who is obviously older and (ergo) much wiser, seems to have started his second childhood. Forget about trying to logically debate with people who speak almost verbatim from the talking heads on MSNBC. BTW. I wish Romney would have started out his campaign with the speech he gave to end it. He nailed almost every issue precisely and exactly the way I've been waiting for someone to do.
bigsexxxy
02-08-2008, 09:57 AM
The bottom line is that Bush used the threat of WMDs at a time when we as a nation were vulnerable to such fears as an excuse to invade Iraq. Years later we can look back on it and see that it was a situation that a company he and his VP were affiliated with profited immensely.
While most agree Sadam was a tyrant and a ruthless murderer, he was not enough of an immediate danger to the safety of our country to warrant a full-scale invasion. Most of the world agreed with this notion which is why the UN never gave us the go-ahead to mount one.
This country needs to be better run in the future. These wars for personal gain should not be supported by a democratic nation. We need to worry about defending our own soil. Not sending thousands of our own to their deaths in a needless, senseless war. It's time for a change.
You're completely right man, it's time for a change. If you Republican folks think that there aren't any people that will vote Democratic just because of anti-Bush sentiment, well, you might be a little out of touch.
GamecockDieHard
02-08-2008, 10:18 AM
This has been around for awhile. Although I could probably list the socialists on here that would rather listen to Louis Farrakhan than Newt Gingrich, I trust this man to be speaking the absolute truth. Most prefer marketing slogans such as "we want change," because I think, deep down, they believe that's all we need to do is say it, and it will happen. Naive? Denying it, wishing, or hoping he's wrong is a gamble that I hope we don't make.
Modern road to White House 'verges on insane,' says Gingrich - CNN.com (http://edition.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/08/08/gingrich/index.html#cnnSTCVideo)
tennesseegirl
02-08-2008, 11:11 AM
The bottom line is that Bush used the threat of WMDs at a time when we as a nation were vulnerable to such fears as an excuse to invade Iraq. Years later we can look back on it and see that it was a situation that a company he and his VP were affiliated with profited immensely.
While most agree Sadam was a tyrant and a ruthless murderer, he was not enough of an immediate danger to the safety of our country to warrant a full-scale invasion. Most of the world agreed with this notion which is why the UN never gave us the go-ahead to mount one.
This country needs to be better run in the future. These wars for personal gain should not be supported by a democratic nation. We need to worry about defending our own soil. Not sending thousands of our own to their deaths in a needless, senseless war. It's time for a change.
What about all the terrorist we have killed and captured in this war? Top terrorist and Iam sorry but Saddam was a big threat and I for one am glad that he is dead and gone .
Sabanocchio
02-08-2008, 11:16 AM
What about all the terrorist we have killed and captured in this war? Top terrorist and Iam sorry but Saddam was a big threat and I for one am glad that he is dead and gone .
It's that kind of thinking that gives the government "free rein" to do whatever they want. :dry:
tennesseegirl
02-08-2008, 11:20 AM
It's that kind of thinking that gives the government "free rein" to do whatever they want. :dry:
Well we are just going to have to agree to disagree but I trusted Bush in the beginning and I still trust him now . At least we agree with what team we like:laugh:
geechee
02-08-2008, 02:14 PM
So patriots can only be blue-collar? Bullshit.
Where did I say that?
GetEmGamecocks
02-08-2008, 04:26 PM
A lot of people claim that the war was necessary for various reasons. Truth is, half the troops want out of Iraq because they don't know what the hell they're doing there. Screw the war in Iraq. The reason, the plan, the execution, all bullshit. There will always be those people that trust the government no matter what, because it's the "patriotic" thing to do.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qmntk-HVyAY&feature=related
bigsexxxy
02-08-2008, 05:34 PM
Well we are just going to have to agree to disagree but I trusted Bush in the beginning and I still trust him now . At least we agree with what team we like:laugh:
What makes you trust Bush? I didn't think anybody trusted him anymore.
tennesseegirl
02-08-2008, 05:47 PM
What makes you trust Bush? I didn't think anybody trusted him anymore.
