Home› A Moving Train

November 2008

Jeremy2009Jeremy2009 Posts: 53
edited August 2006 in A Moving Train
Dear Readers,
There has been something that has been bothering me for quite some time. It it the fact that everytime I turn on the television or read the newspaper there is always the same people blaming the president for deaths in war. In the new Pearl Jam album the song "Worldwide Suicide" it has many parts in it where it mentions that exact thing ..."Medals on a wooden mantle. Next to a handsome face. That the president took for granted. Writing checks that others pay." I would like to honestly know about this next election and if a democrat is elected and WILL have to send troops overseas where troops WILL be killed how will you react to this. Now it isnt a possibility that Americas military will have to go to overseas to fight it's just a matter of timing. If a democrat is elected into office in 2008 and were still over in Iraq which Im sure we'll be and people will still die ...since this is a war, how are you going to react to this? It seems no matter who is elected people will always blame the president. Im not saying that there is one and only one party that can make correct decisions but I want to know. Because it's only a matter of time before this will all happen again. Now Im sure this is going to bring a lot of the hippie dippie 60's political activism on here that only created more violence than peace so please think before you write. I would like to know if there is anyone out there that is involved in governments out there and if they are seeing things work?
Support the Troops
Go Cubs!
Post edited by Unknown User on
«1

Comments

  • OpenOpen Posts: 792
    Jeremy2009 wrote:
    Dear Readers,
    There has been something that has been bothering me for quite some time. It it the fact that everytime I turn on the television or read the newspaper there is always the same people blaming the president for deaths in war. In the new Pearl Jam album the song "Worldwide Suicide" it has many parts in it where it mentions that exact thing ..."Medals on a wooden mantle. Next to a handsome face. That the president took for granted. Writing checks that others pay." I would like to honestly know about this next election and if a democrat is elected and WILL have to send troops overseas where troops WILL be killed how will you react to this. Now it isnt a possibility that Americas military will have to go to overseas to fight it's just a matter of timing. If a democrat is elected into office in 2008 and were still over in Iraq which Im sure we'll be and people will still die ...since this is a war, how are you going to react to this? It seems no matter who is elected people will always blame the president. Im not saying that there is one and only one party that can make correct decisions but I want to know. Because it's only a matter of time before this will all happen again. Now Im sure this is going to bring a lot of the hippie dippie 60's political activism on here that only created more violence than peace so please think before you write. I would like to know if there is anyone out there that is involved in governments out there and if they are seeing things work?


    The point is that we shouldnt have gone there in the first place. There were no troops to be killed in Iraq...much less the poor civilians who would still be ALIVE if 51% of the people in this country had a brain.
  • Jeremy2009Jeremy2009 Posts: 53
    Open wrote:
    The point is that we shouldnt have gone there in the first place. There were no troops to be killed in Iraq...much less the poor civilians who would still be ALIVE if 51% of the people in this country had a brain.

    Hey there guy. I didnt open another anti-republican/anti-war thread. I wanted to know about this coming election. People fuck up, Bush isnt perfect, I dont agree with many of his policies. Other presidents fucked up as well. They cant satisfy everyone all the time. Im talking about the election in 2008. Please stay on track here ...
    Support the Troops
    Go Cubs!
  • CosmoCosmo Posts: 12,225
    I don't think it's a Republican/Democrat thing... here's why I feel this way.
    ...
    Let's say that in the same timeframe (2000 - 2006), the same exact events occured and the same exact decisions were made and the same exact outcomes resulted... the only thing different is the President is Al Gore.
    Would the same people supporting the war and decisions and results... STILL be supporting the President?
    ....
    I can guarantee you that I would STILL be against this war, the way it was sold, the way it was handled and the way it continues to be mishandled.
    Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
    Hail, Hail!!!
  • hippiemomhippiemom Posts: 3,326
    Cosmo wrote:
    I don't think it's a Republican/Democrat thing... here's why I feel this way.
    ...
    Let's say that in the same timeframe (2000 - 2006), the same exact events occured and the same exact decisions were made and the same exact outcomes resulted... the only thing different is the President is Al Gore.
    Would the same people supporting the war and decisions and results... STILL be supporting the President?
    ....
    I can guarantee you that I would STILL be against this war, the way it was sold, the way it was handled and the war in continues to be mishandled.
    Exactly! And I can guarantee that the 30% or so that still supports the current administration would be shrieking to high heaven about how our Democratic president lied us into a war and bungled our national security here at home while breaking laws left and right to spy on his own people. I can just hear it now :rolleyes:
    "Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." ~ MLK, 1963
  • CosmoCosmo Posts: 12,225
    hippiemom wrote:
    Exactly! And I can guarantee that the 30% or so that still supports the current administration would be shrieking to high heaven about how our Democratic president lied us into a war and bungled our national security here at home while breaking laws left and right to spy on his own people. I can just hear it now :rolleyes:
    ...
    Yeah... but he did give us that 300 dollar tax rebate... er... advance on our taxes... what was that, anyway?
    Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
    Hail, Hail!!!
  • hailhailkchailhailkc Posts: 582
    hippiemom wrote:
    Exactly! And I can guarantee that the 30% or so that still supports the current administration would be shrieking to high heaven about how our Democratic president lied us into a war and bungled our national security here at home while breaking laws left and right to spy on his own people. I can just hear it now :rolleyes:

    I could just as easily say that people like yourself would be quiet, un-assuming, non-activist and generally voiceless if a Democratic President were in place instead of an evangelical Christian/Republican like Bush.

