Light at the end of the tunnel: The 2008 Election, its aftermath and the future

Discussion in 'Archive: The Senate Floor' started by KnightWriter, Nov 1, 2008.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Sven_Starcrown Jedi Youngling

    Member Since:
    Mar 10, 2009
    star 4
    I have no stake in either party succeeding or failing. In fact, I hope they both destroy each other. I just hate Republicans slightly more than Democrats.
    [:D][:D][:D][:D]

    We agree on something.
  2. AnakinsGirl Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Nov 2, 2001
    star 4
    I have to agree with FIDO on this one.

    Reducing political discussions to taking sides is neither productive nor intelligent. Additionally, Bush supporters at the end of his term that feel the need to use the same--ahem--"tactics" or arguments to debunk the legitimacy of Obama's presidency is just childish. I didn't vote for Obama and I'm not jumping on the bandwagon here, but there is substantial evidence (as we all know) to imply that Bush's term as a liar and a criminal was nothing more than a farce and a slap in the face to the American people, and none of those "tactics" will ever be able to hold any water when applied to Obama.

    To quote Kurt Vonnegut: "the difference between Bush and Hitler is that Hitler was elected!"
  3. gonzoforce Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Feb 27, 2002
    star 5
    We are where we are now cause of Bush and his people who were running this country for 8 years and look where that got us.All this stuff happened on Bush's term.

    Obama's barely been in office and yet all the GOP people are blaming him for this mess,when in fact this all started under Bush and where was the opposition to Bush by the GOP, there wasn't any, they just let this situation happen. And I'm sorry, but I just don't take anything Cheney says seriously, he was after all the worst vp ever. Now let's wait for a year and see what happens and if nothing changes, then I'll put the blame on Obama and his people for doing nothing.

    This mess started before Obama even took office.
  4. Game3525 Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jun 25, 2008
    star 4
    It is even funnier now since the only gaff the GOP has is Obama uses his teloprompter too much.
  5. Fire_Ice_Death Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Feb 15, 2001
    star 7
    I really wish this were a frickin' joke.

    link (pdf)

    But no, it's not a joke. They actually think this is a realistic proposal. I especially love the graph on page 13. *facepalmheaddesk*


    link


    No wonder this party's becoming a joke. You have a fat bigot as a leader, a weak willed national 'leader', and no ideas whatsoever. It's pathetic. It's really, really pathetic. I really can't wait to see what their encore is.


  6. BandofClones Jedi Knight

    Member Since:
    Mar 3, 2009
    star 3
    At least you're all still alive to bash the man who kept you safe for 7 years.

    You may not like him, but he kept our population safe -- like it or not.

  7. kingthlayer Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jun 7, 2003
    star 4
    If this is the GOP's next line of attack, then they are in trouble.

    Define safe.

    Does safety mean having fewer enemies? Many of Bush's policies have given a new generation of people in the Middle East a reason to hate America. If America has substantially more enemies on the world, how does that make us safe? With this this argument, Bush fails.

    Or does safety mean not having a major terrorist attack since 9/11? If that is the measure of success, then Bush has succeeded but thus far, so has Obama.

    If the GOP continually alludes to the threat of a terrorist attack to score political points, then they:

    1. Bring Bush back into the equation.
    2. Appear to be wishing failure on Obama
    3. Bring up national security when more Americans are worried about economics.
    4. Resurrect the first counter argument I described

    It is a losing strategy.
  8. Jediflyer Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Dec 5, 2001
    star 5
    Funny, but that wasn't his job:


    Also he hardly kept our population safe, far more Americans have died fighting a completely unnecessary and unrelated war in Iraq over the last seven years than died on Sept 11.

    Additionally, 10 times as many people died in the U.S. from car accidents in 2001 than from terrorist attacks--no terrorist attacks hardly equals safety.
  9. BandofClones Jedi Knight

    Member Since:
    Mar 3, 2009
    star 3
    By safe, yes, I mean as in no terrorist attacks on American soil. Life has pretty much returned to normal with Americans even traveling to places like Egypt, Israel, and Turkey without much fear for their lives. You're defining safe as the absence of possibility of attack. I define safe as removing as many possibilities as you can.

    A terrorist won't attack on Obama's watch -- not in the U.S., at least. They'll go for the overseas embassies like they did during the Clinton years. Obama will then launch an attack on an aspirin factory. Been there, done that. Obama is a terrorist's dream. He'll be ready to help them with all their humanitarian needs and to lay off surveillance. No, they'll do just like theyt did with Clinton. Take advantage of a weak president and then launch an attack when a Republican president is in office, so that they can blame the attack on the sitting Pres instead of the one who gave them perfect conditions for an attack.

    Republicans are in trouble because certain segments of the American people want to get without working. Republicans tend to believe in work.

  10. BandofClones Jedi Knight

    Member Since:
    Mar 3, 2009
    star 3
    I see, so we should outlaw cars cause so many people are killing themselves driving them?

