Dark Day

[imported_VHSLhelper]

WOW. Shows how many ppl. are paying attention.

He was an Ill. state Senator from early 1997 to late 2004 when he resigned after being elected to the US Senate.

----

Time to let the cat out of the bag.

This election was televised a few years ago, when Santos beat Vennick on The West Wing.

A young, inexperienced, appealing, minority Dem. with 2 kids (and a VP that knows Washington) who won the nomination in a fight against someone who had aleady been in the White House

vs.

an older, experienced, liberal, maverick Republican from out West who picked a Conservative for VP to try and satisfy the party.

-----

Apparently, the Revolution was not only televised, it was well scripted, too!

[sup-rbeast]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: BlueWahooChambor</div><div class="ubbcode-body">what im saying is that its more than 300 troops </div></div>
In Basra, the Iraqis control the province.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: VHSLhelper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">WOW. Shows how many ppl. are paying attention.

He was an Ill. state Senator from early 1997 to late 2004 when he resigned after being elected to the US Senate.

----

Time to let the cat out of the bag.

This elected was televised a few years ago, when Santos beat Vennick on The West Wing.

A young, inexperienced, appealing, minority Dem. with 2 kids (and a VP that knows Washington) who won the nomination in a fight against someone who had aleady been in the White House

vs.

an older, experienced, liberal, maverick Republican from out West who picked a Conservative for VP to try and satisfy the party.

-----

Apparently, the Revolution was not only televised, it was well scripted, too! </div></div>
Sorry too many of BWC ads on the tube. [img]/LDPforum/ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif[/img]

[R0cketer]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: CorbinDallas</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Bottom line is that when we get hit again, and we will get hit again, the idiot will do nothing more than send whatever faction that is responsible a box of chocolates and a dozen roses. What else is he gonna do??? Organize a break dance off with them??? </div></div>

I'm confused...when we got hit with Bush in there, it was due to Clinton's policies. So now if we get hit with Obama in there, it will be his policies. It's amazing how Bush seems to skirt blame no matter what, to some people. By the logic that Clinton is to blame for things that happened on Bush' watch, anything that happens early in Obama's watch should be blamed on Bush, but we already see that some of you don't wanna say that.

And that is why the country is to hell in a hand basket.

[BlueWahooChambordDevil]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: R0cketer</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: CorbinDallas</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Bottom line is that when we get hit again, and we will get hit again, the idiot will do nothing more than send whatever faction that is responsible a box of chocolates and a dozen roses. What else is he gonna do??? Organize a break dance off with them??? </div></div>

I'm confused...when we got hit with Bush in there, it was due to Clinton's policies. So now if we get hit with Obama in there, it will be his policies. It's amazing how Bush seems to skirt blame no matter what, to some people. By the logic that Clinton is to blame for things that happened on Bush' watch, anything that happens early in Obama's watch should be blamed on Bush, but we already see that some of you don't wanna say that.

And that is why the country is to hell in a hand basket. </div></div>
we didnt get hit because of anybodys policies......we got hit because we are the face of democracy and some extremist groups hate democracy and everything it represents

we didnt get hit with clinton because he showed he wasnt scared to deploy the military and im guessing bush was viewed as a softer, easier guy and that he wouldnt respond with any real force

thats why i think we will get hit again soon because odumbo is being viewed the same way in much of the world

it wont be because of his policies or the policies of any other president because frankly the terrorist states in the world dont care about our healthcare, abortion, or anything else of the sort

our economy is of importance to them though because if they can help cripple our economy in their eyes they have hurt us

[TheBeast]

I see your logic there Rock, but it doesn't hold up against Biden saying that anything like that that would happen early in bama's term would be as a direct result of him just being there.

[BlueWahooChambordDevil]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: TheBeast</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I see your logic there Rock, but it doesn't hold up against Biden saying that anything like that that would happen early in bama's term would be as a direct result of him just being there.</div></div>
thats because biden knows hes going to get tested because the world views him as soft

they also know that a big part of his campaign was no wars........so hes going to get called on that

[R0cketer]

Well Biden is just being honest, can't fault him for that.

That being said if the intelligence agencies are doing there work, hopefully we won't get hit again. It's not like there wasn't attempts after 9-11, the agencies just worked together, they didn't back off because Dubya went to war with them.

It wouldn't shock me at all if we get hit again or if we manage to stop them from trying to hit us again, and if anybody thinks that they wouldn't have kept trying with McCain, well that's just simply being political, because we've seen that they didn't try to stop with Bush.

