Printable View
I do have a life. I don't always have time to read the bullshit some of you throw out.
All countries need to go slow and carefully about Syria. I wonder if Syria's rockets could reach our shores with chemical weapons.
It is bad enough that Monsanto puts the shit in our food, we don't need it in our air.
[QUOTE=Punter127;435332]Syria?
If it wasn't for the crickets the silence of the leftwing members of this forum would be deafening.
Where are you Blackshirt and WT69?[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Esten;435344] The UK's shame will be multiplied if France joins the US.
Of course it all hinges on the credibility of the evidence.[/QUOTE]France has closer ties with Syria than the UK, having occupied Syria from 1920 to 1946. Its about time the French actually did something...and we know the world police will lead the way.
Ok, I've just listened to Obama's statement from speech to end, and I have to say I was impressed. I'm not the greatest fan of our president, but I thought the content of his speech was right on the mark. Take it to congress.
So, all of you Obama haters, what was your opinion of his speech? Do you agree that congress should decide our course of action? And if he gets the go-ahead from congress, should the US go ahead with a strike even without the support of the UN Security Council?
I have a feeling he won't get the congressional support he needs. The US, like the UK, is war weary. Then what? Should he go ahead with a strike anyway?
And speaking of the UNSC, fuck Russia in the ass. That Putin is a devious, evil cocksucker, and Russia is backsliding into a 1-party state with personal freedoms slowly being chipped away (but that's another story). The fact that they are a voting member virtually assures that nothing will get done.
[QUOTE=Chezz;435347]Ok, I've just listened to Obama's statement from speech to end, and I have to say I was impressed. I'm not the greatest fan of our president, but I thought the content of his speech was right on the mark. Take it to congress.
[/QUOTE]I didn't see the speech but Obama has always been better at speeches than actions. However I think Obama did the right thing sending it to congress, he should have done that to begin with, he also should have called a special session if this is really that important. Why are we waiting until the 9th? The Brits did it the right way. BTW they are our closest ally and if we can't get them on board that should tell you something.
[QUOTE=Chezz;435347]So, all of you Obama haters, what was opinion of his speech? Do you agree that congress should decide our course of action? And if he get's the go-ahead from congress, should the US go ahead with a strike even without the support of the UN Security Council?
I have a feeling he won't get the congressional support he needs. The US, like the UK, is war weary. Then what? Should he go ahead with a strike anyway?
[/QUOTE]We should not strike regardless of the congressional vote. Who appointed us the police of the world, don't get me wrong I think the death of 1400 plus people by chemical weapons is horrific, but so is the death of a hundred thousand by conventional weapons.
In 2007 Obama said [B]"The president does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation,"[/B] I agree with his statement and we don't have the right to interfere in a civil war unless there is a imminent threat to us, our allies, or our national interest, I don't see that threat. I also think this limited strike talk is BS, what would we do if they use chemical weapons again after we strike them, perhaps another limited strike and another and another? You don't play games with these people you either take them out or leave them alone.
[QUOTE=Chezz;435347]And speaking of the UNSC, fuck Russia in the ass. That Putin is a devious, evil cocksucker, and Russia is backsliding into a 1-party state with personal freedoms slowly being chipped away (but that's another story). The fact that they are a voting member virtually assures that nothing will get done.[/QUOTE]As for the U.N. We should have cut funding and told them to fuck off years ago. I agree with you about Putin and I think he has and is playing Obama for a sucker.
Speaking of Russia would we even be considering a strike if it was Russia (or China) that had done this? If not, why not?
What about Iran they're building a bomb that will kill who knows how many and it won't be their own people, do we wait for them to use it before we strike?
[QUOTE=Punter127;435354]I didn't see the speech[/QUOTE]Well, if you get a moment, check it out (forward to the 2 min mark): [URL]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DmgQseJmmRM[/URL].
