Should The US Military Be Put On It's Borders?

Other video games, TV shows, movies, general chit-chat...this is an all-purpose off-topic board where you can talk about anything that doesn't have its own dedicated section.

Should The US Military Be Put On It's Borders?

Postby :digerati: on Wed Nov 27, 2002 11:53 am

I think it should be on every border, but I'll let Canada off to put more on the Mexican border.

The reason? Simple, keep out the drugs and terrorists. I mean, after September 11th, John Lee Malvo (the "sniper"), etc. Don't you think this is necessary? I mean most of the 9/11 terrorists came here illegaly, as did Malvo, his mother and countless others. I'm not even gonna get started on the drugs and the fact that the drug smugglers are smuggling people over now because of the huge profit...$1,500 per Mexican, and $30,000 for someone from the Middle-East.

Over thirteen million illegal immigrants in the United States (because of the INS, Clinton Administration, etc.). Most of them get involved in crime in someway, and none of them pay any taxes. The UN is busy wandering around Iraq getting fooled by Saddam until at least February. The Military is more than likely prepped to do something, let's send them to the damn border. The drug smugglers will probably put up a tougher fight than Iraq ever could, it'll be like over-preperation if we ever go there.

Come on Bush Administration, protect the People Of The United States.

Anyone else with any thoughts on the matter?
:digerati:
 

Postby Rens on Thu Nov 28, 2002 4:15 am

Isn't there a lot of smuggling between the U.S. and Canada as well? I think they should try and keep illegal immigrants out as much as possible, those people are parasites to any country.
User avatar
Rens
 
Posts: 1540
Joined: Sat Aug 31, 2002 5:05 am
Location: Location: Location: Location: Location: Location: Location: Location: Location: Location:

Postby :digerati: on Thu Nov 28, 2002 4:19 am

Yeah, there is, but not to the extent as on the Mexican border. So if I had to choose, I'd pick Mexico. Not like we don't have the power to patrol both borders (the Canadian-US border is the one of (if no the) largest in the World and thus would be very hard to patrol), and perhaps Canada deserves it after the PM referred to Bush as "that idiot", and they let in anyone into their country.
:digerati:
 

Postby Wall St. Peon on Thu Nov 28, 2002 4:25 am

I'll throw you a bone...

I agree. Apparently, "homeland security" means "going to other countries and starting fights." That's not how I would understand it, but who am I to interpret politics?

Recently in Iowa a box car was found with something like 11 dead Mexicans who were smuggled from the border. Apparently, they'd all been sitting there for months. Now, had there been better border security, this wouldn't happen.

Now, unless they're involved with drugs or crime in some way - which a high percentage of Mexican illegal immigrants are - the US shouldn't care. They take the jobs that Americans wouldn't take; they'll pick lettuce for $3 an hour for 10 hours a day in the hot sun with no break and be happy. Good for them. If they don't care to establish citizenship and pay taxes, that's their prize: near slave labor.

As for the central topic, there definately should be people protecting our borders. The US is involved in far too many foreign matters and need to take up a more isolationist policy, like when this country was started and up to the World Wars. It's none of our business what's going on in Isreal or the Middle East, for that matter. We simply need to keep those countries on our good side, suck up to them, because our meddling in the middle east caused September 11 and the Sniper to happen. We want their oil, yet we're alienating those very countries who we need a resource from by basically declaring war on Islam.

If the US goes back to an isolational policy in dealing with foreign matters, strengthens the border to keep out the riff-raff and drugs, and sucks up to the Middle Eastern countries so they don't want to destroy the US and will give us oil at a cheaper price, well, don't you think this country would be a much better place to live in?
Shane
Wall St. Peon
 
Posts: 898
Joined: Sun Oct 06, 2002 11:57 am
Location: Des Moines, IA

Postby Rens on Thu Nov 28, 2002 4:42 am

Enahs Live wrote:If the US goes back to an isolational policy in dealing with foreign matters, strengthens the border to keep out the riff-raff and drugs, and sucks up to the Middle Eastern countries so they don't want to destroy the US and will give us oil at a cheaper price, well, don't you think this country would be a much better place to live in?

