Dear Conservative/Republican friends...

my2handsmy2hands Posts: 17,117
edited January 2008 in A Moving Train
You do realize that Bill Clinton was more of a conservative president then Reagan, Bush 1, and Bush 2?

you do realize that dont you?


I am only pointing this out because i find it funny how many "conservatives" have no idea what being a "conservative" means... it means more than bible thumping folks... real life policy here... foreign and domestic...


discuss :D
Post edited by Unknown User on
«13

Comments

  • jlew24asujlew24asu Posts: 10,118
    wrong board. there are no republicans here.
  • my2handsmy2hands Posts: 17,117
    jlew24asu wrote:
    wrong board. there are no republicans here.


    there used to be ALOT... funny how things work... they used to come on here and beat their chest and spew their foxnews talking points...

    now they are all gone...

    cant admit when they are wrong i guess...

    now that bush doesnt have an 80% approval rating and these guys have been proven as cons and crooks... i guess its not cool to be "roght wing" anymore... hahahahaha


    the only one that ever did was Cincybearcat... after the WWS single came out he came on here and posted a nice long thread about how the lyrics to the song had changed his mind about the Iraq war, and war in general... still one of my favorite posts/threads from the pit...

    i wonder where he is at? i havent seen him in a while... there are alot of cool people that arent around anymore...
  • cincybearcatcincybearcat Posts: 16,497
    my2hands wrote:
    there used to be ALOT... funny how things work... they used to come on here and beat their chest and spew their foxnews talking points...

    now they are all gone...

    cant admit when they are wrong i guess...

    now that bush doesnt have an 80% approval rating and these guys have been proven as cons and crooks... i guess its not cool to be "roght wing" anymore... hahahahaha


    the only one that ever did was Cincybearcat... after the WWS single came out he came on here and posted a nice long thread about how the lyrics to the song had changed his mind about the Iraq war, and war in general... still one of my favorite posts/threads from the pit...

    i wonder where he is at? i havent seen him in a while... there are alot of cool people that arent around anymore...


    Hey there. Busy with work and a new kid.

    Yep, I still admit I was wrong about a bunch of things. I have no idea who I'll be voting for this year as I don't like anyone. I think it is good to be passionate about what you believe so long as you remain open minded to the possibility that you may end up being wrong. No one is right 100% of the time.

    I will disagree and say that Reagan was a great conservative. BUt you already know I think that. This group of conservatives in the government know are a disgrace to republicans.
    hippiemom = goodness
  • my2handsmy2hands Posts: 17,117
    Hey there. Busy with work and a new kid.

    Yep, I still admit I was wrong about a bunch of things. I have no idea who I'll be voting for this year as I don't like anyone. I think it is good to be passionate about what you believe so long as you remain open minded to the possibility that you may end up being wrong. No one is right 100% of the time.

    I will disagree and say that Reagan was a great conservative. BUt you already know I think that. This group of conservatives in the government know are a disgrace to republicans.

    YO! speak of the devil! congrats on the child, thats awesome man.

    and still one of the best sig's (that shit is funny) :D

    we will again have to agree to disagree on Reagan... but it is refreshing that some "republicans" see through this current group of criminals (that is what they are)...


    what crazy timing huh, that you would see my post? have a good one, hope to see you around man. this place needs your grounded "conservative" views...

    and again, congratulations on the child

    peace
  • I would not call Clinton's foreign policy "conservative" by any means. He was very liberal with FMF to monsters like Suharto, made huge arms deals Israel (larger ones than Regan I believe), supported Turkey while they were wiping out Kurds by the tens of thousands, bombed Iraq, bombed Kosovo, etc. etc.

    He was comparatively more conservative than Regan and Bush, but that doesn't say much to me. It's like saying a rapist is less violent than a serial killer.
  • MrBrianMrBrian Posts: 2,672
    I remember the pro war bunch quite well. But I'm sure they will support the next war when it happens. Then say "I was wrong again...oopps"
    and I agree with saturnal. well posted
  • jlew24asujlew24asu Posts: 10,118
    MrBrian wrote:
    I remember the pro war bunch quite well. But I'm sure they will support the next war when it happens. Then say "I was wrong again...oopps"
    and I agree with saturnal. well posted

    do you think the war in Afghanistan was justified?
  • MrBrianMrBrian Posts: 2,672
    jlew24asu wrote:
    do you think the war in Afghanistan was justified?

    no it was not justified.
    ----

    sure Something had to be done after the 9/11/01 attacks. you should find out who did it,find out why it happened. But what would carpet bombing villages in afghanistan solve? what did it solve? is the better question.