[QUOTE=Punter127;435354]However I think Obama did the right thing sending it to congress, he should have done that to begin with, he also should have called a special session if this is really that important. Why are we waiting until the 9th? The Brits did it the right way. BTW they are our closest ally and if we can't get them on board that should tell you something.[/QUOTE]Exactly, a special session seems like the thing to do. Call those lazy bastards in to work on a Sunday (no sarcasm).
[QUOTE=Punter127;435354]We should not strike regardless of the congressional vote. Who appointed us the police of the world, don't get me wrong I think the death of 1400 plus people by chemical weapons is horrific, but so is the death of a hundred thousand by conventional weapons.[/QUOTE]Again, I think he laid out a fairly convincing argument for why, which is why I wanted reaction from people who watched the speech. Prior to the speech, I was pretty much against a strike. And now I'm at least thinking about it. But the truth is, these things never end well. Thousands of years of religious violence isn't going to change with a few cruise missile strikes.
[QUOTE=Punter127;435354]In 2007 Obama said [B]"The president does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation,"[/B] I agree with his statement and we don't have the right to interfere in a civil war unless there is a imminent threat to us, our allies, or our national interest[/QUOTE]Actually, now that Hezbollah has entered the game and with Iran continuing to arm Assad, I think our allies (specifically Israel) could certainly be threatened if the Assad regime eventually holds on to win. On the other hand, part of the rebel coalition is the Al-Nusra Front, which is loyal to Al-Qaeda. So, there's your twisted Sophie's Choice: Iran, Russia and Hezbollah on the one side and radical Islam and Al-Qaeda on the other. Jesus H Christ, what a clusterfuck.
[QUOTE=Punter127;435354]Speaking of Russia would we even be considering a strike if it was Russia (or China) that had done this? If not, why not?[/QUOTE]Too late, this is already a proxy war. Russia and Iran have already been arming the Assad regime, while the US, UK, France and Saudi Arabia have been providing non-combat aid, and now have basically said "fuck-it" and are arming the rebels to the teeth. So guys, how does it feel to be back in bed with Al-Qaeda? Kind of like the 80's in Afghanistan all over again.
And history repeats itself, over and over. Until:
[QUOTE=Punter127;435354]What about Iran they're building a bomb that will kill who knows how many and it won't be their own people, do we wait for them to use it before we strike?[/QUOTE]It used to be that Mutual Assured Destruction (you know, that thing during the cold war that kept Russia and the US from blowing the fuck out of each other) was enough to keep the peace. But nukes in the hands of crazy Muslim jihadists, well, that's a reason to worry.
Now if you'll excuse me, I've got a plane to EZE to catch. I'm cooking dinner Tuesday or Wednesday at the house. To those of you that know me, stop on by.
Sad times for the ladies.
[URL]http://www.sfgate.com/default/article/Nevada-s-brothels-feel-economic-slump-4778302.php[/URL]
[QUOTE=WorldTravel69;435363]Sad times for the ladies.
[URL]http://www.sfgate.com/default/article/Nevada-s-brothels-feel-economic-slump-4778302.php[/URL][/QUOTE]They were way overpriced to begin with.
[QUOTE=Chezz;435360]Well, if you get a moment, check it out (forward to the 2 min mark): [URL]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DmgQseJmmRM[/URL].
Exactly, a special session seems like the thing to do. Call those lazy bastards in to work on a Sunday (no sarcasm).
Again, I think he laid out a fairly convincing argument for why, which is why I wanted reaction from people who watched the speech. Prior to the speech, I was pretty much against a strike. And now I'm at least thinking about it. But the truth is, these things never end well. Thousands of years of religious violence isn't going to change with a few cruise missile strikes.
[/QUOTE]I watched the speech on youtube, and to tell you the truth every time I hear Obama talk it reminds me of a snake oil salesman, but hey I get the same feeling when I hear John McCain. When it comes to politicians I take most of what they say with a grain of salt.