I think the U.S. simply can't do this, due to the fact they've been pushing themselves to be the most important force worldwide in international politics. If the U.S. would now isolate themselves and not bother with international politics I don't think the rest of the world who are now good partners of the U.S. would agree, this could affect the trade relations between the U.S. and a lot of countries, especially in the case of a conflict where the U.S. now suddenly would not interfere.
User avatar
Rens
 
Posts: 1540
Joined: Sat Aug 31, 2002 5:05 am
Location: Location: Location: Location: Location: Location: Location: Location: Location: Location:

Postby Wall St. Peon on Thu Nov 28, 2002 4:55 am

I think the U.S. simply can't do this, due to the fact they've been pushing themselves to be the most important force worldwide in international politics. If the U.S. would now isolate themselves and not bother with international politics I don't think the rest of the world who are now good partners of the U.S. would agree, this could affect the trade relations between the U.S. and a lot of countries, especially in the case of a conflict where the U.S. now suddenly would not interfere.


There's a difference between isolating from foreign affairs (ie going to wars that aren't ours) and cutting off foreign trade. To show the power that the US has, we have to go to war? We have to get involved in Bosnia when it's already too late, we have to get involved in Somalia and the Middle East and only God know where else? By doing that, the US seems to me as nothing more than a bully who wants to know what is going on. We are the most powerful country in the world and we're abusing that very power by forcing ourselves upon other people, who, if we just let alone and concentrated more on protecting our homeland - "homeland security," remember? - than this place would be a much, much better place to live in. There would also be a more peaceful environment in the world...there wouldn't be world peace, but it would be better than having the entire world hate the US because we decided it was our business who should be the leader of their country....

I dunno if that made sense....I'm just ranting. *shrug*
Shane
Wall St. Peon
 
Posts: 898
Joined: Sun Oct 06, 2002 11:57 am
Location: Des Moines, IA

Postby :digerati: on Thu Nov 28, 2002 5:20 am

Europe and others demanded we get involved and stop being isolationalist. When we do nothing they demand we do something, then they want us not involved. Nothing wrong with being the World's Police. Someone has to do it and the UN and it's clones don't seem to be very effective at all.

Oh, and Shane. The reason the new Department of Homeland Security hasn't done much of anything? They didn't officialy exist until this week.

We don't need to be cut off from the rest of the World, that's not the best interest of the United States. We need to do what's best for the country and not let others rape us. That's why Bush is good for us, unlike Clinton/Gore.

I'm not advocating any kind of isolationism. We just need a military precense on the borders to keep illegals out. We need an INS that works better. No illegal is a good illegal. I don't care if they work on watermelon farms, those are jobs United States Citizens should have rather than sitting on Welfare or Disibility when they could do that job easy. Yet, because of both, they don't. What we need is a movement back to the ideal liberal (not the "liberals" that run around today) democracy (socially, not economically), not this place where ideas and people are put in danger to appease a small group.
:digerati:
 

Postby Rens on Thu Nov 28, 2002 5:49 am

¤ wrote:Europe and others demanded we get involved and stop being isolationalist. When we do nothing they demand we do something, then they want us not involved. Nothing wrong with being the World's Police. Someone has to do it and the UN and it's clones don't seem to be very effective at all.

What clones do you mean? From what I know there's only one organisation that combines armies for peace missions, but I could ofcourse be forgetting some

¤ wrote:We don't need to be cut off from the rest of the World, that's not the best interest of the United States. We need to do what's best for the country and not let others rape us. That's why Bush is good for us, unlike Clinton/Gore.

My point wasn't the U.S. would cut itself off, the rest of the world might cut the U.S. off if they suddenly step away from their self imposed responsibilities. Ofcourse it would be a big blow to the U.S. trade partners to stop trade with the U.S. and I doubt they would indeed cut them off, but it would be a possibility to force the U.S.

¤ wrote:I don't care if they work on watermelon farms, those are jobs United States Citizens should have rather than sitting on Welfare or Disibility when they could do that job easy.

