• Welcome to BGO! We know you will have questions as you become familiar with the software. Please take a moment to read our New BGO User Guide which will give you a great start. If you have questions, post them in the Feedback and Tech Support Forum, or feel free to message any available Staff Member.

2012 Presidential Election

I can agree with that to a point. I think more and more people are voting 3rd party though to show their disgust. if we could get a legitimate 3rd party candidate he could do some real damage to the 2 parties.

but looking back i wouldnt have voted palin/mccain again. but i wouldnt have voted obama either..

The only way a third party would make an impact is to start at local levels and move up
 
any embassy, any ship, any base anywhere in the US is considered US soil.

Yes, I agree - however even though its considered US soil, its still different when there is a major attack actually on US soil. This may not be true technically, but emotionally it certainly is.
 
You are inferring what Gore would do, based on what Clinton did "when Americans were killed." Direct quote. You're making a direct comparison between the events! Its written in your last two posts. By assuming Gore's actions would have been the same, you're assuming the incidents themselves were of similar severity. It is basic logic.

OK, I was mistaken. You are right I was comparing the two. You are wrong to infer I was comparing the severity. As a nation the events of 9/11 are a national tragedy of unprecedented consequence.

Look, you can minimize the USS Cole and the Embassy bombings to suit your argument by claiming they are not technically US Soil and not as severe as the 9/11 bombings. Go tell that to the families of the US Citizens lost in those bombings! And they are technically US Soil.

Regardless, the lives of numerous US Citizens and soldiers were lost in both. Given the lackluster response by Bill Clinton which was supported by Al Gore when those bombings occurred coupled with the fact that Al Gore is far more liberal than Bill Clinton as proven by his track record, it is not too far fetched to trust that Al Gore would never have responded in a meaningful way when the towers came down.

Thanks God we never had to find out!


Its common sense - we're talking a direct attack on US soil. You can point to every conflict in Africa that every Democrat in history has ever dealt with and try to use it as a basis for their response to 9/11, but it just doesn't fly! Maybe you're just anti-Democrat, and think we're all so against war we'd stand by as our countrymen were killed randomly? Need I remind you it was a Democrat (arguably a socialist) who took us to war against Japan?

Again, any US embassy throughout the world is US soil! Also, I am not pointing to every conflict in Africa, I am talking about how as VP Al Gore supported a negligible reaction by Clinton in response to Americans being killed by terrorists. And since Al Gore has displayed his opposition to military actions in the past, he would not have reacted in a much different manner than Clinton did in those events in 1998. It's not that difficult to see!

You place too much value on this partisan issue. There are things I agree with that Democratic Presidents have done. If you read through some of the economic issues that have been brought and even in the beginning of this thread, I mention how Clinton was a brilliant orator and understoodthe political game well enough that between his agenda and that of Newt Gingrich as Speaker, the two of them were able to give us a balanced budget. He was able to work together with a man he hated to move this country forward!

Kennedy and Civil Rights.

Hell, even the buffoon Carter was able to get the Egyptians and Israeli to sign a peace accord!

So, this one sentence is why McCain would have been "a far better president?"

Well, it's a start! A huge start!

What is the relevance of this? I don't know anything about tax law, but if her taxes changed that drastically between this year and last year, I'd get a second opinion.

Actually, she did seek a 2nd opinion and got her to break even. As the accountant finished the forms, he looked at us and said, "You can thank Obama and O'Malley for this!" So...

You made light of the fact Obama was taking credit for victory in Iraq, I was simply pointing out that its a bit hypocritical to do so. Every president blames problems on the past administration and takes credit for their successes. Just like both sides take credit when things are going good, and point the finger when things are going bad.

Vague generalization! Nonsense!