    The people of afghanistan had nothing to do with it. So I don't think bombing them can be justified. Now so many years later america still has not caught whoever was behind it and still fails to understand why something like those 9/11 attacks happened in the first place.

    We know this becoz after they bombed afghanistan they bombed iraq, I mean what the hell.
  • MrBrian wrote:
    I remember the pro war bunch quite well. But I'm sure they will support the next war when it happens. Then say "I was wrong again...oopps"
    and I agree with saturnal. well posted

    hehehe....that cracked me up.
    Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
    and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
    over specific principles, goals, and policies.

    http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg

    (\__/)
    ( o.O)
    (")_(")
  • jlew24asujlew24asu Posts: 10,118
    MrBrian wrote:
    no it was not justified.
    we were attacked by el queda who had their base of operations in afganistan under taliban protection. how was retaliation for the worst attack in history not justified?

    MrBrian wrote:
    sure Something had to be done after the 9/11/01 attacks.
    like what?
    MrBrian wrote:
    you should find out who did it,find out why it happened.
    we did know who did it.
    MrBrian wrote:
    But what would carpet bombing villages in afghanistan solve? what did it solve? is the better question.
    we didnt carpet bomb villages. we bombed taliban military installations. and subsequently removed them from power.
    MrBrian wrote:
    The people of afghanistan had nothing to do with it. So I don't think bombing them can be justified.
    the taliban and el queda were responsible. civillians were not targeted.
    MrBrian wrote:
    Now so many years later america still has not caught whoever was behind it and still fails to understand why something like those 9/11 attacks happened in the first place.
    yea its sad. we never caught osama.




    america didnt carpet bomb villages. we bombed the tab
  • mammasanmammasan Posts: 5,656
    MrBrian wrote:
    no it was not justified.
    ----

    sure Something had to be done after the 9/11/01 attacks. you should find out who did it,find out why it happened. But what would carpet bombing villages in afghanistan solve? what did it solve? is the better question.

    The people of afghanistan had nothing to do with it. So I don't think bombing them can be justified. Now so many years later america still has not caught whoever was behind it and still fails to understand why something like those 9/11 attacks happened in the first place.

    We know this becoz after they bombed afghanistan they bombed iraq, I mean what the hell.

    I think our invasion of Afghanistan was justifiable. The government of Afghanistan was aiding and abetting the organization that ordered and carried out the 9/11 attacks. Yes I know it is very hypocritical of our government to chastize a country for harboring terrorist since we do it ourselves but something had to be done. The problem was that we did a half-ass job in Afghanistan. The Bush administration wanted to do the job on the cheap because they already had their sights set on Iraq. Had we gone into Afghanistan, secured the Afghan-Pakistan border ourselves and not outsourced the hunt for Al Qaida and Taliban leadership to a bunch of opium dealing rag tag warlords whose only loyality is to the highest bidder our operations in Afghanistan may have provided better results. It also would have helped if we stayed around to make sure that the job we started was done right.
    "When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul
  • gabersgabers Posts: 2,787
    I'd add that the campaign in Afghanistan, just like in Iraq, can also be focused on a very important question: how much collateral damage are you willing to inflict to achieve your goals? Even in Afghanistan we've admitted several times to killing innocent civilians during bombing raids. Is it acceptible to kill an innocent child if you also kill a Taleban member? I think this is what we should be thinking about as we move forward. No matter how much care you take to ensure otherwise, the smartest bombs in the world don't differentiate between targets, they do as they're told.
  • MrBrianMrBrian Posts: 2,672
    jlew24asu wrote:
    we were attacked by el queda who had their base of operations in afganistan under taliban protection. how was retaliation for the worst attack in history not justified?


    like what?

    we did know who did it.

    we didnt carpet bomb villages. we bombed taliban military installations. and subsequently removed them from power.

    the taliban and el queda were responsible. civillians were not targeted.

    yea its sad. we never caught osama.




    america didnt carpet bomb villages. we bombed the tab

    it was the worst attack in history? did your history only start in 2001? nevertheless, if a group of nuts from say chicago bomb a say ummm a buidling in say ummm florida, do you bomb chicago becoz they have a base someplace in the chicago area?