The problem is they won't take those jobs because they think theirselves too good... the same happens in the Netherlands, where (illegal) immigrants are on one side being discriminated (yes, still.. just like in all coutries that claim to do otherwise) but on the other side they are important to the economy because they fill jobs that inhabitants of the country in question wouldn't take.
User avatar
Rens
 
Posts: 1540
Joined: Sat Aug 31, 2002 5:05 am
Location: Location: Location: Location: Location: Location: Location: Location: Location: Location:

Postby :digerati: on Thu Nov 28, 2002 6:04 am

Dan Gadzuric wrote:What clones do you mean? From what I know there's only one organisation that combines armies for peace missions, but I could ofcourse be forgetting some

Well, the UN isn't the only one in the last 100 years, but it's probably the worst. There are lots of attempts at forming regional UN type things, none have really been too sucessful that I'm aware of, the only reason the UN succeeds (at failing) is because of the big members, US, Europe, Russia, China, etc.
Dan Gadzuric wrote:My point wasn't the U.S. would cut itself off, the rest of the world might cut the U.S. off if they suddenly step away from their self imposed responsibilities. Ofcourse it would be a big blow to the U.S. trade partners to stop trade with the U.S. and I doubt they would indeed cut them off, but it would be a possibility to force the U.S.

I wasn't directing it at you, but at Shane since he was kinda being extreme.
Dan Gadzuric wrote:The problem is they won't take those jobs because they think theirselves too good... the same happens in the Netherlands, where (illegal) immigrants are on one side being discriminated (yes, still.. just like in all coutries that claim to do otherwise) but on the other side they are important to the economy because they fill jobs that inhabitants of the country in question wouldn't take.

They should be FORCED to take those jobs or renounce United States Citizenship and thus be illegals that are deported. The welfare/unemployment/etc. system should be overhauled like the immigration one. These people should be checked regularly and if they are able to work (as most of them are) they should be put to work. The drug addicts that we're paying to support their drug habits, should be put into treatment. The normal welfare/etc. money can be put on that (and would more than pay for it) they can do government jobs or be contracted out. I will be humanitarian and not require them to pay taxes until they crack (no pun intended) a certain amount of money per year. I have no problem with the people who actually deserve the socialist programs, but those who don't deserve it shouldn't be getting any money from people who do work.
:digerati:
 

Postby TheBob on Thu Nov 28, 2002 7:00 am

and perhaps Canada deserves it after the PM referred to Bush as "that idiot"


Lets get real, Bush is an idiot. For anyone to deny that is just blatant stupidity. However, I don' think that it was a wise move considering Bush is in control of the most powerful country on the planet. Back to what I was saying before though, Bush didn't even know Canada's PM's name, he called him Pm Poutine. Which for those of you who don't know is a term that reffers to fries with gravy and melted cheese on in Quebec.
User avatar
TheBob
 
Posts: 429
Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2002 5:51 am

Postby :digerati: on Thu Nov 28, 2002 7:20 am

TheBob wrote:Lets get real, Bush is an idiot. For anyone to deny that is just blatant stupidity. However, I don' think that it was a wise move considering Bush is in control of the most powerful country on the planet. Back to what I was saying before though, Bush didn't even know Canada's PM's name, he called him Pm Poutine. Which for those of you who don't know is a term that reffers to fries with gravy and melted cheese on in Quebec.

He's an idiot because he can't pronounce the name of an insignifcant person with a french name who hates him?

Bush is not an idiot. He's more than obviously the most capable leader this country has had since Ronald Reagan. He's pro-United States unlike Clinton/Gore, he's assembled a better staff and is more apt at "strategery" than his father. Now, he's won control of Congress. It's time for him to start some major reforms of the country and show how damn good he is for this country. I say start with Immigration, the Socialist Programs and the biggest sinner of all. Education. Up with Freedom!

What do you think about the real topic Bob? Military on the border. Let's talk about that.
:digerati:
 

...

Postby MC Hao on Thu Nov 28, 2002 9:30 am

Sorry for my lack of knowledge, Ben. The US dont have millitary on its borders? I am surprised. Maybe I am paranoid, but if I am a leader of a country, I definitely wont feel safe that my country's borders are wide open. Putting millitary on the borders is a must, in my opinion. As for Bush, I dont really like him, but I wouldnt say he's bad or he's an idiot, although I do think he should put more work on his speeches. I once read some news saying he called the Pakistan people "Pakis", and my Pakistan friend was getting all pissed when he saw that news. It was a long while ago, I dont remember when. I dont watch a lot of news so I dont know if his speech had improved yet.
Image
User avatar
MC Hao
 
Posts: 802
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2002 12:57 pm

Re: ...