And I am not making light of it! He is absolutely hypocritical! He voted against the surge! The surge worked! As Bush left office, Iraq had been stabilized. Please don't try to suggest it wasn't. You know it was! Obama gets to office, claims all combat troops will be out by 2010, which they weren't, and held his head up in a statement of victory in Iraq as if he had something to do with it! He was against any action in Iraq from day 1!
 
its not different. its american soil. just because its not in your back yard doesnt mean its any different than 9/11.

the uss cole is as big of a deal as pearl harbor..both were terrorist attacks on americans.

You're not being honest if you say the pictures of the USS Cole invoked the same emotion as the images of the trade centers being taken down & the after effects. Regardless, this is taking the discussion down a different path.
 
OK, I was mistaken. You are right I was comparing the two. You are wrong to infer I was comparing the severity. As a nation the events of 9/11 are a national tragedy of unprecedented consequence.

Look, you can minimize the USS Cole and the Embassy bombings to suit your argument by claiming they are not technically US Soil and not as severe as the 9/11 bombings. Go tell that to the families of the US Citizens lost in those bombings! And they are technically US Soil.

Regardless, the lives of numerous US Citizens and soldiers were lost in both. Given the lackluster response by Bill Clinton which was supported by Al Gore when those bombings occurred coupled with the fact that Al Gore is far more liberal than Bill Clinton as proven by his track record, it is not too far fetched to trust that Al Gore would never have responded in a meaningful way when the towers came down.

Thanks God we never had to find out!


El, I thank God Al Gore was never our president, but this is an insane statement. Are you honestly arguing that Gore would have sat on his ass and done nothing after 9-11? Seriously? Bush did a nice job holding the nation together, probably better than Gore would have been able to do. But to assert that Gore would have sat on his hands is ludicrous.
 
OK, I was mistaken. You are right I was comparing the two. You are wrong to infer I was comparing the severity. As a nation the events of 9/11 are a national tragedy of unprecedented consequence.

Look, you can minimize the USS Cole and the Embassy bombings to suit your argument by claiming they are not technically US Soil and not as severe as the 9/11 bombings. Go tell that to the families of the US Citizens lost in those bombings! And they are technically US Soil.

Talk about misquoting someone! I agreed that they are US soil, only disagreed that the impact was the same. You just typed in your previous paragraph that "As a nation the events of 9/11 are a national tragedy of unprecedented consequence." So you agree that it had much more of an impact than anything else. You just agreed!

Also, I'm not minimizing anything - only pointing out that the attacks on 9/11 were much more significant. Now you are putting words in my mouth.

Regardless, the lives of numerous US Citizens and soldiers were lost in both. Given the lackluster response by Bill Clinton which was supported by Al Gore when those bombings occurred coupled with the fact that Al Gore is far more liberal than Bill Clinton as proven by his track record, it is not too far fetched to trust that Al Gore would never have responded in a meaningful way when the towers came down.

Thanks God we never had to find out!

Again, you are the one underestimating things. The death tolls in the embassy bombings in Nairobi & Dar es Salaam was 223, and most of those were local citizens. 12 Americans lost their lives. In the 9/11 attacks, almost 3000 people lost their lives, including 400+ rescue workers after the fact. I can't get a count on how many of those were American citizens, but I'm sure its the vast majority.

Again - not minimizing or discounting the 12 Americans who died in those embassy bombings - merely pointing out their numbers were dwarfed by 9/11.

Again, any US embassy throughout the world is US soil! Also, I am not pointing to every conflict in Africa, I am talking about how as VP Al Gore supported a negligible reaction by Clinton in response to Americans being killed by terrorists. And since Al Gore has displayed his opposition to military actions in the past, he would not have reacted in a much different manner than Clinton did in those events in 1998. It's not that difficult to see!

I know exactly what you're doing, and its intellectually dishonest. That's all I'm saying.

You place too much value on this partisan issue. There are things I agree with that Democratic Presidents have done. If you read through some of the economic issues that have been brought and even in the beginning of this thread, I mention how Clinton was a brilliant orator and understoodthe political game well enough that between his agenda and that of Newt Gingrich as Speaker, the two of them were able to give us a balanced budget. He was able to work together with a man he hated to move this country forward!