It's the nature of the beast (no pun intended), we're going to be subject to attacks for as long as there is terrorist groups, which will be as long as there is a world. If our agencies do their work, hopefully we catch them, if we don't, that's gonna suck, but it's gonna happen no matter who is in there.

And depending on how Obama reacts if something does happen will scope a lot of his presidency, but to already know the answers is absolutely ridiculous. It wouldn't shock me if he screws the pooch but heck it wouldn't have shocked me if McCain screwed the pooch either if he was in there.

What kills me, absolutely kills me is the "he's the devil" talk before anything has been done. That is why we don't get anything done in this country, its because of people who want to make everything political no matter what, and if the story isn't there yet, they'll add to it to make it one.

Heck I wanted Bush to do a good job, I didn't like him but I hoped like heck he would surprise me. He definitely did, in that he was worse than I could have ever imagined. I want Obama to do a good job. I don't really like him but I hope he surprises me and does a good or heck at least a competent job, but the damning him before he is in office is ridiculous.

This is why I absolutely hate politics, the election is over, instead of throwing him under the bus (or in this case with a lot of the Obama-hate, putting him in the back seat of the bus), people should at least give him a bit of a chance before they pass judgement. Heck if he screws everything up worse, throw the rocks at him then by all means, but if he does stuff right, the makeup of some on here, would be giving him no credit, but saying oh that was Bush' plans, it just took time to come to place. Of course if he does stuff wrong, it will be all his fault, no way it was due to Bush' stuff before him.

That in a nutshell if what drives me crazy. Let me break it down like this.

A dollar is worth a dollar when Bush comes into office. It goes down to being worth 75 cents. The crazy politicos say its not Bush fault it was due to Clinton. Now if it was the other way around and Bush came into an office and a dollar went up to being worth 1.25, it wouldn't be due to Clinton but only due to Bush.

Now 8 years, later if Obama comes into office and the dollar goes down to being worth 75 cents, the politicos will blame Obama. If however it went up to being worth 1.25, they would give credit to Bush.

And you can reverse that around for parties and it works the same way. Not everything good is due to one party and everything bad due to one party, that way of thinking is what keeps us from moving forward. Here's an idea, some good that happens is due to Democrats, some good that happens is due to Republicans. Some bad that happens is due to Democrats, some that happens is due to Republicans, and you know what some of the good and bad can be blamed on both and some on neither.

Just like a bunch of people voted for Obama because he was black, a bunch voted against him because he was black. A bunch voted for him because he was Democrat, a bunch voted against him because he was Democrat. A bunch voted for McCain because he was white, a bunch voted against him because he wasn't. A bunch voted for him because he was Republican, a bunch voted against him because he was a Republican.

How much freaking better would we be if people voted for the best person regardless of the party? I don't know how many on here have the capability of not seeing a D or an R and instantly voting due to that. Work around the environment a bit, you'll find some good D's and some good R's and likewise, you'll find some bad D's and some bad R's. That is why I say I don't think I hardly can vote a straight ticket, because I don't care if the person is a Democrat, a Republican, or an Independent, I vote for the person I think either will be best in the role. That could mean that I think they will continue the good work of someone if I liked them or be totally different of the bad work if I didn't like them.

I've said this before and I'll say it again. To me, at least approximately, 1/3 of the people would vote for Bin Laden if he was running for the Democratic party. 1/3 of the people would vote for Bin Laden if he was running for the Republican party. The other 1/3 are the ones you need, the ones who actually don't have their mind so closed off that they can see something besides R or D. It would wonderful if we could get it down to like 1/10th vote for each party based on the party and the other 80% of people voted by who they actually thought was best, how much better would things be then.

[R0cketer]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: BlueWahooChambor</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: TheBeast</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I see your logic there Rock, but it doesn't hold up against Biden saying that anything like that that would happen early in bama's term would be as a direct result of him just being there.</div></div>
thats because biden knows hes going to get tested because the world views him as soft

they also know that a big part of his campaign was no wars........so hes going to get called on that </div></div>

You may be right on the world viewing him as soft, but didn't everybody think Bush was the Texas hothead, he would sooner kill someone then look at him, and they tested him. So how does that logic correspond..

[BlueWahooChambordDevil]

if he cuts back on military spending and tries to do things like eliminate the patriot act itll weaken our intelligence and thus make it easier for an attack to be carried out