[QUOTE=Chezz;435360]Actually, now that Hezbollah has entered the game and with Iran continuing to arm Assad, I think our allies (specifically Israel) could certainly be threatened if the Assad regime eventually holds on to win. On the other hand, part of the rebel coalition is the Al-Nusra Front, which is loyal to Al-Qaeda. So, there's your twisted Sophie's Choice: Iran, Russia and Hezbollah on the one side and radical Islam and Al-Qaeda on the other. Jesus H Christ, what a clusterfuck.
[/QUOTE]There is nobody in that list I want to team up with.
In "The Sociology of Imperialism," Joseph Schumpeter wrote of the Roman Empire's suicidal interventionism:
[I]"There was no corner of the known world where some interest was not alleged to be in danger or under actual attack. If the interests were not Roman, they were those of Rome's allies; and if Rome had no allies, then allies would be invented. When it was utterly impossible to contrive an interest - why, then it was the national honour that had been insulted."[/I]
Sound familiar?
[QUOTE=Chezz;435360]Too late, this is already a proxy war. Russia and Iran have already been arming the Assad regime, while the US, UK, France and Saudi Arabia have been providing non-combat aid, and now have basically said "fuck-it" and are arming the rebels to the teeth. So guys, how does it feel to be back in bed with Al-Qaeda? Kind of like the 80's in Afghanistan all over again.
[/QUOTE]Look deeper, what do you think this war is really about, and who stands to gain from American involvement? Why has Syria become so important? Do you really think it's about Chemical weapons?
"Chemical attack, particularly one that kills civilians, is horrible and horrendous. All deaths in war and violence are terrible and should be condemned. But why are a few hundred killed by chemical attack any worse or more deserving of US bombs than the 100,000 already killed in the conflict? Why do these few hundred allegedly killed by Assad count any more than the estimated 1,000 Christians in Syria killed by US allies on the other side? Why is it any worse to be killed by poison gas than to have your head chopped off by the US allied radical Islamists, as has happened to a number of Christian priests and bishops in Syria?
For that matter, why are the few hundred civilians killed in Syria by a chemical weapon any worse than the 2000-3000 who have been killed by Obama's drone strikes in Pakistan? Does it really make a difference whether a civilian is killed by poison gas or by drone missile or dull knife?
This the same now as then.
Greedy does not stop.
It started when America was born.
[url]http://www.bbcamerica.com/copper[/url]
[url]http://www.bbcamerica.com/copper/videos/uptown-bullshit/[/url]
[QUOTE=Punter127;435370]I watched the speech on youtube, and to tell you the truth every time I hear Obama talk it reminds me of a snake oil salesman, but hey I get the same feeling when I hear John McCain. When it comes to politicians I take most of what they say with a grain of salt.
There is nobody in that list I want to team up with.
In "The Sociology of Imperialism," Joseph Schumpeter wrote of the Roman Empire's suicidal interventionism:
[I]"There was no corner of the known world where some interest was not alleged to be in danger or under actual attack. If the interests were not Roman, they were those of Rome's allies; and if Rome had no allies, then allies would be invented. When it was utterly impossible to contrive an interest - why, then it was the national honour that had been insulted."[/I]
Sound familiar?
Look deeper, what do you think this war is really about, and who stands to gain from American involvement? Why has Syria become so important? Do you really think it's about Chemical weapons?
"Chemical attack, particularly one that kills civilians, is horrible and horrendous. All deaths in war and violence are terrible and should be condemned. But why are a few hundred killed by chemical attack any worse or more deserving of US bombs than the 100,000 already killed in the conflict? Why do these few hundred allegedly killed by Assad count any more than the estimated 1,000 Christians in Syria killed by US allies on the other side? Why is it any worse to be killed by poison gas than to have your head chopped off by the US allied radical Islamists, as has happened to a number of Christian priests and bishops in Syria?
