What's new

Republicans and marijuana

Status
Not open for further replies.

greenhead

Active member
Veteran
So Ronald Reagan's response to the bombing of the French and American military barracks in Beirut in 1983 by ceasing the mission and pulling out the Marines was being hard on terrorism? How about his decision to arm and train the Afghan and Pakistani mujahadeen? Or the providing of chemical and conventional weapons to Iraq? You are just spouting talking points without any understanding of history or reality.

You have zero knowledge as to my knowledge of history or reality, so it would be wise for you not to assume things about other posters which you know nothing about.

Reagan's decision to pull out of Beirut was wrong. What Obama and the Democrats have been doing is treating 9/11 like a crime and not a war. Obama is a light weight and a pushover on the global stage. He is extremely naive and frankly, I don't think that he has a clue at all when it comes to foreign policy.
:wave:
 

ColBatGuano

Member
You have zero knowledge as to my knowledge of history or reality, so it would be wise for you not to assume things about other posters which you know nothing about.

Your responses tell an entirely different story in that regard.

Reagan's decision to pull out of Beirut was wrong. What Obama and the Democrats have been doing is treating 9/11 like a crime and not a war. Obama is a light weight and a pushover on the global stage. He is extremely naive and frankly, I don't think that he has a clue at all when it comes to foreign policy.

Terrorism by its very nature is a law enforcement issue. A military response to a decentralized threat with no established base of operations or controlled land is likely to be ineffective. You cannot go to war against an ideology.
 

greenhead

Active member
Veteran
That is only partly true. Obama only accepted public financing when John McCain did not agree to also refuse it. McCain, by the way, also flip-flopped on his original pledge not to accept public financing. Obama, unlike McCain, did stick to his decision during the primaries (as did Hillary Clinton.)

There never was any cap on how much he could raise.

McCain agreed to it, Obama agreed to it.

Obama lied, then broke his promise when he opted out of it.

WASHINGTON - Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama said Thursday he'll bypass the federal public financing system in the general election, abandoning an earlier commitment to take the money if his Republican rival did as well.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25259863/

:tiphat:
 

greenhead

Active member
Veteran
Your responses tell an entirely different story in that regard.

That would be a silly ad-hominem attack, backed up by zero facts. I am fairly confident that my knowledge of history surpasses that of just about any leftist on this forum. If I write something that is factually incorrect, then feel free to correct it. Otherwise, you may save the ad-hominems for somebody else.

You cannot go to war against an ideology.

Sure you can. We literally wiped out most of the Nazis and many of their supporters during the second world war. The same can be done this time with a different, but equally as evil ideology.
:tiphat:
 

DiscoBiscuit

weed fiend
Veteran
When liberals advocate stiff government control and regulation on a plethora of issues, they no longer are liberal and are in fact Totalitarian.

You're welcome to your perception. The left advocates control over societal aspects that history has proven will be exploited if not controlled. If exploitation begets profit at the individual or environmental expense, it must be organized. Not stifled, simply managed for longevity. Unfortunately, human greed has lost the patience for longevity. Greed wants governance not unlike the post 19th century/ early 20th centuries when industry as a whole exploited the masses as a whole. Europe seems well placed to not forget this recent memory. Americas memory is far shorter or we chose to ignore history.

I'd be interested to see more of your perception that the left controls the individual more than the right. If you're a businessman and are advocating deregulation, I thoroughly understand your perception. If you're speaking as an individual, I feel propaganda has an influence.

The Democratic party is Totalitarian. As well as the Republican party.

Our country was founded as a Democratic Republic. To pick one or the other is to accept the shackles fascism.
I think you have your definitions mixed up. Republic means no monarch. Different republics have represented all ideologies, historically or contemporary. Democratic means of the people or by elected representatives.

Governance terms like Democratic ie democracy and Republic historically precede Democratic and Republican political ideologies and parties, not the other way around. Contemporary assumption of (governance) term meanings listens to commentary more than historical fact.