    I supported Bosnia and Somalia, just like I supported Iraq.
    MOSSAD NATO Alphabet Stations (E10)
    High Traffic ART EZI FTJ JSR KPA PCD SYN ULX VLB YHF
    Low Traffic CIO MIW
    Non Traffic ABC BAY FDU GBZ HNC NDP OEM ROV TMS ZWL
  • hippiemomhippiemom Posts: 3,326
    hailhailkc wrote:
    I could just as easily say that people like yourself would be quiet, un-assuming, non-activist and generally voiceless if a Democratic President were in place instead of an evangelical Christian/Republican like Bush.

    I supported Bosnia and Somalia, just like I supported Iraq.
    You would be wrong. I was opposed to Bosnia and Somalia, just as I am opposed to Iraq.
    "Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." ~ MLK, 1963
  • RainDogRainDog Posts: 1,824
    hippiemom wrote:
    You would be wrong. I was opposed to Bosnia and Somalia, just as I am opposed to Iraq.
    As was I. And I never voted for Clinton either (though I do kind of miss him now).

    As for the "blame" mentioned in the first post? I think the blame will always be firmly on Bush's shoulders, even after he leaves office. He did start the war after all. A 2008 Democratic or Republic President might very well be incompetent (or unconcerned) enough to not be able to pull us out - but he or she will never be the one that started it. So, what you'll see in this scenerio is people will be pissed off that President X can't get us out of Bush's War.
  • DriftingByTheStormDriftingByTheStorm Posts: 8,684
    i won't react with any suprise.
    Afterall, THEY HAVE WMDs!

    :rolleyes:
    If I was to smile and I held out my hand
    If I opened it now would you not understand?
  • Casey1Casey1 Posts: 11
    You're right, there will still still be deaths in Iraq after the 2008 election (IF we are still in Iraq). The difference will be that whoever is elected, unless it is another neo-con, will have inherited a problem rather than created one. I don't see a neo-con getting elected. I don't even see a Republican getting elected unless it is someone such as John McCain. My money is on Joe Biden, but he needs to tweak his Iraq policy just a little.
  • my2handsmy2hands Posts: 17,117
    Jeremy2009 wrote:
    Now Im sure this is going to bring a lot of the hippie dippie 60's political activism on here that only created more violence than peace so please think before you write.

    "i don't wanna think, i wanna feel"
  • my2handsmy2hands Posts: 17,117
    Jeremy2009 wrote:
    Dear Readers,
    There has been something that has been bothering me for quite some time. It it the fact that everytime I turn on the television or read the newspaper there is always the same people blaming the president for deaths in war. In the new Pearl Jam album the song "Worldwide Suicide" it has many parts in it where it mentions that exact thing ..."Medals on a wooden mantle. Next to a handsome face. That the president took for granted. Writing checks that others pay." I would like to honestly know about this next election and if a democrat is elected and WILL have to send troops overseas where troops WILL be killed how will you react to this. Now it isnt a possibility that Americas military will have to go to overseas to fight it's just a matter of timing. If a democrat is elected into office in 2008 and were still over in Iraq which Im sure we'll be and people will still die ...since this is a war, how are you going to react to this? It seems no matter who is elected people will always blame the president. Im not saying that there is one and only one party that can make correct decisions but I want to know. Because it's only a matter of time before this will all happen again. Now Im sure this is going to bring a lot of the hippie dippie 60's political activism on here that only created more violence than peace so please think before you write. I would like to know if there is anyone out there that is involved in governments out there and if they are seeing things work?


    it is not about republican or democrats... that is the elemantary way of approaching politics...that is exactly what those truly in power want, is partisan bickering and squables over meaningless issues (flag burning, gay marriage, the list goes on)

    that being said the republican party has been completely overrun by corporate agenda's (democrats catching up), and religous zealots
  • ByrnzieByrnzie Posts: 21,037
    Jeremy2009 wrote:
    If a democrat is elected into office in 2008 and were still over in Iraq which Im sure we'll be and people will still die ...since this is a war, how are you going to react to this? It seems no matter who is elected people will always blame the president.

    That's the trouble when there are two parties to vote for who are exactly the same and who are both controlled by the same big business interests. Democracy? There is no democracy in America. Fact! There is only a big business dictatorship which calls itself a democracy.
  • my2handsmy2hands Posts: 17,117
    there is an election in 2006!
  • LazLaz Posts: 118
    Hillary in '08!!!!
  • hippiemomhippiemom Posts: 3,326
    Laz wrote:
    Hillary in '08!!!!
    That's what I'm afraid of .... god help us all.
    "Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." ~ MLK, 1963
  • LazLaz Posts: 118
    hippiemom wrote:
    That's what I'm afraid of .... god help us all.

