Lazy boy Fred

[xrayzebra]

GG, the question is to all really.

I really haven't paid a lot of attention to any candidates on either
side of the aisle. Well except, I wouldn't vote for Billary or Obama.
Their philosophy turns me off. Both of them are Socialist to the
core. And I do believe one or the other and possibly both will
the be the dimms choice.

On the Republicans. Like I said I haven't looked at them very
close. Damn it's over a year before the election, too long to
sit around listening to all the talk. And I am not so sure we
might not have an independent running, although don't think
any that would run as a independent would have a chance.

[DarkReign]

The Romney Two-Step:

Another Romney flip-flop? The Washington Post picks up on the state's rights comments regarding abortion that Romney recently made in an interview with Nevada political journo Jon Ralston. The Post notes that Romney's states' rights defense differed from a debate answer he gave when he said he was in favor of a Cons utional amendment to restrict abortion. The campaign’s response: that Romney “supports a two-step process in which states get authority over abortion after Roe v. Wade is overturned, followed eventually by a cons utional amendment that bans most abortions." Is anyone else a bit confused? Did Romney simply get caught up in "states' rights" spin because he knew he had to justify Nevada's support for gaming?

washington post

------------------------

I know you only expressed preliminary interest in Romney, but I thought this would show you why I don't trust this guy. He is even flip flopping on the state rights claims he has made before; something that you seem to really value. But this man has no convictions. He has only aspirations and ambition. He says whatever he thinks the crowd he's speaking to at the time will approve of!

Well then, if thats the truth, my tenuous support just fell of the side of the cliff. em, if thats his intention. He intends to pull the baseball equivalent of a double-switch.

"Im overturning it so the individual states can decide."
Yay!
"Now that its overturned and every state has decided, I am endorsing an amendment to regulate those states decisons that allowed it."
Boooo!

[DarkReign]

Question. And I am serious, not trying to prove any
point. Would one issue turn you off of a candidate?

Short answer: Yes

Long answer: Not about abortion.

That question obviously implies much more than it seems. If a candidate supports going into an uneeded war, then I dont care if he is the next coming of George Washington, he isnt getting my meager vote.

But, I assume you meant it in context of abortion. No, that issue alone would not dissuade me from any candidate. But, in turn, if what GG25 purports (and is corroborated by the article posted) then that pandering turns me off from the candidate completely for no other reason than that.

I never liked Kerry, not even for a second. But I despise Bush, or maybe moreso his administration (sorry, Bush doesnt come off as too bright and Yale as a whole must weep every time he opens his mouth).

[ggoose25]

Well then, if thats the truth, my tenuous support just fell of the side of the cliff. em, if thats his intention. He intends to pull the baseball equivalent of a double-switch.

"Im overturning it so the individual states can decide."
Yay!
"Now that its overturned and every state has decided, I am endorsing an amendment to regulate those states decisons that allowed it."
Boooo!

I think you're right. IF those are his intentions. There's no way to know until he's in the WH, though. We didn't know W's true intentions until he was sitting in the West Wing.

It's a shame too. He has the tools to be a good president.

And who knows, he might switch it up again and say he meant state's rights. We'll find out soon enough.

[xrayzebra]

Short answer: Yes

Long answer: Not about abortion.

That question obviously implies much more than it seems. If a candidate supports going into an uneeded war, then I dont care if he is the next coming of George Washington, he isnt getting my meager vote.

But, I assume you meant it in context of abortion. No, that issue alone would not dissuade me from any candidate. But, in turn, if what GG25 purports (and is corroborated by the article posted) then that pandering turns me off from the candidate completely for no other reason than that.

I never liked Kerry, not even for a second. But I despise Bush, or maybe moreso his administration (sorry, Bush doesnt come off as too bright and Yale as a whole must weep every time he opens his mouth).

Who determines it is an "unneeded" war? Your
decision or your elected representative?

I am not being snide. But it is a legitimate question.

As a matter of information to you and others. I was
completely surprised we didn't take on the whole of
the Middle East when the WTC got bombed. And I
am not sure we did the right thing by NOT taking
them on. And many others felt the same as me.
But we were thinking in mode of our lifetime, not
younger people. We, those of my age group, were
raised in the period of WWII and many of those
that were WWI were still alive and we were well aware
of what war is and what it takes to really win one.