Votes can be bought, and a Republic is hard to maintain.
What's the alternative, anarchy? Check some historical perspective on anarchy. No anarchist seeks anarchy in itself. They seek their ideals with no well thought organization. What they get is nothing close to what they want. Even dictatorial coups have organization. Until you devise and test a better system, be careful wishing it would all go away w/o a proven replacement.
 

ColBatGuano

Member
McCain agreed to it, Obama agreed to it.

Obama lied, then broke his promise when he opted out of it.

So Obama became the first politician in history to make his opponent look like a chump? It is not like he put anything in writing. What does that have to do with the recent decision of the Supreme Court to continue treating corporations as persons?
 

SpasticGramps

Don't Drone Me, Bro!
ICMag Donor
Veteran
Democrats are a threat to national security, and that is what I believe.

:tiphat:

That's sheep talk bro. Republicans are just as much a threat to national security as the Dems are.

Big government is a threat to national security. Terrorism and the world's hatred of us comes the Progressive view that American must spread democracy around the world. Thus, all of our military bases around the world. The military belong home not fighting some "war" they cannot win or sitting on some fucking imaginary DMZ line in Korea.

We must give the world freedom. Bullshit I say. Shut it all down and bring our boys home. Let the Islamic Fundamentalist win. They already have anyway and your sadly mistaken to think we have the upper hand.

The War on Drugs
The War on Poverty

These are not winnable wars. They aren't wars at all. Again, the word War has an academic meaning that is virtually meaningless today.
 

greenhead

Active member
Veteran
It is not like he put anything in writing.

Yeah, he only lied with words coming out of his mouth. I guess it wasn't really a lie, since it wasn't put on paper and notarized.

:laughing:

What does that have to do with the recent decision of the Supreme Court to continue treating corporations as persons?

It has to do with it in this regard: Obama is in no position to criticize campaign reform, as his track record for being a liar when it comes to campaign finance means that he is only looking out for #1, himself. He is not looking out for the public interest, only for himself and what will get democrats elected.

:tiphat:
 

ColBatGuano

Member
That would be a silly ad-hominem attack, backed up by zero facts. I am fairly confident that my knowledge of history surpasses that of just about any leftist on this forum. If I write something that is factually incorrect, then feel free to correct it. Otherwise, you may save the ad-hominems for somebody else.

Not an ad hominem attack at all. Your responses in this thread show me that you have a a few irrational misunderstandings. Such as:

Sure you can. We literally wiped out most of the Nazis and many of their supporters during the second world war. The same can be done this time with a different, but equally as evil ideology.

We were not at war with their ideology. We were assisting France, the United Kingdom, and the Soviet Union in driving back the German military advancements. We were not at war with Nazi ideology. We were at war with Germany. Germany is a country, it had a centralized base, a centralized leadership, and a uniformed military. Terrorism has none of these.

The last time we went to war against an ideology (Vietnam,) we lost. We lost, and a lot of Americans died needlessly.
 

greenhead

Active member
Veteran
We must give the world freedom. Bullshit I say.

I'm not in favor of spreading any "freedom" around the world.

Let the Islamic Fundamentalist win.

I'm going to have to disagree with you on that one. They must be wiped out. They are at war with us, regardless of what you or anybody else thinks and they will continue that war. Burying your head in the sand won't change that fact. The only thing they're going to win is a one-way ticket to paradise.

:tiphat:
 

greenhead

Active member
Veteran
We were not a war with their ideology. We were assisting France, the United Kingdom, and the Soviet Union in driving back the German military advancements. We were not at war with Nazi ideology. We were at war with Germany. Germany is a country, it had a centralized base, a centralized leadership, and a uniformed military. Terrorism has none of these.

The last time we went to war against an ideology (Vietnam,) we lost. We lost, and a lot of Americans died needlessly.

We were at war with Germany because they were waging war against us and they declared war against the USA.

Islamic terrorists don't wear a uniform, but they all believe in the same garbage, regardless of where they are from. Their centralized base that unites them all is their wacked beliefs.