For that matter, why are the few hundred civilians killed in Syria by a chemical weapon any worse than the 2000-3000 who have been killed by Obama's drone strikes in Pakistan? Does it really make a difference whether a civilian is killed by poison gas or by drone missile or dull knife?[/QUOTE]So we don't like Russia & Iran stepping in and propping up Assad. After all, we are a world power, and they are playing in our oil fields. And Israel is our proxy for maintaining some semblance of influence in that region. America's middle east foreign policy has always been about oil, then and forever. No difference from Iraq.
[B]Did I stutter?[/B]
[QUOTE=BlackShirt;435375]What are you trying to say?[/QUOTE]Allow me to be simplistic. I oppose US military involvement in Syria.
[QUOTE=BlackShirt;435375] So we don't like Russia & Iran stepping in and propping up Assad. After all, we are a world power, and they are playing in our oil fields. And Israel is our proxy for maintaining some semblance of influence in that region. America's middle east foreign policy has always been about oil, then and forever. No difference from Iraq.[/QUOTE]Are you saying there's no difference between Bush and Obama? Or are you just sidestepping the issue to keep from telling us where you stand on military involvement?
We're a broke world power, and I would be more incline to say it's the Saudi's that don't like what's going on, and they want Obama to use our military to clean things up.
Here's some other things I've seen that I suspect are in play in this situation;.
"In the last year, a giant Persian Gulf gas discovery was made in a joint Iran-Qatar project." I've also read reports that say Syria is to be the end port for a Gas Pipeline. If true it will begin in Iran pass through Iraq and end at the Mediterranean seaport in Syria, that's a straight shot. Even though Qatar is fighting against the Assad now, the plan calls for Qatari natural gas to be directed into the same pipeline. And who has a seaport in Syria, you guessed it the Russians have a naval port in Tartus.
While we've had our thumb up our asses arguing and fighting over fracking and blocking pipelines, "Russia has been building crude oil pipelines and natural gas pipelines from the Mother Russian lands to points in Europe and China and the Former Soviet Republics. They have been constructing modern LNG gas port facilities." What effect will all this have on Saudi crude oil? Will the world move from oil to gas? Also remember crude oil sales are in USD, if the pipelines are completed those sales will probably not be in USD, and what effect would that have on the dollar? Syria stands at the door to the emergence of the Eastern Alliance, the new dominant energy pipelines, and for these reasons and not chemical weapons, I believe the United States will find a way to get involved.
"The fact is that the average man's love of liberty is nine-tenths imaginary, exactly like his love of sense, justice and truth. He is not actually happy when free; he is uncomfortable, a bit alarmed, and intolerably lonely. Liberty is not a thing for the great masses of men. It is the exclusive possession of a small and disreputable minority, like knowledge, courage and honor. It takes a special sort of man to understand and enjoy liberty. And he is usually an outlaw in democratic societies.
TL.
Some people have the vocabulary to sum up things in a way that you can quickly understand them. This quote came from the Czech Republic. Someone over there has it figured out. It was translated into English from an article in the Prague newspaper Prager Zeitungon.
[QUOTE]The danger to America is not Barack Obama, but a citizenry capable of entrusting a man like him with the Presidency. It will be far easier to limit and undo the follies of an Obama presidency than to restore the necessary common sense and good judgment to a depraved electorate willing to have such a man for their president. The problem is much deeper and far more serious than Mr. Obama, who is a mere symptom of what ails America. Blaming the prince of the fools should not blind anyone to the vast confederacy of fools that made him their prince. The Republic can survive a Barack Obama, who is, after all, merely a fool. It is less likely to survive a multitude of fools, such as those who made him their president.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Punter127;435391][B]Did I stutter?[/B]
Allow me to be simplistic. I oppose US military involvement in Syria.
Are you saying there's no difference between Bush and Obama? Or are you just sidestepping the issue to keep from telling us where you stand on military involvement[/QUOTE]That's right, there has been no difference between the US presidents from Franklin Roosevelt to Barack Obama when it comes to oil and the Middle East. As for military intervention, just do what we did in Libya. A few key bombing missions would have tilt the tide. And meanwhile, have the Israelis do it for us.