Postby :digerati: on Thu Nov 28, 2002 9:55 am

Jamal wrote:Sorry for my lack of knowledge, Ben. The US dont have millitary on its borders? I am surprised.

OK, we do have a border patrol that's understaffed, underfunded and undermined by people who don't want to hurt anyone's feelings (the new liberals aren't the only ones to blame on this, everyone's doing it, but it did start with the new liberals because they won votes from hispanic voters by supporting wide-open borders)
Jamal wrote:Maybe I am paranoid, but if I am a leader of a country, I definitely wont feel safe that my country's borders are wide open. Putting millitary on the borders is a must, in my opinion.

Well, perhaps now that we have a good Congress and an increase in people advocating the cause we will actually be able to do something about it.
Jamal wrote:As for Bush, I dont really like him, but I wouldnt say he's bad or he's an idiot, although I do think he should put more work on his speeches.

Find me a politician that writes his own speeches and I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you.
Jamal wrote:I once read some news saying he called the Pakistan people "Pakis", and my Pakistan friend was getting all pissed when he saw that news. It was a long while ago, I dont remember when. I dont watch a lot of news so I dont know if his speech had improved yet.

If you can find anything on that speech. Drop me a PM with the URL please.
:digerati:
 

Postby DR. P on Thu Nov 28, 2002 10:08 am

Bush is not an idiot. He's more than obviously the most capable leader this country has had since Ronald Reagan. He's pro-United States unlike Clinton/Gore, he's assembled a better staff and is more apt at "strategery" than his father. Now, he's won control of Congress. It's time for him to start some major reforms of the country and show how damn good he is for this country. I say start with Immigration, the Socialist Programs and the biggest sinner of all. Education. Up with Freedom!....What do you think about the real topic Bob? Military on the border. Let's talk about that.


Listen, I'm definitely not a fan of Bush and I certainly think the statement "He's more than obviously the most capable leader this country has had since Ronald Reagan" is really a stretch. But I do respect him as a President of this country. I will say this, however, if you consider Reagan, Bush, Lil' Bush, etc. to be any stonger a leader than Clinton was, I think your kidding yourself. I haven't seen a president as charismatic as Clinton since Kennedy, and I think he was just as solid a leader as we've ever had, irregardless of the Lewinski deal [which if you notice actually bolstered his ratings in most opinion polls ironically :lol: ]. But you are entitled to your opinion as I am to mine. And I don't think Bush, won over Congress, I think people just wanted a change. And if Bush doesn't produce, he'll be out of their next election as will his constituents and the Democrats will be on the hook to make some things happen. That's the way it should be.

As for the border issue, I'll keep it simple and sweet. I'm all for Border control as long as its equally distributed. Don't give me this bit about, "well more drugs in Mexico so lets start there". If we're going to do it lets do it right. That means when an individual comes over on a boat from Haiti or the Dominican Republic don't send them back if you in-turn let every Cuban come over with little protest to southern florida. The same thing should happen with Mexico in Canada. If your going to be lax in the way you deal with Canada then equal treatment should be given to mexico [for some of Bush's own family members are of Mexican descent]. This country was built on equality [*cough*] and that same principle of equality should also be carried over into the policing of our borders.

Best,

P
DR. P
 
Posts: 88
Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2002 2:49 pm
Location: Hobart, Tazmania

Postby :digerati: on Thu Nov 28, 2002 11:18 am

DR. P wrote:I will say this, however, if you consider Reagan, Bush, Lil' Bush, etc. to be any stonger a leader than Clinton was, I think your kidding yourself.

Yeah, well, at least he won't mess with the economy, institute evil socialist policies, let other countries rape us, lie, cheat and steal. And if he does, it'll be in the best interest of the United States.
DR. P wrote:I haven't seen a president as charismatic as Clinton since Kennedy, and I think he was just as solid a leader as we've ever had

Charisma is pointless if it ruins the country. Kennedy didn't really do anything great and nor did Clinton. I'm not even talking Lewinski, Whitewater, Marc Rich, any of that stuff. I'm talking the actually running of the country was poor. Newt could only do so much to save us.
DR. P wrote:And I don't think Bush, won over Congress, I think people just wanted a change.