Many of the younger folks only know Korea and
VN and one we had a stand-off and the other we
lost. So you really haven't seen our country in full
war mode.

[ChumpDumper]

Who determines it is an "unneeded" war? Your
decision or your elected representative?

I think for myself.

As a matter of information to you and others. I was
completely surprised we didn't take on the whole of
the Middle East when the WTC got bombed. And I
am not sure we did the right thing by NOT taking
them on.

The whole middle east didn't attack us. Just some dudes who were hiding in Afghanistan and are now hiding in Pakistan. We should have kept after those guys instead of bogging down in Iraq.

Many of the younger folks only know Korea and
VN and one we had a stand-off and the other we
lost. So you really haven't seen our country in full
war mode.

Which begs the question: "How serious was Bush about the war on terra and Iraq compared to his rhetoric?"

The answer, determined by myself, is "not very" -- definitely not in comparison to World War II. That can't be denied.

[DarkReign]

Who determines it is an "unneeded" war? Your
decision or your elected representative?

I didnt think its a snide question at all, its a good one. IMO, true war is such an enormous burden to the entire nation, we should decide. Not by popular vote, but by support or unsupport.

Iraq was a supported war. But what was supported was, once again, a double switch. The only reason any of us even use the abbreviation for "weapons of mass destruction" is because it was used ad nauseam as the lead up to Iraq.

Not only that, Powell was convincing us that not only did he have WMDs, but that he was intent upon using them or giving them to individuals who would use them either on us or our allies.

Culminate all this with the hysteria of fear and aftermath of 911, and it was rubber stamped by everybody in a position to question it under the guise of "patriotism".

5 years later, Im sure a buttload of people in Congress wish they could repeal their vote. But then again, maybe not. Funny thing politics, those not in power reap the benefits of those who are cyclically speaking.

Many of the younger folks only know Korea and
VN and one we had a stand-off and the other we
lost. So you really haven't seen our country in full
war mode.

Now this, I couldnt agree with more. Youre absolutely right my generation doesnt know what real war is, and God forbid the day we do. The military is not the end-all, be-all of disagreements in theory and practice. If that were the case, Joe Schmo the ugly bouncer from the local biker bar would be running things. But he isnt, and there is a reason.

[ggoose25]

Who determines it is an "unneeded" war? Your
decision or your elected representative?

I am not being snide. But it is a legitimate question.

As a matter of information to you and others. I was
completely surprised we didn't take on the whole of
the Middle East when the WTC got bombed. And I
am not sure we did the right thing by NOT taking
them on. And many others felt the same as me.
But we were thinking in mode of our lifetime, not
younger people. We, those of my age group, were
raised in the period of WWII and many of those
that were WWI were still alive and we were well aware
of what war is and what it takes to really win one.

Many of the younger folks only know Korea and
VN and one we had a stand-off and the other we
lost. So you really haven't seen our country in full
war mode.

I think this is an excellent post.

[xrayzebra]

CD said I think for myself.

No one is questioning you thought process. I am speaking
for decisions about the country.

Obviously, we cannot have a "popular" vote on every question, especially war.

CD said: The whole middle east didn't attack us. Just some dudes who were hiding in Afghanistan and are now hiding in Pakistan. We should have kept after those guys instead of bogging down in Iraq.

If you believe that, then really any statement I make will
be considered irrelevant by you. But the fact of the
matter is that most of the ME has policies that are
opposed to our view. And are hostile to us. And we
are not bogged down in Iraq as you state. Politics once
again raises it ugly head to cause us to not use the
full power that we could bring to bear. And one of the
reason we cant is because of people/politicians like you
who seemed to not want win the war.

CD: Which begs the question: "How serious was Bush about the war on terra and Iraq compared to his rhetoric?"

Well since you voiced your personal opinion, I will voice
mine. Since VN the politicians in Washington have been
very wary of war. Clinton and his war in Bosnia was
fought by air above (cant remember the al ude) to hold
casualties down. And he got away with it. But Clinton
also showed the AQ that if they bloodied us enough we
would pull back. As in Black Helicopter Down. Clinton
would not commit enough troops to win a battle, much less
a war.