German parade floats:
[ATTACH=CONFIG]28858[/ATTACH][ATTACH=CONFIG]28859[/ATTACH][ATTACH=CONFIG]28860[/ATTACH][ATTACH=CONFIG]28861[/ATTACH][ATTACH=CONFIG]28862[/ATTACH].
Enjoy.
[QUOTE=TejanoLibre;435394]"The fact is that the average man's love of liberty is nine-tenths imaginary, exactly like his love of sense, justice and truth. He is not actually happy when free; he is uncomfortable, a bit alarmed, and intolerably lonely. Liberty is not a thing for the great masses of men. It is the exclusive possession of a small and disreputable minority, like knowledge, courage and honor. It takes a special sort of man to understand and enjoy liberty. And he is usually an outlaw in democratic societies.
TL.[/QUOTE]Not flipping at you. Since we never met, I don't really know.
Black Shirt, first of all we did not get any oil out of Iraq and while Afghanistan is rich in mineral resources they are never going to be recoverable in our lifetime. The only war we did wage for Oil was Gulf I to liberate Kuwait.
As I stated before, if the Obamanation was going to do anything he should have done it when the rebels were all Syrian and were making progress against the regime nearly three years ago not now after all the radicals flooded in and the Russians improved and manned their air defense network.
At the beginning he could have taken out their primary military assets as well as command and control centers with a few well placed strikes if he did not telegraph his intentions before the strikes. If he had to run his mouth then do it once the ordinance was in the air.
Obama has show over and over he has no grasp of much of anything but especially in the international arena where he is seen as weak and bumbling.
[QUOTE=BlackShirt;435397]That's right, there has been no difference between the US presidents from Franklin Roosevelt to Barack Obama when it comes to oil and the Middle East.[/QUOTE]Thank you.
[QUOTE=BlackShirt;435397]As for military intervention, just do what we did in Libya. A few key bombing missions would have tilt the tide. And meanwhile, have the Israelis do it for us.[/QUOTE][B][u]Why Syria Is More Complicated Than Libya.[/u][/B]
[URL]http://www.npr.org/2013/08/29/216858049/why-syria-is-more-complicated-than-libya[/URL]
Audio.
[URL]http://www.npr.org/player/v2/mediaPlayer.html?action=1&t=1&islist=false&id=216858049&m=216926485[/URL]
[QUOTE=Doppelganger;435400]Black Shirt, first of all we did not get any oil out of Iraq and while Afghanistan is rich in mineral resources they are never going to be recoverable in our lifetime. The only war we did wage for Oil was Gulf I to liberate Kuwait.
As I stated before, if the Obamanation was going to do anything he should have done it when the rebels were all Syrian and were making progress against the regime nearly three years ago not now after all the radicals flooded in and the Russians improved and manned their air defense network.
At the beginning he could have taken out their primary military assets as well as command and control centers with a few well placed strikes if he did not telegraph his intentions before the strikes. If he had to run his mouth then do it once the ordinance was in the air.
Obama has show over and over he has no grasp of much of anything but especially in the international arena where he is seen as weak and bumbling.[/QUOTE]Especially on the home front. From people like you, Senator McConnell, Trump who try to block, mis-quote, fear-monger every issue for the last 5 years. Took away precious time & resources. Bush was the luckiest president alive, what with the Supreme Court decision & then 9-11 that united America and gave him a clear playing field for the next 6 years. He was toast after that. So now, we are war weary, suicidal and broke. No wonder that Bush took up painting and biking for his leisure activities. He must have nightmares about how Cheney con him, that trusted lieutenant.
You are right about the timing of intervention, it is a little late. Even with Assad gone, we do not know who is going to come aboard. Probably a Egyptian situation in the making. Syria has always been a Iran / Russia proxy, we had a chance to flip the situation & miss it.
