When the Crazy Uncle shows up

[navyvetcv60]

Who routinely tosses in Wilson? Bill Clinton's usually referred to as Bill Clinton. For that matter, the only reason people refer to Dubya at all is to differentiate from the senior Bush.

CSPAN, History Channel, A&E Biography....

 

[Marginal]

Or left wing twits with the War on Poverty or the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy™
BTW, the only ones to whom the term War on Terror is meaningless are those who are too craven to admit there are people out there that want to kill them, just to watch them die.

Bah. See the war on drugs and/or crime for another inspiring use of the meaningless "war on..." phrase.

The whole point of the war on terror is so that the administration can claim the US is in a state of perpetual war. Perfect excuse to use the Constitution as TP and claim unconstitutional powers as your right simply because "the nation's at war".

We weren't in a state of war after the first WTC bombing, we weren't at war after the Oklahoma City bombing. It's one thing to react to a terrorist attack. You hunt them down, get them out of circulation, and check the doors and windows etc. There's no valid reason to claim the US is locked in a war with a vaporous enemy. There's no reason to claim that if we don't declare war on this enemy, that they'll be rampaging through the streets of NY.

 

[Marginal]

CSPAN, History Channel, A&E Biography....

Going kinda far out there just to justify a cheap shot.

 

[navyvetcv60]

Going kinda far out there just to justify a cheap shot.

Your assuming it's a cheap shot when it is as simple as a middle name, this is frickin hilarious!

 

[Big Don]

We weren't in a state of war after the first WTC bombing,

The one in 1993, no, we weren't, but, as the 9-11 commission report stated, "They were at war with US" The Clinton (there's that name again) administration HATED the US military and tried to treat terrorism as a LAW ENFORCEMENT problem. That didn't work so well, did it?

we weren't at war after the Oklahoma City bombing.

apples and oranges. You cannot, with any honesty equate McViegh with the Islamic terrorists like Hamas, Al Qaeda, and Islamic Jihad.

It's one thing to react to a terrorist attack. You hunt them down, get them out of circulation,

The way Clinton took Osama Bin Laden out of circulation when The Sudan offered him to us on a silver platter?

and check the doors and windows etc. There's no valid reason to claim the US is locked in a war with a vaporous enemy. There's no reason to claim that if we don't declare war on this enemy, that they'll be rampaging through the streets of NY.

No, because there haven't been terrorist acts in London, Glasgow and Madrid, committed by muslim extremists, or, you know, planes flown into buildings, in NYC... No, no reason to think we'll ever face terrorist attacks here, except, of course, that we have and that the government has stopped future attacks, and that the Islamic extremists tell us they want to kill us. If someone who demonstrates a willingness to kill innocents, and says they want to kill you, how can you doubt they will try?

 

[Big Don]

Your assuming it's a cheap shot when it is as simple as a middle name, this is frickin hilarious!

Standard lib practice though, excuse when done by them, attack when done to them...

 

[navyvetcv60]

The one in 1993, no, we weren't, but, as the 9-11 commission report stated, "They were at war with US" The Clinton (there's that name again) administration HATED the US military and tried to treat terrorism as a LAW ENFORCEMENT problem. That didn't work so well, did it? apples and oranges. You cannot, with any honesty equate McViegh with the Islamic terrorists like Hamas, Al Qaeda, and Islamic Jihad. The way Clinton took Osama Bin Laden out of circulation when The Sudan offered him to us on a silver platter?
No, because there haven't been terrorist acts in London, Glasgow and Madrid, committed by muslim extremists, or, you know, planes flown into buildings, in NYC... No, no reason to think we'll ever face terrorist attacks here, except, of course, that we have and that the government has stopped future attacks, and that the Islamic extremists tell us they want to kill us. If someone who demonstrates a willingness to kill innocents, and says they want to kill you, how can you doubt they will try?

Don, hard to argue with that, don't know to many people that could of said it better. Stay vigilant.

 

[5-0 Kenpo]

Allow me, if you will, to get on my soapbox:

As a somewhat rhetorical question, what makes you think that the Administration of either a Republican or a Democrat will really make a difference? To say that it will make a significant difference is to ignore the nature of government in general, and the U.S. government in particular.

All of our past presidents have done something illegal while in office. All have used to office for personal gain, or for the gain of others. All of them have "played" with the lives of citizens for one reason or other. That includes Democratic and Republican Presidents. Certainly, some more than others. But I would venture to guess, in the final analysis, it would be a draw as to which party is "worse".

History has taught us that it is the very nature of government to expand itself, usurp more power for itself, and control the populations of their countries. Believe it or not, people, that was one of the reasons for the U.S. Revolutionary War. Unfortunately, both parties have tried to do away with those founding principles. Whether it be the New Deal and the "war on poverty", or the illegalization of drugs and the "war on drugs."

And you know what, we went right along with it. We don't do anything to stop the erosion of our liberties. Well you know what, people get the government that they deserve. The last "revolution" in politics ended with the Civil Rights movement of the 1960's.

I could argue particulars in this thread, but quite frankly, I have found in my experience that the truth usually lies somewhere in the middle. And especially in the case of politics, depends on the mental filter through which one looks at a given issue. Some look at things through a purely legal perspective, others a moralistic one. Still others a type of worldly pragmatism. None of them is wholly right, nor wholly wrong in their perspective, although some match better with reality then others.

I could continue, but then I would have to start delving into the particulars, so I'll get off my soapbox.