Bush is president though, Bush talked about Iraq. The Democrats talked about Iraq. Perhaps if they spent time lying about the economy (like in 2000) and messing with social issues (like the party strangely stands for) and didn't get caught up in Iraq they would've faired way better.
DR. P wrote:the Democrats will be on the hook to make some things happen. That's the way it should be.

Except they'll make bad things happen. Continue to limit freedom in the United States. Continue to destroy the liberal democracy with their new liberal teachings. Continue to let illegals come into the country, continue to promote the shitty socialist programs, continue to limit the economy, continue to overrun the skewls and teach opinions rather than facts.
DR. P wrote:I'm all for Border control as long as its equally distributed. Don't give me this bit about, "well more drugs in Mexico so lets start there". If we're going to do it lets do it right.

I didn't say that. I said if we could only protect one border (because as the new liberals say we don't have the proper military to do anything) then I'd definately do Mexico because of not only the drugs but the fact that the illegal problem is greater there.
DR. P wrote:That means when an individual comes over on a boat from Haiti or the Dominican Republic don't send them back if you in-turn let every Cuban come over with little protest to southern florida.

You send them all back.
:digerati:
 

Postby DR. P on Thu Nov 28, 2002 12:27 pm

And then some of you guys wonder why more people post in hip-hop forums than in this one. Its clear, everyone wants to make this a partisan issue, when it should be bigger than that [I guess I should have know by the O'Riely picture where you'd stand on this issue, given his rather starchy conservatism] but here goes.

Yeah, well, at least he won't mess with the economy, institute evil socialist policies, let other countries rape us, lie, cheat and steal. And if he does, it'll be in the best interest of the United States.


Listen, your "implication" that Clinton "mess[ed] with the economy, institute[d] evil socialist policies,..." yada, yada, yada, is hogwash and I'm not going to get into it really because its a waste of time and energy. Clinton hasn't let other countries "rape" the U.S. anymore than Regan, Bush, Nixon, or anyone else and the economy has never been better under anyone in recent memory. And frankly having jobs is a much more central issue to me than some of the other issues and rhetoric that you espouse are of more concern. Frankly education and economy are high on my list so Clinton was fine in my view. And his ability to help us "balance" the budget, in my view, was a hell of alot better than that "Reganomics/Trickle down" crap that he and his disciple, G. Dubya Sr., tried to toss. And hey that's my view, you can disagree. Frankly, I don't see where G-Dubya Jr. is any better, its really 6 in one hand, half-a-dozen in another. And from what I've seen so far from him, he's not really running this country all that well. I still haven't seen Bin Laden yet and it seems like more harsh talk, than action against Iraq. But time will tell....

Charisma is pointless if it ruins the country. Kennedy didn't really do anything great and nor did Clinton. I'm not even talking Lewinski, Whitewater, Marc Rich, any of that stuff. I'm talking the actually running of the country was poor. Newt could only do so much to save us.


O.K., whatever you say. I really don't see what Bush, Jr. is doing so much better now. The economy sucks since he's been in office, we haven't seen any education reform, which was promised in his campaign, and I haven't seen Osama yet. So I don't see what he's actually doing any differently than an of his predecessors have done. Its simply rhetoric, but no real action. Don't be duped by it. And Newt didn't do anything either, merely a figurehead. But, again if that's what you want to believe, then that's your perogative. But, please don't discredit others opinions when your merely providing your own as well.

Except they'll [the democrats will] make bad things happen. Continue to limit freedom in the United States. Continue to destroy the liberal democracy with their new liberal teachings.....
.

O.k., if you say so. But I haven't seen what's been so great from Republicans. What have they done? Remember, we didn't have to worry so heavily about homeland security until recently. So Democrats couldn't have done that bad. And also your 401Ks, Stocks, E-commerce, mutual funds, etc. were doing well and you had a job with decent pay. If that's making bad things happen, then yes I want it to continue to be bad. I'll give Republicans their chance now and I want to see this type of prosperity before I'll conceed that things are great at this point in time.