More on Eric Holder and the weed issue.
Sorry it's from Huff Po again.
[URL]http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/03/marijuana-deaths_n_3860418.html[/URL]
[QUOTE=Doppelganger;435400]As I stated before, if the Obamanation was going to do anything he should have done it when the rebels were all Syrian and were making progress against the regime nearly three years ago not now after all the radicals flooded in and the Russians improved and manned their air defense network.
At the beginning he could have taken out their primary military assets as well as command and control centers with a few well placed strikes if he did not telegraph his intentions before the strikes. If he had to run his mouth then do it once the ordinance was in the air.[/QUOTE]Gee, it all sounds so easy. Where were the Republicans on this? Oh yes, sitting on the sidelines waiting to whip up a frenzy of outrage to elect a Republican president in 2012. Obama was not going to harm America to help Syria.
[QUOTE=Esten;435408]Gee, it all sounds so easy. Where were the Republicans on this? Oh yes, sitting on the sidelines waiting to whip up a frenzy of outrage to elect a Republican president in 2012. Obama was not going to harm America to help Syria.[/QUOTE]Esten.
First:
We don't have any business getting involved in Syria in the first place, it's not our problem. I'm pretty sure the Republicans have been on this tract from the start.
Second:
Why does Obama have his nose out of joint over the use of chemical weapons, Assad has killed a lot more civilians and rebels with air strikes, artillery, tanks, heavy and small arms fire than he has with chemical weapons.
So the folks killed by gas are more dead than the others, more special, a greater atrocity or is it Assad's use of chemical weapons crossed the "red line" Obama declared when he was shooting off his mouth trying to act tough?
As I recall when Saddam Hussein used chemical weapons against the Kurds in Iraq the Democrats didn't bat an eye, so what makes this different, Obama's prestige?
Third:
As I have already said – we have no business doing anything in Syria – but if the Obamation was so upset about all the civilian causalities and was really serious when he said Assad must go, his words not mine, then he should have acted early and struck without telegraphing his intentions.
No it is not "easy" but much more easily accomplished before Assad began dispersing his assets and the Russians provided and manned up graded air defense systems.
Last:
Neither one drop of American blood nor the life of a single American service member is worth salvaging Obama's "prestige" after he shot from the lip in attempt to appear relevant or tough on the world stage and now is caught with his pants down and no allies willing to join him in this ill-conceived endeavor to bolster his image and save face.
[QUOTE=BlackShirt;435402]Especially on the home front. From people like you, Senator McConnell, Trump who try to block, mis-quote, fear-monger every issue for the last 5 years. Took away precious time & resources. Bush was the luckiest president alive, what with the Supreme Court decision & then 9-11 that united America and gave him a clear playing field for the next 6 years. He was toast after that. So now, we are war weary, suicidal and broke. No wonder that Bush took up painting and biking for his leisure activities. He must have nightmares about how Cheney con him, that trusted lieutenant.[/QUOTE]Oh Black Shirt, I had no idea I had such power, but me thinks you exaggerate my abilities and the situation.
Obama and the Democrats ran riot for two years enacting any and everything their liberal little hearts desired until the 2010 mid-term elections. If anyone squandered resources it was Obama.
I would say a significant portion of the country does not agree with Obama's leadership and the 2014 mid-terms may look a lot like 2010.
Obama's approval rating is at 42% and there is no appetite for another foreign adventure.
Obama's signature achievement AHA is losing support daily, twists in the wind with one delay after another and now even the unions have turned against it.
With the national debt at $16+ trillion and rising to support a welfare state spending rate which will bankrupt the country. I will add that I did not agree with financing the Iraq and Afghan wars with debt, it should have been paid with current revenues.
Obama has made his own bed and now he has to sleep in it.
I have to agree with Jackson's quote, who is more to blame the fool who leads or the fools who elected him.
Iraq / Syria.