    Yes something had to be done, like find out why someone would wanna attack you in the first place would be a good start.

    So you know who did it yet bombing the entire country was the only way to get them? yet you didnt get them anyway.

    You should read all those many reports and articles, america bombed more homes and villages then your so called "taliban military installations" whatever they are. perhaps a clay house with lazer beams?

    civillians were not targeted? perhaps america needs better aim becoz they killed many thousands of them.
    ---

    yes, it is all really sad.
  • jlew24asujlew24asu Posts: 10,118
    MrBrian wrote:
    it was the worst attack in history? did your history only start in 2001?
    what was worse? pearl harbor? 2400 people died at pearl harbor. only 68 were civilians. so tell me, what what worse then 9/11?
    MrBrian wrote:
    nevertheless, if a group of nuts from say chicago bomb a say ummm a buidling in say ummm florida, do you bomb chicago becoz they have a base someplace in the chicago area?
    this is the dumbest thing I have ever heard.
    MrBrian wrote:
    iYes something had to be done, like find out why someone would wanna attack you in the first place would be a good start.
    great. so we should all sit around and let the people who did this continue to operate and plan more attacks while we sit at figure out WHY? lights on but no ones home?
    MrBrian wrote:
    So you know who did it yet bombing the entire country was the only way to get them? yet you didnt get them anyway.
    we didnt bomb the entire country. we bombed taliban military installations.
    MrBrian wrote:
    iYou should read all those many reports and articles, america bombed more homes and villages then your so called "taliban military installations" whatever they are. perhaps a clay house with lazer beams?
    yea I read those reports. I also read many reports that showed the talivan were wiped from power.
    MrBrian wrote:
    icivillians were not targeted? perhaps america needs better aim becoz they killed many thousands of them.
    civilians were not targeted and its sad many taliban used civilians as shields. but thats something you probably find acceptable.
    ---

    yes, it is all really sad.[/quote]
  • MrBrianMrBrian Posts: 2,672
    mammasan wrote:
    I think our invasion of Afghanistan was justifiable. The government of Afghanistan was aiding and abetting the organization that ordered and carried out the 9/11 attacks. Yes I know it is very hypocritical of our government to chastize a country for harboring terrorist since we do it ourselves but something had to be done. The problem was that we did a half-ass job in Afghanistan. The Bush administration wanted to do the job on the cheap because they already had their sights set on Iraq. Had we gone into Afghanistan, secured the Afghan-Pakistan border ourselves and not outsourced the hunt for Al Qaida and Taliban leadership to a bunch of opium dealing rag tag warlords whose only loyality is to the highest bidder our operations in Afghanistan may have provided better results. It also would have helped if we stayed around to make sure that the job we started was done right.

    I think that until america learns why it all happened in the first place, going around invading a country is not a good idea and the resluts can not be positive. perhaps if america (after 9/11) took a few steps back (like that chinese proverb) before taking a step forward and looked at the situation. It wouldve been better.

    But we must also remember that the american public were itching for a fight after the attacks,revenge is all they saw and if the american government said "goofy" was behind the attacks on 9/11, the public wouldve supported Bush bomb disney world becoz mickey mouse was keeping goofy in the majic kingdom some place.
  • jlew24asujlew24asu Posts: 10,118
    MrBrian wrote:
    I think that until america learns why it all happened in the first place, going around invading a country is not a good idea and the resluts can not be positive. perhaps if america (after 9/11) took a few steps back (like that chinese proverb) before taking a step forward and looked at the situation. It wouldve been better.
    what does this accomplish? we know who did and went after them to prevent it from happening again.
    MrBrian wrote:
    But we must also remember that the american public were itching for a fight after the attacks,revenge is all they saw and if the american government said "goofy" was behind the attacks on 9/11, the public wouldve supported Bush bomb disney world becoz mickey mouse was keeping goofy in the majic kingdom some place.

    you are on fire today.
  • tybirdtybird Posts: 17,388
    Saturnal wrote:
    I would not call Clinton's foreign policy "conservative" by any means. He was very liberal with FMF to monsters like Suharto, made huge arms deals Israel (larger ones than Regan I believe), supported Turkey while they were wiping out Kurds by the tens of thousands, bombed Iraq, bombed Kosovo, etc. etc.