Well I do and I really don't care if people don't like that I support the war cause I do and I have every right to do so . That is why living in America is so wonderful we all can have different views and it is ok, well except us that agree with Bush , we get blasted all the time but Iam not going to follow what is popular Iam going to follow what I think is right.
bigsexxxy
02-08-2008, 05:50 PM
Well I do and I really don't care if people don't like that I support the war cause I do and I have every right to do so . That is why living in America is so wonderful we all can have different views and it is ok, well except us that agree with Bush , we get blasted all the time but Iam not going to follow what is popular Iam going to follow what I think is right.
You didn't answer my question, but that's okay. I won't bother you about it anymore.
tennesseegirl
02-08-2008, 05:51 PM
A lot of people claim that the war was necessary for various reasons. Truth is, half the troops want out of Iraq because they don't know what the hell they're doing there. Screw the war in Iraq. The reason, the plan, the execution, all bullshit. There will always be those people that trust the government no matter what, because it's the "patriotic" thing to do.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qmntk-HVyAY&feature=related
Well then lets just let the terrorist come in and blow us all up . Lets lay down and do nothing . Gotchya:thumpsup:
tennesseegirl
02-08-2008, 05:54 PM
You didn't answer my question, but that's okay. I won't bother you about it anymore.
Because I trusted him going to war and I think he did the right thing even though you guys don't think so , there is no reason not to trust him now like it or not we got rid of a cruel dictator and ALOT of terrorist that had a hand in 911 so he did the right thing!
SeattleGamecocks
02-08-2008, 05:54 PM
When I read the title of this thread I thought it would be about a fallen soldier, either active duty or retired.
tennesseegirl
02-08-2008, 05:55 PM
A lot of people claim that the war was necessary for various reasons. Truth is, half the troops want out of Iraq because they don't know what the hell they're doing there. Screw the war in Iraq. The reason, the plan, the execution, all bullshit. There will always be those people that trust the government no matter what, because it's the "patriotic" thing to do.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qmntk-HVyAY&feature=related
Oh and about the soldiers not wanting to be there , well not the ones I know they are proud to be over there and they know why they are there! so not all of them think that way.
Sabanocchio
02-08-2008, 05:56 PM
Well then lets just let the terrorist come in and blow us all up . Lets lay down and do nothing . Gotchya:thumpsup:
A classic response, but the fact is that we were in no danger from any terrorist threats from inside Iraq. Never were. You are just buying all the propaganda that the Bush people are throwing out at a nauseating rate.
tennesseegirl
02-08-2008, 06:00 PM
A classic response, but the fact is that we were in no danger from any terrorist threats from inside Iraq. Never were. You are just buying all the propaganda that the Bush people are throwing out at a nauseating rate.
No Iam not buying it, Iam believing it. Well like I said before we will just have to agree to disagree . Iam not going to change the way I feel about this and I won't change your mind so there is really no need in arguing about this anymore.
Sabanocchio
02-08-2008, 06:11 PM
No Iam not buying it, Iam believing it. Well like I said before we will just have to agree to disagree . Iam not going to change the way I feel about this and I won't change your mind so there is really no need in arguing about this anymore.
I agree. :peace: You brought it back up!
tennesseegirl
02-08-2008, 06:14 PM
I agree. :peace: You brought it back up!
Yes I know :laugh::icon_knud
geechee
02-09-2008, 05:36 PM
A lot of people claim that the war was necessary for various reasons. Truth is, half the troops want out of Iraq because they don't know what the hell they're doing there. Screw the war in Iraq. The reason, the plan, the execution, all bullshit. There will always be those people that trust the government no matter what, because it's the "patriotic" thing to do.
We have got something that all the countries that have ever existed on Earth combined have never had. It's the most lethal force ever known to mankind. Its called the United States Air Force. We own the skies. If this country wants to bomb some country like Afghanistan back into the stone age, that is one thing but, this freakin government of ours better think twice about ever putting American bodies on the ground in a war again unless this country is truly under attack.
GetEmGamecocks
02-09-2008, 11:26 PM
Because I trusted him going to war and I think he did the right thing even though you guys don't think so , there is no reason not to trust him now like it or not we got rid of a cruel dictator and ALOT of terrorist that had a hand in 911 so he did the right thing!