Fool me once, shame on you.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]28863[/ATTACH]
Fool me twice, shame on me.
[QUOTE=DaddyRulz;435406]More on Eric Holder and the weed issue.
Sorry it's from Huff Po again.
[URL]http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/03/marijuana-deaths_n_3860418.html[/URL][/QUOTE]A Democrat friend of mine who's a stoner has told me that Holder and Obama had no control over the federal attorneys and agents who enforce the drug laws. And that's the reason, for example, that prosecution of medical marijuana clinics and growers in California was much more aggressive under Obama than Bush. I think this story shows that's all B.S. They can do what they want to do. I hope their sudden change of attitude will extend to other states, besides Colorado and Washington, and to other issues related to civil liberties.
[QUOTE=Doppelganger;435412]Oh Black Shirt, I had no idea I had such power, but me thinks you exaggerate my abilities and the situation.
Obama and the Democrats ran riot for two years enacting any and everything their liberal little hearts desired until the 2010 mid-term elections. If anyone squandered resources it was Obama.[/QUOTE]I was on the road, and was not paying too much attention to what Obama & the Democratic Congress enacted other than ObamaCare. Maybe, you could enlighten me. All I knew was that all hell was breaking loose on the economic front, as banks, stocks & housing prices plunge, lay-offs & unemployment skyrocketed. The biggest economic crisis since the Great Depression. My personal investment fell 40%, I had to go into ignore mode, and convince myself into pretending it never happen.
A crisis you would wish on your enemy. And for an incoming president, just another day strolling through the park, eh! In your estimation, of course.
I believe this explains Liberals pretty well. Leave it to Linus to get it right.
Doppelganger, your third cartoon is right on if one would use the words "pro abortion" instead of "pro choice". That is but one reason that I choose pro abortion rather than pro choice. I do not think that the abortion issue should be one that is liberal or conservative. Men should be left out of the decision entirely. The decision should be left to the individual woman who is pregnant, and whether she is conservative or liberal makes no difference.
Tres3.
[QUOTE=Doppelganger;435411]As I have already said – we have no business doing anything in Syria[/QUOTE]Like a Republican free market capitalist, Doppel's life philosophy can usually be distilled to the following common denominator:
[I]Who cares about anyone else. What's in it for [size=+1][b]me[/b][/size] ?[/I]
Did you read the whole thing or just the parts you liked?
Obama had 1 Benghazi.
Bush had 13 Benghazis.
[QUOTE=Doppelganger;435441]I believe this explains Liberals pretty well. Leave it to Linus to get it right.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Tres3;435443]Doppelganger, your third cartoon is right on if one would use the words "pro abortion" instead of "pro choice". That is but one reason that I choose pro abortion rather than pro choice. I do not think that the abortion issue should be one that is liberal or conservative. Men should be left out of the decision entirely. The decision should be left to the individual woman who is pregnant, and whether she is conservative or liberal makes no difference.
Tres3.[/QUOTE]Two questions;
1. Assuming the father's going to be held financially responsible shouldn't he have a voice?
2. Don't you think there should be some type limit, or a point of no return in the pregnancy?
I don't say "pro abortion" because I think it's morally wrong, however I support having the right to make that choice, within reason.
[QUOTE=WorldTravel69;435447]Did you read the whole thing or just the parts you liked?
Obama had 1 Benghazi.
Bush had 13 Benghazis.[/QUOTE]The difference is that Bush did something about it.
[QUOTE=Punter127;435448]
1. Assuming the father's going to be held financially responsible shouldn't he have a voice?
[/QUOTE]I do not want to get in an argument with you or argue the point with dueling article links. I agree that if the father steps up and accepts responsibility for his actions, and will also be financially responsible for the child, he should have some voice. Unfortunately, that is seldom the case. If one talks to the folks at Planned Parenthood (throughout the country) and / or lawyers, one finds an astounding number of fathers who refuse to accept responsibility for their actions.
Tres3.