    He was comparatively more conservative than Regan and Bush, but that doesn't say much to me. It's like saying a rapist is less violent than a serial killer.
    Don't forget The Sudan....blew up a couple of factories there after the Embassy attacks, I believe.
    All the world will be your enemy, Prince with a thousand enemies, and whenever they catch you, they will kill you. But first they must catch you, digger, listener, runner, prince with the swift warning. Be cunning and full of tricks and your people shall never be destroyed.
  • my2handsmy2hands Posts: 17,117
    Saturnal wrote:
    I would not call Clinton's foreign policy "conservative" by any means.
    i didnt... i simply said his policies were far more conservative then the last 3 republican criminals who have held office and claimed to be "conservatives"...
    He was very liberal with FMF to monsters like Suharto, made huge arms deals Israel (larger ones than Regan I believe), supported Turkey while they were wiping out Kurds by the tens of thousands, bombed Iraq, bombed Kosovo, etc. etc.
    i am not arguing that, but i will argue those actions arent "liberal"?
    He was comparatively more conservative than Regan and Bush, but that doesn't say much to me.
    thats is all i was saying... i didnt say i was his # fan... just pointing out something that is always slanted in american politics... people are walking around thinking these clowns have been real "conservatives" and that the Clintons are uber-liberal... most people have it all fucked up and backwards
  • mammasanmammasan Posts: 5,656
    MrBrian wrote:
    I think that until america learns why it all happened in the first place, going around invading a country is not a good idea and the resluts can not be positive. perhaps if america (after 9/11) took a few steps back (like that chinese proverb) before taking a step forward and looked at the situation. It wouldve been better.

    But we must also remember that the american public were itching for a fight after the attacks,revenge is all they saw and if the american government said "goofy" was behind the attacks on 9/11, the public wouldve supported Bush bomb disney world becoz mickey mouse was keeping goofy in the majic kingdom some place.

    I agree that we should find out why these people attack and and work to rectify our policies that alienates these people, but at the sametime we need to act against aggressors as well. I for one don't believe for one second the whole "they hate us because of our freedoms" bullshit line the government and media feeds us. It's pretty damn apparent that they hate us because of our meddling in the affairs of their countries. We need to work on that because if we fail to do so we will only continue to fuel the fire and they will continue to breed more terrorists. I think after 9/11 there was definitely a huge blood lust in the American public. We had just watched 3,000 people die, the WTC center be destroyed, and the Pentagon attacked. People definitely wanted revenge and that is a pretty normal reaction. I still to this day support our actions in Afghanistan but I do not approve of the manner in which we carried the mission out. The people behind the attacks, and those that aided them, where there and we needed to get them. Did we do a good job? HELL NO!!! Plain and simple we fucked up. Not because our troops and commanders where inept but because the people at the top really had their sights on another target and this was just a stepping stone, when it really should have been the primary target.
    "When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul
  • my2hands wrote:
    i didnt... i simply said his policies were far more conservative then the last 3 republican criminals who have held office and claimed to be "conservatives"... i am not arguing that, but i will argue those actions arent "liberal"?

    thats is all i was saying... i didnt say i was his # fan... just pointing out something that is always slanted in american politics... people are walking around thinking these clowns have been real "conservatives" and that the Clintons are uber-liberal... most people have it all fucked up and backwards
    Yea I know.
  • MrBrianMrBrian Posts: 2,672
    jlew24asu wrote:
    what does this accomplish? we know who did and went after them to prevent it from happening again.

    One more time, if you want to prevent it from happening again, find out why it happened, not go and bomb a country which ends up creating more terrorists.
  • jlew24asujlew24asu Posts: 10,118
    MrBrian wrote:
    One more time, if you want to prevent it from happening again, find out why it happened, not go and bomb a country which ends up creating more terrorists.