    What's wrong with Ms. Rodham?
  • hippiemomhippiemom Posts: 3,326
    Laz wrote:
    What's wrong with Ms. Rodham?
    On top of the fact that I don't think she can win a general election? There's the fact that she's supported this war from the start, and refuses to apologize for that support and start looking for a way out. I won't vote for a warmonger.
    "Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." ~ MLK, 1963
  • LazLaz Posts: 118
    hippiemom wrote:
    On top of the fact that I don't think she can win a general election? There's the fact that she's supported this war from the start, and refuses to apologize for that support and start looking for a way out. I won't vote for a warmonger.

    she doesn't really support the war, she's just saying that to garner some hawkish votes, she's supporting the war to win an election so she can implement some real changes... you'll see when she wins
  • floyd1975floyd1975 Posts: 1,350
    Laz wrote:
    she doesn't really support the war, she's just saying that to garner some hawkish votes, she's supporting the war to win an election so she can implement some real changes... you'll see when she wins

    So she truly stands for nothing?
  • my2handsmy2hands Posts: 17,117
    zstillings wrote:
    So she truly stands for nothing?

    exactly
  • hippiemomhippiemom Posts: 3,326
    Laz wrote:
    she doesn't really support the war, she's just saying that to garner some hawkish votes, she's supporting the war to win an election so she can implement some real changes... you'll see when she wins
    She has supported it consistently with her votes, and that's more than just talk. She's done her fair share to make this atrocity possible. There's blood on her hands.
    "Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." ~ MLK, 1963
  • LazLaz Posts: 118
    my2hands wrote:
    exactly


    double exactly... don't we want someone who stands for nothing? someone who won't be dogmatic about issues? someone who goes with the tide as befits them? someone who's open minded...what a perfect president that would be in our postmodern society!
  • floyd1975floyd1975 Posts: 1,350
    Laz wrote:
    double exactly... don't we want someone who stands for nothing? someone who won't be dogmatic about issues? someone who goes with the tide as befits them? someone who's open minded...what a perfect president that would be in our postmodern society!

    Or someone who can be easily swayed by power and foreign governments? Doesn't sound like my ideal. Sometimes tough decisions need to be made and a poll of registered voters is not always the best consultant.
  • hippiemomhippiemom Posts: 3,326
    Laz wrote:
    double exactly... don't we want someone who stands for nothing? someone who won't be dogmatic about issues? someone who goes with the tide as befits them? someone who's open minded...what a perfect president that would be in our postmodern society!
    You want someone with no strong positions, who drifts along wherever the winds of change may blow her, in charge of the world's largest military?!? This sounds like a good idea to you?
    "Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." ~ MLK, 1963
  • LazLaz Posts: 118
    zstillings wrote:
    Or someone who can be easily swayed by power and foreign governments? Doesn't sound like my ideal. Sometimes tough decisions need to be made and a poll of registered voters is not always the best consultant.


    z, a president has to be open-minded and tolerant so he/she won't take any real stand on any issue... we don't need people like FDR who intolerantly went to war with Japan after Pearl Harbor... an ideal president would have understood why they had to hit Pearl and opened dialogue with Japanese leadership in order to build a better tomorrow... that's why we need someone who stands for nothing

    [tongue firmly planted in cheek]
  • floyd1975floyd1975 Posts: 1,350
    Laz wrote:
    z, a president has to be open-minded and tolerant so he/she won't take any real stand on any issue... we don't need people like FDR who intolerantly went to war with Japan after Pearl Harbor... an ideal president would have understood why they had to hit Pearl and opened dialogue with Japanese leadership in order to build a better tomorrow... that's why we need someone who stands for nothing

    [tongue firmly planted in cheek]

    Gotcha. Sorry I didn't pick up on that earlier.
  • RainDogRainDog Posts: 1,824
    zstillings wrote:
    Gotcha. Sorry I didn't pick up on that earlier.
    I don't know if you've noticed, but it seems most of the people "rooting" for a Hillary Clinton campaign are the same people who won't vote for her in the general.

    And not to toot my own horn (who am I kidding, I love to toot!), but I had Laz figured out as soon as I read "Hillary in '08!!!!" I really don't think she'll make it past the primary.
  • floyd1975floyd1975 Posts: 1,350
    RainDog wrote:
    I don't know if you've noticed, but it seems most of the people "rooting" for a Hillary Clinton campaign are the same people who won't vote for her in the general.

    And not to toot my own horn (who am I kidding, I love to toot!), but I had Laz figured out as soon as I read "Hillary in '08!!!!" I really don't think she'll make it past the primary.

    I agree with you. The only way she makes it past the primary is because she has so much more money stocked up than any other probable candidate at this time.
  • binauralsoundsbinauralsounds Posts: 1,357
    Laz wrote:
    Hillary in '08!!!!

    I USED to think this. However, moveon and the rest of the RADICAL left will throw hillary under the bus quicker than Joe.
Sign In or Register to comment.