For all my liberal friends, Esten, WT69, Black Shirt et. Al.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]28871[/ATTACH][ATTACH=CONFIG]28872[/ATTACH][ATTACH=CONFIG]28873[/ATTACH][ATTACH=CONFIG]28874[/ATTACH][ATTACH=CONFIG]28875[/ATTACH][ATTACH=CONFIG]28876[/ATTACH][ATTACH=CONFIG]28877[/ATTACH].
[QUOTE=Esten;435444]Like a Republican free market capitalist, Doppel's life philosophy can usually be distilled to the following common denominator:
[I]Who cares about anyone else. What's in it for ?[/I][/QUOTE]Democrats want people to be poor or unemployed or totally dependent on government. That way they get more votes. They enlarge their constituency. And if they can blame it all on racism instead of their own policies so much the better:
[URL]http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323324904579041313852450646.html[/URL]
[QUOTE=Tres3;435451]I do not want to get in an argument with you or argue the point with dueling article links. I agree that if the father steps up and accepts responsibility for his actions, and will also be financially responsible for the child, he should have some voice. Unfortunately, that is seldom the case. If one talks to the folks at Planned Parenthood (throughout the country) and / or lawyers, one finds an astounding number of fathers who refuse to accept responsibility for their actions.
Tres3.[/QUOTE]No argument here simply asking questions and voicing an opinion. I think a woman should have the choice of aborting, up to a point. (late term is absurd) But I also think the father should have the option of requesting her to abort, if she refuses than the father should be relieved of financial responsibility and all parental rights. It only seems fair to me, if she has the power of choice, he should have some options as well. IMHO.
Read and you will know.
[URL]http://www.vice.com/read/here-are-all-the-laws-passed-by-the-worst-congress-of-all-time[/URL]
Why are they mostly in the Republican States. They hate the Demos and Vote Republican, but use what they can get for Free.
[QUOTE=Tiny12;435454]Democrats want people to be poor or unemployed or totally dependent on government. That way they get more votes. They enlarge their constituency. And if they can blame it all on racism instead of their own policies so much the better:
[URL]http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323324904579041313852450646.html[/URL][/QUOTE]
Had to post this quote since we have not had a president over the past 5+ years.
"Musician Charlie Daniels is never bashful about his conservative beliefs, but his latest Facebook message pulls nary a punch regarding President Barack Obama's waffling on Syria.
In my soon to be 77 years as a citizen of the United States of America, having lived through Japan's sneak attack on Pearl Harbor, the dark days of WWII, Korea, Vietnam, Watergate, 9/11 and all the other serious and profound events our beloved nation has been involved in over the last three quarters of a century, I have to say with all sincerity that I have never seen a president as confused, befuddled, impotent, insincere and as out of his depth as Barack Obama has become in dealing with the Syrian issue.
When you're the leader of the free world, you don't make statements you can't back up and you don't draw lines in the sand, watch your enemies cross them with impunity and go off and play a round of golf.
America's leaders should guard their tongues well and not issue spur of the moment reactions and empty threats. Our bite should be a lot worse than our bark and a presidential warning should be a dire and solemn caution, issued only once and followed up with swift and decisive action, not some half-baked puff of bravado that nobody really takes seriously."
[QUOTE=WorldTravel69;435460] Poor and Unemployed - Why are they mostly in the Republican States. They hate the Demos and Vote Republican, but use what they can get for Free.[/QUOTE]Not true and / or irrelevant:
[URL]http://www.cnn.com/2012/08/29/politics/pol-fact-check-gop-governors[/URL]
[URL]http://www.forbes.com/sites/markhendrickson/2012/06/07/are-the-10-poorest-u-s-states-really-republican/[/URL]
And, btw, adjust for the cost of living and taxes and "backwards" states like Texas start to look more prosperous than your home state.
WT69, You've been strangely silent on the Syrian issue. Why? I know you'd be raising hell if a Republican president were proposing to bomb another country.