Vietnam was not a war that was necessary to win, as in necessary to our survival, and the US pulled out.

:tiphat:
 

SpasticGramps

Don't Drone Me, Bro!
ICMag Donor
Veteran
I'm going to have to disagree with you on that one. They must be wiped out. They are at war with us, regardless of what you or anybody else thinks and they will continue that war. Burying your head in the sand won't change that fact. The only thing they're going to win is a one-way ticket to paradise.

:tiphat:

I don't think you quite understand how wars are fought. Tactical strategies for insurgency, leadership decapitation strikes, infrastructure destruction, and physiological warfare.

There is no military school of thought that can be applied for fighting this "war" because it is not a war at all.

We fighting against hearts and minds with guns and bullets. There is not one, NOT ONE successful conflict where this strategy has worked.

We are losing this "war" hand over fist and there is nothing we can do about. Fighting minds with bullets is ALWAYS, ALWAYS, ALWAYS a loosing proposition.

We are fighting what has become an international insurgency force against the United States. It will only stop when we capitulate or are destroyed.

It is the art of war and the Islamic Warriors have the upper hand. It pains me horribly to say that, but it is, without doubt, the tactical and strategic reality of the conflict.
 

greenhead

Active member
Veteran
It is the art of war and the Islamic Warriors have the upper hand.

I guess we'll just have to disagree on that one also, because I am not a believer in "winning hearts and minds". I am a believer in brute force.

Brute force is how most wars are won. It's worked fine in the past.

:tiphat:
 

SpasticGramps

Don't Drone Me, Bro!
ICMag Donor
Veteran
because I am not a believer in "winning hearts and minds".
:tiphat:

You don't understand insurgency guerrilla warfare then. The Generals the lead our military will tell that is a "losers" view.

Even Special Force's operators know that is the quickest way to loose an insurgency conflict.
 

greenhead

Active member
Veteran
You don't understand insurgency guerrilla warfare then. The Generals the lead our military will tell that is a "losers" view.

Even Special Force's operators know that is the quickest way to loose an insurgency conflict.

Well the way that they're fighting it now, doesn't seem to be working out that great for them. I prefer my method. Fighting a war with your hands tied behind your back is not a good tactic.

:tiphat:
 

ColBatGuano

Member
We were at war with Germany because they were waging war against us and they declared war against the USA.

That is only partly true. In an effort to support the United Kingdom, and to enforce an oil embargo against Germany, President Roosevelt, on September 11, 1941, issued a directive that the United States Navy was to fire upon any German war vessels. It was in response to actions taken as a result that Germany, on December 11, 1941 formally declared war on the United States. On that same day, the United States responded with its formal declaration of war against Germany (not the Nazi party or Nazi ideology--we knew little of their atrocities at the time.) The official text of the declaration:

"Whereas the Government of Germany has formally declared war against the Government and the people of the United States of America:

Therefore be it resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the state of war between the United States and the Government of Germany which has thus been thrust upon the United States is hereby formally declared; and the President is hereby authorized and directed to employ the entire naval and military forces of the United States and the resources of the Government to carry on war against the Government of Germany; and, to bring the conflict to a successful termination, all of the resources of the country are hereby pledged by the Congress of the United States."

No mention of ideologies or Nazis.

I agree that Islamic fundamentalists are f'ed in the head, but I also don't see how the military can do much about it. Intelligence gathering by law enforcement agencies is likely to be far more effective.
 

DiscoBiscuit

weed fiend
Veteran
You have zero knowledge as to my knowledge of history or reality, so it would be wise for you not to assume things about other posters which you know nothing about.

Alas, he has your posts to determine your focus on commentary as opposed to history. If you post contemporary assumptions as fact, it's easy to consider you're not as historically learned as you profess.