    If no terrorist attack does not equal protecting this country from its enemies, then how do you label success? If Obama goes through his whole presidency with no terrorist attack, will you say he was not successful in keeping us safe?

    And you may not realize this, but the military exists to defend the Constitution and the people, to the point of laying down their lives, if necessary. You may not be willing to do it, but let them decide if the risk is worth joining up? And if you say that their lives are wasted, you do them a discredit.
  11. Jabbadabbado Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Mar 19, 1999
    star 7
    As I've argued since 9/11, making the country completely safe from terrorist attack is fundamentally a coward's project. There will be terrorist attacks on our nation down the road, but they can't really threaten our way of life unless we let them by altering our way of life too much out of fear of attack. Maybe Bush did "keep us safe," but at what cost? Not just in terms of human life and draining the treasury and all that, although of course those costs are considerable and helped engineer our current economic crisis, but in terms of undermining our national identity and our society.
  12. ShrunkenJedi Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Apr 26, 2003
    star 5
    But we do have seat belts and safety testing, Band. Before an offensive war we should have safeguards such as double and triple-checking intelligence and making sure it's necessary and something that can be done without undue risk to the soldiers and country. This is the opposite of Iraq. If soldiers die unnecessarily then they can hardly continue to do what they are so passionate about doing and defend the country, can they? It is the person who put them in that unnecessarily dangerous situation who has discredited their lives, not those saying he didn't have to die.
  13. KnightWriter Administrator Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Nov 6, 2001
    star 8
    Folks, I strongly suggest that we all ignore our new arrival. His talking points are devoid of even a shred of original thought. We've heard and seen all this stuff before, and probably had a laugh in the process. We get this every few months.
  14. Jedi Merkurian Episode VII Thread-Reaper

    Manager
    Member Since:
    May 25, 2000
    star 6
    wait, whut?

    Soooooo...you're saying that terrorists won't attack during a Democratic regime, but will instead attack during a Republican regime, so that terrorists can blame the attacks on the policies of a Republican President?

    Wow.
  15. Jediflyer Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Dec 5, 2001
    star 5
    I was merely pointing out how absurd your definition of safe was.

    Right, but what happens when they lay down their lives in a war with an enemy that was not a threat to the Constitution and the people? Wouldn't that be the very definition of waste? Are the military somehow not U.S. citizens? Doesn't expending their lives in an unnecessary war fail to keep them safe?

  16. BandofClones Jedi Knight

    Member Since:
    Mar 3, 2009
    star 3
    And who decides if it's a legitimate threat? I think it was more than legitimate. You disagree. Our duly elected leaders made the decision. If Obama wants out, like he promised all through his campaign, come hell or high water, let him bring them home tomorrow. He's not going to. Why? Because he realizes that a stable Iraq is to our benefit, despite his anti-war rhetoric. He's not willing to throw away our gains. Even though he won't come out and say that for fear of offending his liberal supporters, I applaud him for staying the course.
  17. Fire_Ice_Death Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Feb 15, 2001
    star 7
    I'm with KW: Don't feed the troll.
  18. Jediflyer Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Dec 5, 2001
    star 5
    He is doing exactly what he said he would do during the campaign: withdrawing our combat forces, and refocusing our efforts on Afghanistan.
  19. BandofClones Jedi Knight

    Member Since:
    Mar 3, 2009
    star 3
    Withdrawal for 2011. Bush already had that planned.
  20. BandofClones Jedi Knight

    Member Since:
    Mar 3, 2009
    star 3
    First of all, I'm not a "him". I'm not a troll. I post in other forums on this site, and I go to things that look interesting. Apparently, you all don't take well to differing opinions.

    Second . . . so this is how you brave Obama-supporters deal with people who disagree with you? Ban them? Ignore them? Shun them? Hm, so much for the tolerance preached on another thread. Tolerance only for like-minded individuals.

    But don't worry . . . I'll make life easy for you.

    This is not worth any brain power.

  21. Jediflyer Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Dec 5, 2001
    star 5

    Obama is doing exactly what he promised he would do during the campaign.
  22. Fire_Ice_Death Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Feb 15, 2001
    star 7

    No one ever called you a 'him'. Just a troll. Which is true. Or at least going by the current definition of a 'troll'. Everything you've written could be filed under 'Poe's law'. Which is why I'm not taking any of your points--or you--seriously.
  23. BandofClones Jedi Knight

    Member Since:
    Mar 3, 2009
    star 3
    You quoted Knightrider. Read the entire post. Knightriders thinks I'm a "him."

    I don't know what Poe's law is.

    Final post.
  24. Fire_Ice_Death Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Feb 15, 2001
    star 7
    Poe's Law

    There you go. Have fun with that.

    Also, if you don't like being confused for a male it might help if you...you know...put some info about yourself in your profile.
  25. Darth Geist Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Oct 23, 1999
    star 5
    Come on; don't you know the entire world is divided into "The Republican Party" and "Enemies of the Republican Party"?

    (Of course, not all Republicans believe that. But the ones that do are an embarassment to the rest.)
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.