Kennedy and Civil Rights.

Hell, even the buffoon Carter was able to get the Egyptians and Israeli to sign a peace accord!

Okay...sort of off topic. There are things I agree with that Republican presidents have done also.

Actually, she did seek a 2nd opinion and got her to break even. As the accountant finished the forms, he looked at us and said, "You can thank Obama and O'Malley for this!" So...

Well again, I don't know where her income comes from or anything of that nature, so I can't comment. I make a decent amount of money, and my bi-weekly taxes have gone down. So....

Vague generalization! Nonsense!

Really? Prove me wrong. Saying "Nonsense!" is not proving anything wrong.

And I am not making light of it! He is absolutely hypocritical! He voted against the surge! The surge worked! As Bush left office, Iraq had been stabilized. Please don't try to suggest it wasn't. You know it was! Obama gets to office, claims all combat troops will be out by 2010, which they weren't, and held his head up in a statement of victory in Iraq as if he had something to do with it! He was against any action in Iraq from day 1!

I'm not sure you can claim any nation in the middle east is really "stable," as recent events have shown us. Iraq? This month there have been protests in the streets! The new PM is struggling to hold the fragmented country together! You're turning a blind eye if you suggest its even close to stable. Also, as of August 2010, all US combat troops were out of Iraq. Whoops. All US troops will be out of Iraq by *the end of* 2011, once the country is back on its feet. Being against the action in Iraq was a major reason why I voted for him. He wasn't a hypocrite like Kerry, who voted for the war.

*EDIT
 
El, I thank God Al Gore was never our president, but this is an insane statement. Are you honestly arguing that Gore would have sat on his ass and done nothing after 9-11? Seriously? Bush did a nice job holding the nation together, probably better than Gore would have been able to do. But to assert that Gore would have sat on his hands is ludicrous.

Thank you - I'm glad I'm not the only one who had this reaction.
 
El, I thank God Al Gore was never our president, but this is an insane statement. Are you honestly arguing that Gore would have sat on his ass and done nothing after 9-11? Seriously? Bush did a nice job holding the nation together, probably better than Gore would have been able to do. But to assert that Gore would have sat on his hands is ludicrous.

No, I did not say he would have done nothing! I am making the assertion that he would have been ineffective at best! He would likely have done some air strikes, perhaps some troops. I doubt seriously he would ever have gone into Afghanistan and rid the country of the Taliban!
 
No, I did not say he would have done nothing! I am making the assertion that he would have been ineffective at best! He would likely have done some air strikes, perhaps some troops. I doubt seriously he would ever have gone into Afghanistan and rid the country of the Taliban!

Well, considering Bush's (lack of) success at accomplishing that, I can certainly agree that would have been the likely outcome.
 
Bush decided to focus on Iraq and getting rid of that tyrant. and im sure you know Saddam was captured, tried and hung.

Its funny that Obama is pretty much doing exactly what Bush did yet he is has caught very little heat until now over it.


I was hopeful Obama meant it when he talked about withdrawing from Iraq. I see the need of keeping a small peacekeeping presence there, but nothing too extensive. I would rather concentrate fully on Afghanistan and wipe out the Taliban completely. Just eradicate them from existence.

Not thrilled that we seem to be placing ourselves into more situations in the middle east that will distract us from the Taliban.
 
Well, considering Bush's (lack of) success at accomplishing that, I can certainly agree that would have been the likely outcome.

Bush did expel the Taliban. Unfortunately, he underestimated the Afghan people's desire to protect themselves and the Pakistani involvement in keeping the Taliban from regrouping. Because the Afghanis would not stand up and fight for themselves, Bush and now Obama were stuck with keeping US troops there much longer than ever anticipated.

I am inclined to agree with fs62 on this one. It is time to withdraw the majority of troops and keep up the drone attacks from some forward base near Kabul. We have done about as much as we can to help this country. It's time to cut bait!
 