Reagan's decision to pull out of Beirut was wrong. What Obama and the Democrats have been doing is treating 9/11 like a crime and not a war. Obama is a light weight and a pushover on the global stage. He is extremely naive and frankly, I don't think that he has a clue at all when it comes to foreign policy.
:wave:
He's clued enough to know his predecessor damaged relations with countries we've considered allies for decades. He's clued enough to know that going it alone is much more costly than having friends help in times of need. The clueless predecessor didn't understand we can't do everything alone and stretched us to the brink, militarily and economically.

That would be a silly ad-hominem attack, backed up by zero facts. I am fairly confident that my knowledge of history surpasses that of just about any leftist on this forum.

Ah, simple reading would have easily demonstrated that the Colonel is no leftist, lol. Funny how commentary buffs look at facts as left. The left has no monopoly on fact but the right places too much emphasis on commentary that has no basis in historical fact. What a rube.

If I write something that is factually incorrect, then feel free to correct it. Otherwise, you may save the ad-hominems for somebody else.
That's the conundrum. As long as you put more faith in non-historic commentary as you do historic fact, commentary will trump in like eyes only.

We literally wiped out most of the Nazis and many of their supporters during the second world war. The same can be done this time with a different, but equally as evil ideology.
:tiphat:
Once again you fail to contextualize the difference between a rogue group and a rouge government. You don't understand the difference between a nation (Germany) and terrorism (no country, they simply roam the earth.) War is a tool for nations, terrorism is a criminal matter.

I reconsidered citing this since you prefer pejoratives above proper names. Would it interest you to know that of the (3) post 9/11 military tribunals, two so-called "enemy combatants" are roaming the streets today? Justice prosecution and imprisonment is 100%. (They don't prosecute those they can't convict) We have 300 (or more) terrorists imprisoned through the justice system. It was good enough for W but somehow it isn't good enough now. This is all politics as the right got drummed in the elections. There's no subject too low to exploit, misrepresent or obfuscate to regain power.

You're listing to Cheney or his disciples too much. W even rejected Cheney and Dick knew his place as VP. He doesn't care now. Cheney even tried to have a citizen in Colorado arrested for telling Dick he should be ashamed of himself. I wonder what Dick would say if the roles were reversed. Dick wouldn't care whether dissent is appropriate. He'd just call you a traitor for doing it. That makes Dick a hyp.
 

SpasticGramps

Don't Drone Me, Bro!
ICMag Donor
Veteran
I'll reiterate for effect.

True Conservatives can only subscribe to an isolationist foreign policy. We are in all of these past conflicts because we believed it was our destiny to spread democracy and freedom around the world. "We must save the world" mentality.

That is progressive philosophy. This is a progressive war against ideology. We think our ideology is better so we showed up on their door step with military bases in the Middle East and here we are. In a fucking bind, again. Just like Vietnam.

Nobody fucks with isolationist. How many times has Sweden been attacked? Live and let live.
 

hoosierdaddy

Active member
ICMag Donor
Veteran
Oh, please!

It is also far from the truth to perceive the right as being for your rights as a responsible human. I do believe it was the former Republican president who signed the USA PATRIOT act into law. I'm not going to try and say that the Democrats didn't go along with it, only that you can't have a one-sided argument about lessening of personal freedoms without pointing fingers at both parties. New Yorkers, the people most directly affected by the 9/11/01 attacks, overwhelmingly disagreed with much of the response to that event--including the USA PATRIOT act.

The fact is, that act, more than any in recent memory, served to remove many freedoms we once held. I don't know exactly what Obama has done to remove any of our freedoms, but feel free to point out what you think you are losing to his administration. The recent rejection of cell phone location privacy matters is a function of the PATRIOT act, which is a set of laws which he took an oath to defend. He does not make laws. The legislative branch makes laws.
I might remind you that we were attacked by a defined group that had publicly declared war on the US and it's western allies. Due to the protective nature of our laws, it was necessary to enact some reforms to allow things to happen for the sake of the way effort.
Many of the items are for certain way out of bounds of our constitutionally protected rights, and that is why Sunset laws were placed on many of the items. And it only stands to reason that any other issues, and the circumstances, evolve to a point of our courts having to rule.
But to my knowledge the Patriot Act provisions have saves untold numbers of lives, and did not impose unconstitutional indictments on any citizen in good standing.