I didn't say that. I said if we could only protect one border (because as the new liberals say we don't have the proper military to do anything) then I'd definately do Mexico because of not only the drugs but the fact that the illegal problem is greater there.


I didn't implicate you here specifically, I merely pointed out that I didn't want to hear that same swan song from people who are pro-border control, but anti-equality in enforcing such policies. It seems that some want to give preferences for some people, but torment others. I'm all for it, as long as its an equal policy for everyone.

And that's it for me in this thread. This really seems to be becoming more of a partisan thing and I had enough of that in 2000 and several weeks ago. So that's my take and I'm sticking to it....

Best,

P
DR. P
 
Posts: 88
Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2002 2:49 pm
Location: Hobart, Tazmania

Postby :digerati: on Thu Nov 28, 2002 3:07 pm

DR. P wrote:And then some of you guys wonder why more people post in hip-hop forums than in this one. Its clear, everyone wants to make this a partisan issue, when it should be bigger than that [I guess I should have know by the O'Riely picture where you'd stand on this issue, given his rather starchy conservatism] but here goes.

I explained O'Reilly in the other thread. I'm not a conservative, P, infact, given my entire life, I should be a blatant liberal. I just dislike the new liberal the one that's not an ideal liberal socially but one that wants to oppress social freedoms.
DR. P wrote:Listen, your "implication" that Clinton "mess[ed] with the economy, institute[d] evil socialist policies,..." yada, yada, yada, is hogwash and I'm not going to get into it really because its a waste of time and energy.

Socialism is bad because it restricts freedom. You and I both know Clinton was a Socialist. He messed with the economy by instituting socialist policies, he also overstated it by 30% in 2000.
DR. P wrote:Clinton hasn't let other countries "rape" the U.S. anymore than Regan, Bush, Nixon, or anyone else and the economy has never been better under anyone in recent memory.

P, I thought you'd know this as a doctor. The current economic situation is the result of the previous administration. The administrations policies don't kick in usually at the earliest until half way through the second term if they make it that far. Since you wanna ignore issues, we'll just agree you're misguided in your view of Clinton and move on.
DR. P wrote:And frankly having jobs is a much more central issue to me than some of the other issues and rhetoric that you espouse are of more concern.

Yeah, it's great to have a job you can't work in because you're dead.
DR. P wrote:Frankly education and economy are high on my list so Clinton was fine in my view. And his ability to help us "balance" the budget

By overstating it 30%, I know, I know. Education is in the gutter in this country, no President does anything to fix it or harm it, they just throw money at it and ignore it.
DR. P wrote:in my view, was a hell of alot better than that "Reganomics/Trickle down" crap that he and his disciple, G. Dubya Sr., tried to toss. And hey that's my view, you can disagree. Frankly, I don't see where G-Dubya Jr. is any better, its really 6 in one hand, half-a-dozen in another.

They aren't a Sr. and Jr. another common misconception. Did the trickle down theory work? Who knows, the economy boomed, perhaps it was because of that, or perhaps it was (as I believe) the technology boom.
DR. P wrote:And from what I've seen so far from him, he's not really running this country all that well. I still haven't seen Bin Laden yet and it seems like more harsh talk, than action against Iraq.

Well, he hasn't had Usama handed to him and then turning him away calling him not a threat liek Clinton did, and it was pretty much false optimism to think we're ever gonna catch this guy unless he's handed to us again. Wow, that Iraq stance is surprising. You actually support action against Iraq? I figured you'd be all for, they're just a poor little country with no weapons and some oil we want so leave them alone.
DR. P wrote:O.K., whatever you say. I really don't see what Bush, Jr. is doing so much better now.

He's not a Jr. or are you again dealing in opinions.
DR. P wrote:The economy sucks since he's been in office

Which cannot be his fault. The economy was high during Clinton and now it came down, then we had terrorists and Enron and that made it worse. Unemplyoment is down this year, the economy is going back up realistically. Looks good to me, at least Bush isn't overstating it by 30%.
DR. P wrote:we haven't seen any education reform, which was promised in his campaign, and I haven't seen Osama yet.