I am inclined to agree with fs62 on this one. It is time to withdraw the majority of troops and keep up the drone attacks from some forward base near Kabul. We have done about as much as we can to help this country. It's time to cut bait!

Ooooh, don't do that! Good Lord, his head will explode.

I think we need to keep a small presence there in case the Taliban decides to get chesty. If those ****ers start to re-congregate, we need to eliminate them post haste.
 
No, I did not say he would have done nothing! I am making the assertion that he would have been ineffective at best! He would likely have done some air strikes, perhaps some troops. I doubt seriously he would ever have gone into Afghanistan and rid the country of the Taliban!

I just don't get this assertion, is all I'm saying. You think Gore would have just sat around and done nothing after 3000 people died in New York City? That's just a mind-bogglingly biased statement, and not based in any sort of reality.
 
Ooooh, don't do that! Good Lord, his head will explode.

I think we need to keep a small presence there in case the Taliban decides to get chesty. If those ****ers start to re-congregate, we need to eliminate them post haste.

no disrepect...but you're not the guy sitting there with no identifiable national objective other than withdrawal.....waiting for the IED with your address on it.
 
I just don't get this assertion, is all I'm saying. You think Gore would have just sat around and done nothing after 3000 people died in New York City? That's just a mind-bogglingly biased statement, and not based in any sort of reality.

Jaimie, did you read the statement you quoted? I clearly stated and have re-emphasized, I never said he would do nothing! I have repeated I do not think he would have been effective. In fact, I think he would have been ineffective! I did not say he would have done nothing.
 
seems to me that is how any candidate should start.

the whole party would have toi be successfull like liberterians who have had some success as local candidates would have to move more into state leveals before they make a a huge jump into congress
 
Bush did expel the Taliban. Unfortunately, he underestimated the Afghan people's desire to protect themselves and the Pakistani involvement in keeping the Taliban from regrouping. Because the Afghanis would not stand up and fight for themselves, Bush and now Obama were stuck with keeping US troops there much longer than ever anticipated.

I am inclined to agree with fs62 on this one. It is time to withdraw the majority of troops and keep up the drone attacks from some forward base near Kabul. We have done about as much as we can to help this country. It's time to cut bait!

We need to cut bait just lob a few cruise missles every week or so to let them know we are still watching

We are paying these afghanis cash to be our friends
 
Jaimie, did you read the statement you quoted? I clearly stated and have re-emphasized, I never said he would do nothing! I have repeated I do not think he would have been effective. In fact, I think he would have been ineffective! I did not say he would have done nothing.

That's my point - any sitting president would respond to an attack of that magnitude with nothing less than the full sledge-hammer of our military up the offending country's butt. I just don't see a debate here...and saying Gore would have done otherwise, especially based on what Bill Clinton did in response to a much smaller conflict, is simply right-wing bias. There's nothing more I can tell ya, B - you're just being overly biased IMO.
 
That's my point - any sitting president would respond to an attack of that magnitude with nothing less than the full sledge-hammer of our military up the offending country's butt. I just don't see a debate here...and saying Gore would have done otherwise, especially based on what Bill Clinton did in response to a much smaller conflict, is simply right-wing bias. There's nothing more I can tell ya, B - you're just being overly biased IMO.

And I think you're being rather foolish to believe Gore would have been effective in any meaningful way. He would have reacted, like I have said again and again. But his reactions would not have been with the full force of US Military might as you suggest. Go back over his history, he is not pro-military and I used his support of Clinton as Clinton's VP during US bombings in Afghanistan after Americans were killed as an example of ineffective military action. It really isn't that hard to understand, but your bias won't let you see that.
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Total: 1, Members: 0, Guests: 1)

Help Users
As we enjoy today's conversations, let's remember our dear friends 'Docsandy', Sandy Zier-Teitler, and 'Posse Lover', Michael Huffman, who would dearly love to be here with us today! We love and miss you guys ❤

You haven't joined any rooms.

    You haven't joined any rooms.
    Top