    both need to happen. taliban needed to be removed from power and el queda's training camps and free reign over the country needed to end.
  • MrBrianMrBrian Posts: 2,672
    mammasan wrote:
    I agree that we should find out why these people attack and and work to rectify our policies that alienates these people, but at the sametime we need to act against aggressors as well. I for one don't believe for one second the whole "they hate us because of our freedoms" bullshit line the government and media feeds us. It's pretty damn apparent that they hate us because of our meddling in the affairs of their countries. We need to work on that because if we fail to do so we will only continue to fuel the fire and they will continue to breed more terrorists. I think after 9/11 there was definitely a huge blood lust in the American public. We had just watched 3,000 people die, the WTC center be destroyed, and the Pentagon attacked. People definitely wanted revenge and that is a pretty normal reaction. I still to this day support our actions in Afghanistan but I do not approve of the manner in which we carried the mission out. The people behind the attacks, and those that aided them, where there and we needed to get them. Did we do a good job? HELL NO!!! Plain and simple we fucked up. Not because our troops and commanders where inept but because the people at the top really had their sights on another target and this was just a stepping stone, when it really should have been the primary target.

    I understand those points. But I think for once america shouldve humbled itself and not attack. bcoz as you know, whatever way you bombed afghanistan, it would end up creating more hate. which is what we dont want.

    Perhaps as you said or also believe,america shouldve at once stopped meddling around and change its entire foreign policy. Try that out for a change since the aggressive ways of the red,white and blue tend not to work very well in the long run.
  • jlew24asujlew24asu Posts: 10,118
    MrBrian wrote:
    I understand those points. But I think for once america shouldve humbled itself and not attack. bcoz as you know, whatever way you bombed afghanistan, it would end up creating more hate. which is what we dont want.
    and let the taliban and el queda stay in power?
    MrBrian wrote:
    Perhaps as you said or also believe,america shouldve at once stopped meddling around and change its entire foreign policy. Try that out for a change since the aggressive ways of the red,white and blue tend not to work very well in the long run.

    finally something we agree on.
  • MrBrianMrBrian Posts: 2,672
    jlew24asu wrote:
    both need to happen. taliban needed to be removed from power and el queda's training camps and free reign over the country needed to end.

    Taliban is making a comeback and soon more camps will open. so you still believe the war was justified?

    On that note, Bush attacked iraq for what reasons again? So if someone now attacks america based on america attacking iraq. you will believe this to be justified bcoz the bush government is bad and the cia (which is a terrorist group) has training camps around the US?
  • jlew24asujlew24asu Posts: 10,118
    MrBrian wrote:
    Taliban is making a comeback and soon more camps will open. so you still believe the war was justified?
    yes it was. and I wish we would leave Iraq and focus our efforts there
    MrBrian wrote:
    On that note, Bush attacked iraq for what reasons again? So if someone now attacks america based on america attacking iraq. you will believe this to be justified bcoz the bush government is bad and the cia (which is a terrorist group) has training camps around the US?

    no I do not think attacks on america are justified. nice to see you do.
  • mammasanmammasan Posts: 5,656
    MrBrian wrote:
    Taliban is making a comeback and soon more camps will open. so you still believe the war was justified?

    On that note, Bush attacked iraq for what reasons again? So if someone now attacks america based on america attacking iraq. you will believe this to be justified bcoz the bush government is bad and the cia (which is a terrorist group) has training camps around the US?

    Well we needed to do something about the Taliban and Al Qaida. The mistake we made was to ignore the reality of the situation and simply refused to believe that we had any hand in creating this hatred. We failed to address the underlying problem. Had we changed our policy after taking out the leadership of both organizations we could have started to stem the flow of new recruits into these organizations and started a positive change to our image as seen by the average poor muslim in the Middle East.
    "When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul
  • cincybearcatcincybearcat Posts: 16,497
    MrBrian wrote:
    I remember the pro war bunch quite well. But I'm sure they will support the next war when it happens. Then say "I was wrong again...oopps"
    and I agree with saturnal. well posted


    This is the attitude that stifles discussion. Nice work, as usual coming from you.
    hippiemom = goodness
  • This is the attitude that stifles discussion. Nice work, as usual coming from you.


    It's true though. Some people like the war, and trust the government no matter what. It's a dying breed though.
    Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
    and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
    over specific principles, goals, and policies.

    http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg

    (\__/)
    ( o.O)
    (")_(")
  • MrBrianMrBrian Posts: 2,672
    This is the attitude that stifles discussion. Nice work, as usual coming from you.

    Thats fine, you ignore everytg else I post and choose only what you dislike, you may have changed in your ways of thinking about wars, but you still an asshole.
Sign In or Register to comment.