Aren't gonna see either, from any President. Unless Usama is handed over in that case. And education looks fine to everyone.
DR. P wrote:So I don't see what he's actually doing any differently than an of his predecessors have done. Its simply rhetoric, but no real action.

Enh...You're right...he's just like every President EVER. That's why I'm getting on him, he needs to put military on the border, clean up the Welfare system and find and take out some more terrorists.
DR. P wrote:Don't be duped by it. And Newt didn't do anything either, merely a figurehead.

Ahhhh...but he was a good figurehead. He used his power well.
DR. P wrote:But, again if that's what you want to believe, then that's your perogative. But, please don't discredit others opinions when your merely providing your own as well.

I don't think I discredited anyone's opinion, I just strongly and honestly stated mine. You're the one discrediting mine, especially in other threads.
DR. P wrote:O.k., if you say so. But I haven't seen what's been so great from Republicans. What have they done? Remember, we didn't have to worry so heavily about homeland security until recently.

Because Clinton appeased them.
DR. P wrote:And also your 401Ks, Stocks, E-commerce, mutual funds, etc. were doing well and you had a job with decent pay.

I still do have decent pay, and like I've said the economy, going up, realistically, not the fake high it was riding on technology.
DR. P wrote:If that's making bad things happen, then yes I want it to continue to be bad. I'll give Republicans their chance now and I want to see this type of prosperity before I'll conceed that things are great at this point in time.

Are they great now? No, that's why they have to get to work, to repair damage dating back to the 1930s and earlier. Will they? No, they're politicians, they all think the same in the end, what will get them re-elected. Unfortunately, Bush won't be re-elected if the Democrats can find someone of use (looking more and more doubtful) because people will blame the economy and terrorism on him, when I don't see how you can kill the economy and cause terrorist attacks before you even get unpacked in the White House.
DR. P wrote:I didn't implicate you here specifically, I merely pointed out that I didn't want to hear that same swan song from people who are pro-border control, but anti-equality in enforcing such policies. It seems that some want to give preferences for some people, but torment others. I'm all for it, as long as its an equal policy for everyone.

You aren't gonna hear it on here, cause I'm the only one talking.
DR. P wrote:And that's it for me in this thread. This really seems to be becoming more of a partisan thing and I had enough of that in 2000 and several weeks ago. So that's my take and I'm sticking to it....

You didn't have to make it a partisan thing, you just had to fuel my anti-new-liberal/socialist fire. I don't like 'em, nor conservatives, but if I can't get social freedom from the new liberals, then I have to pick economic freedom with the conservatives. And don't tell me the liberals haven't abandoned what the original ideal was, cause they are blatantly anti-freedom in social issues. Sorry, if I offended you with my differing opinion that is clearly based on nothing my but my own stupidity. I will henceforth abandon posting any opinions on the forum to please the members and management of the forum.

The Stupidest, Most Ignorant, Moronic, Free Will Lacking, Inherently Wrong, Should Be Lynched, Worthless Mindless Buffoon Of A Poster In All The Land That Is Destroying Society With Every Post,
¤
:digerati:
 

...

Postby MC Hao on Fri Nov 29, 2002 2:14 am

Well, perhaps now that we have a good Congress and an increase in people advocating the cause we will actually be able to do something about it.

I'd like to see that.

Hey, Ben. You might think I was lying but I really wasnt, here's the link:
http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0112-03.htm
Image
User avatar
MC Hao
 
Posts: 802
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2002 12:57 pm

...

Postby MC Hao on Fri Nov 29, 2002 2:22 am

This will give you a list of urls about that (in case you dont trust that one website):
http://search.yahoo.com/bin/search?p=bush+called+pakis
Image
User avatar
MC Hao
 
Posts: 802
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2002 12:57 pm

...

Postby MC Hao on Fri Nov 29, 2002 2:26 am

If you can find anything on that speech. Drop me a PM with the URL please.

Oh, damn.

Ah, triple post! Silly me, I should've just edit my posts.
Image
User avatar
MC Hao
 
Posts: 802
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2002 12:57 pm


Return to Off-Topic

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 17 guests