Well I for one think that 9/11 was half the result of asshole terrorists who want to scare our countrymen, and half the result of a completely incompetent government. With all of the intelligence the CIA had in 2001, its preposterous to think that we couldn't have stopped the attacks. The Bush administration completely ignored the several warnings given by our intelligence. Richard Clark was demoted as soon as Bush became president. He was the #1 terrorism intelligence man for the Bush Sr. and Clinton administrations. He did a great job giving our government the low-down on terrorism across the world. What did Bush do as soon as he got in office? Friggin fired the guy, as if to say "we don't need a terrorism expert to help protect millions of Americans." And guess who had the right to give the final order on shooting down highjacked planes on 9/11? It was Dick Cheney. That was the first time ever, ever in American history that a vice president had this important order. Who had the order before? The people who SHOULD have the orders - GENERALS. So Dick gets the right to shoot down planes a couple months before 9/11 and...what do you know...terrorists attack us and kill 3,000 innocent Americans. Dick freaking Cheney gave Colin Powell a direct order and forced him to sign over the highjacked plane shooting rights. It's like the terrorists were just waiting for enough incompetent idiots to run this country. No one blames our elected leaders AT ALL, just the evil terrorists. It's bullcrap. A crock of SH*T! Everyone blames the terrorists only. Yes, it's mostly their fault, they're evil sh*theads. But you know what? I blame the sorry-A$$ government/intelligence that allowed 9/11 to happen. I am a patriot for that. When a government fails an American, it is that American's duty to protest and demand that the government's wrongs are exposed.
Or maybe I'm wrong.
Maybe we just got caught with our guard down.
Maybe Bush and his administration were doing everything right and there's no way they could have prevented the 9/11 attacks.
I will never forget that day and the way it changed this country. I will never forget that 9/11 was not properly investigated. I will never forget that the steel beems from the WTC's were shipped to foreign countries and melted before being forensically examined. I will never forget that we used 9/11 to go to two wars, one that was just, and one completely unnecessary. This war in Iraq has cost so many lives of kids like me. Same age, same dreams, probably with girlfriends and wives at home who love them to death. Dead. For what? What? So we can have a democratic stronghold in the Middle East? Why couldn't we just trade and make peace so our children don't have to die. Afghanistan needed to be invaded, but that war was poory fought. With more troops on the ground, we could have obliterated more terrorists. Instead, because of the way we invaded, so many terrorists escaped, including Osama Bin Laden.
Now, my government is using the War on Terror to take away my rights the Constitution gave me. It's bullshit. Thomas Jefferson is doing 180's in his grave. This is not a police state. This is America. We should lead with a great example of what freedom is. We should respect the world and prove that we are not world policemen. We can help these poorer countries, we really can. Instead, we just piss them off and allow a new generation of terrorists to grow and kill these kids who are just like me. The "War on Terror" can only be won with diplomacy.
Call me a hippy if you want, but I'm a Christian, and I beleive Jesus would not support war of any kind, especially in this day in age. I think Jesus would want us to have a calm sit downs with the leaders of these hostile countries, and try to make peace without guns.
And for the record, Sadam never supported terrorism, at least not at the time we invaded. He was the kind of dictator that would kill any terrorist in his country. He didn't put up with that sh*t. He killed many innocent people, but we didn't invade him right after that, or for that. There were many other countries we could have (easily) invaded other than Iraq that would have helped saved many more lives. We invaded for oil and a military stronghold in Iraq. Now Iran is much more powerful, and they are the ones we were (rightfully) worried about before 9/11. The War in Iraq was just unnecessary, and no innocent American or Iraqi should have died from it, in my honest opinion. Without the war, our economy would be much better, poverty would be down in this country, and all of those poor soldiers would be alive. This is not WW2. This is an unnecessary war. Thank you.
Tider27
02-10-2008, 01:42 AM
Mitt Romney likes to party and I want a guy who likes to party.
Yeah adults, the youth is that corrupted...be afraid...be very afraid.
We have got something that all the countries that have ever existed on Earth combined have never had. It's the most lethal force ever known to mankind. Its called the United States Air Force.
...... oh. I thought you were going to say the United States Navy. :lol:
vBulletin® v3.7.2, Copyright ©2000-2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.