DR: I didnt think its a snide question at all, its a good one. IMO, true war is such an enormous burden to the entire nation, we should decide. Not by popular vote, but by support or unsupport.

I am not sure what you are trying to say here. Support
or unsupport (nonsupport). You cannot have it both
ways. The war was supported by Congress. And is
still supported by the majority of Congress. They will
not or have not cut off funding for the Iraq war. And
wont so long as the public supports it, which the public
does. Don't be mislead by the MSM and polls, if the
public was against it, funds would have already been
cut off. Much of the public, like me, don't want to see
the United States humiliated again and see the
aftermath of us pulling out will cause.

The WMD is really puzzling. Much ado has been made
about there being no WMD being found. Yet, everyone
knows Iraq had WMD and everyone, and I mean everyone,
thought he had it when we invaded. The question which
I have ask and others have ask: What happened to it?
And everyone should be concerned with that question.
Some folks say it was moved to Syria. It wouldn't
surprise me. Saddam was not on great terms with
any of his neighbors. But it didn't stop him from
flying his AF to Iran, did it.

One point that seems to have been lost in all this
talk is that Saddam was offered a deal to leave Iraq
along with his millions and family and even one
country agreed to accept him and he turned it down.
Do you remember that? I do. Had he accepted that
maybe, maybe, no war would have occured. Civil war
or AQ coming out of their training camps in Iraq to
attempt a takeover. Yeah for all the talk about no
terrorist in Iraq, AQ did have training camps there.

[ChumpDumper]

No one is questioning you thought process. I am speaking
for decisions about the country.

Obviously, we cannot have a "popular" vote on every question, especially war.

So? I don't have to agree with a cowardly congress abandoning its cons utional duties, either.

If you believe that, then really any statement I make will
be considered irrelevant by you. But the fact of the
matter is that most of the ME has policies that are
opposed to our view. And are hostile to us.

Not really.

And we
are not bogged down in Iraq as you state.

I've never heard of a four-year blitzkrieg.

Politics once
again raises it ugly head to cause us to not use the
full power that we could bring to bear. And one of the
reason we cant is because of people/politicians like you
who seemed to not want win the war.

Nah, Bush had every opportunity to expand the military and invade Iraq using something closer to Op Plan 1003. Just another opportunity squandered by Bush.

Well since you voiced your personal opinion, I will voice
mine. Since VN the politicians in Washington have been
very wary of war. Clinton and his war in Bosnia was
fought by air above (cant remember the al ude) to hold
casualties down. And he got away with it. But Clinton
also showed the AQ that if they bloodied us enough we
would pull back. As in Black Helicopter Down. Clinton
would not commit enough troops to win a battle, much less
a war.

Yeah, Reagan turned tail in the face of Islamic terror first. So what? Bush ignored Al Qaeda and let the issue fester in deputies meetings until 9/11. There's plenty of blame to go around.

The WMD is really puzzling. Much ado has been made
about there being no WMD being found. Yet, everyone
knows Iraq had WMD and everyone, and I mean everyone,
thought he had it when we invaded. The question which
I have ask and others have ask: What happened to it?

They were destroyed. If you think anything else than the Iraq War was a colossal failure.

And everyone should be concerned with that question.
Some folks say it was moved to Syria. It wouldn't
surprise me. Saddam was not on great terms with
any of his neighbors. But it didn't stop him from
flying his AF to Iran, did it.

What Air Force?

One point that seems to have been lost in all this
talk is that Saddam was offered a deal to leave Iraq
along with his millions and family and even one
country agreed to accept him and he turned it down.
Do you remember that? I do. Had he accepted that
maybe, maybe, no war would have occured. Civil war
or AQ coming out of their training camps in Iraq to
attempt a takeover. Yeah for all the talk about no
terrorist in Iraq, AQ did have training camps there.

The camps were in norther Iraq where Saddam had little control and where we routinely flew combat aircraft.

To bad most of the real Al Qaeda was and is still in Pakistan.

[clambake]

Training camps? Where? Show me. Show me the trainees. Show me the instructors teaching trainees. In Iraq. With Saddam in the bleachers. Or was he out buying yellow cake?