Obama, and his socialist agenda administration are trying to impose clear violations of our rights, and not for the benefit of the country during a time of war, but to advance their socialist agenda.
Forcing me to purchase insurance, and imposing fines and/or imprisonment on me for not complying is...well, sir, if I have to explain the problem to you, then you are drunk on the kool-aid and there is no need to even go further.
Of course the logical voice of the people is rising up and rejecting this socialist debacle. And rightly so.

For which neither the police, nor the Congress found any evidence. But then, people are guilty until proven innocent in this country. Look at all the people in jail for pot. When Republican Larry Craig led the attempt to have Frank expelled from Congress, it was abjectly hypocritical, as Craig had been arrested in an airport restroom for attempting to solicit gay sex.

Neither of which should matter, because prostitution should be a legal enterprise. It seems a clear-cut case of a civil liberty being legislated from morality rather than rationality.
I understand that you would take something of mine and put it up out of context to make your point..but, my comment about frank was concerning his lewd behavior, and how he is a poor representative for our cause. And IMO, he is also a lying cocksucker.

It is also funny that anyone would blame Barney Frank for the housing crisis when he repeatedly warned the Republican-led congress about the problem. it was the Republican-led Gramm–Leach–Bliley act, which repealed part of the Glass–Steagall act, and allowed commercial and investment banks to operate as a single enterprise which ultimately led to the housing and financial crises. All Barney Frank opposed was moving the regulatory oversight of Fannie and Freddie Mac from congress to the Treasury Department. Frank saw this as an attempt to remove regulations. He wanted congress to impose stronger regulations on the industry, not fewer ones. Frank, along with Republican Mike Oxley, attempted to introduce regulatory reform, but the bill was opposed by most Republicans, and President Bush.
Well, this is quite a deep issue for discussion here, but first off...you need to get a couple things straight. The Gramm-Leach-Bliley act was signed into law, and advocated by Wild Bill Clinton.
And another thing is you need to research the Community Reinvestment Act, which is the real start of our troubles in the housing sector. Frank is a known lobbyist for softer banking rules so that Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac can more easily comply to the CRA.
Regulation to Frank means a committee that makes sure the rules are soft and that they are in compliance by mandating sub-prime loans and loans based on local rather than ones ability to make good on the debt.

How is abandonment of their own values not a true disgrace? I mean, I agree with you, but how is that not a disgrace?
Well, perhaps I can give you that the Republicans are guilty of static disgrace, but the Democrats are displaying dynamic disgrace. RIght up front for all to see as well...which is a good thing IMO. tic tock tic tock...

Silly and unfounded. You will find this in many aspects of debate or opposition. It exists in every statement claiming Barack Obama to be a socialist. It exists in every attempt to paint Sarah Palin as dumb. (She's not dumb, so much as uninformed and ineffective. She is also a hypocrite, who rallies against the same ear-mark spending she wantonly accepted at every offer during her term as Alaska's governor. That is one of many contradictions in her rhetoric. She is the reason I did not vote for John McCain.)

I mean, come on, to suggest that you aren't making comments of an inflammatory nature against primarily one side of the political spectrum yourself is intellectually dishonest.

I often throw inflammatory comments at the left. I hate everything about the concept. It's a sham that places the dregs of our society in the positions of importance, and undermines personal achievement and excellence. It stifles individual greatness, and discourages hard work and success.
 

greenhead

Active member
Veteran
How many times has Sweden been attacked? Live and let live.

Sweden hasn't been attacked much, but they are quick to make deals with the devil and let other countries use their country to attack their neighbors. Sweden provided transport for a huge amount of German troops during the second world war which were being sent to attack and invade neighboring countries.

I do not believe that what Sweden did is in any way admirable or a model for any other self-respecting nation to follow.
:tiphat:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Latest posts

Top