Atreides Posted July 15, 2006 Posted July 15, 2006 Even if you had to vote Hillary? Pretend you have to vote for either and not voting is not an option. Spreading beauty with my katana.
Judge Hades Posted July 15, 2006 Posted July 15, 2006 I always vote and I would probably vote for a third party candidate, but I rather see Hillary in the White House than another Republican.
jaguars4ever Posted July 15, 2006 Author Posted July 15, 2006 (edited) I always vote and I would probably vote for a third party candidate, but I rather see Hillary in the White House than another Republican. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Ah, but what if voting for the third party candiate preempts the election of Hiliary by handing victory to the Republican. " Edited July 15, 2006 by jaguars4ever
Judge Hades Posted July 15, 2006 Posted July 15, 2006 Not my problem. I voted who I wanted and that is all I can do.
Atreides Posted July 15, 2006 Posted July 15, 2006 Ah, but what if voting for the third party candiate preempts the election of Hiliary by handing victory to the Republican. " <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I don't agree with that in principle. It skews the results by suggesting that the third party is less popular than it is, affecting its perceived viability etc. Spreading beauty with my katana.
alanschu Posted July 15, 2006 Posted July 15, 2006 Too easy. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Not for the Bush Administration. George W. Bush is the prime reason why I will never vote Republican. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> You didn't get it. That's okay.
Judge Hades Posted July 15, 2006 Posted July 15, 2006 Oh, I got it but I ignored it. Someone needs to sell either Israel or Lebonon a nuclear bomb so that we can if these people are truly insane.
Judge Hades Posted July 15, 2006 Posted July 15, 2006 Good night to you and are you sure you know what you meant.
SteveThaiBinh Posted July 15, 2006 Posted July 15, 2006 No, its not even close. This is just about Israel sending a message of "You mess with us, we're going to mess you up ten times as bad." <{POST_SNAPBACK}> There seems to be a contradiction in current Israeli security policy. They've always based their security on deterrence - as you say, if you hurt us, we'll hurt you back. However, in order for this deterrence to be credible, they seem to need to demonstrate their power every now and then with some massive attack on Lebanon or the Occupied Territories. This contradicts with the policy in Gaza, and previously Lebanon, of unilateral withdrawal (supposedly to leave the Palestinians and Lebanese to get on with their own affairs) and shows that policy to be incompatible with longer-term strategic security policies. The current Israeli action is such a disproportionate response to the kidnapping of a few soldiers that it looks like the kidnapping was a pretext rather than a reason. So how are the Israelis going to achieve the security they want? Not, I suspect, by invading or bombing Lebanon. Why would it work this time when it failed last time? "An electric puddle is not what I need right now." (Nina Kalenkov)
Judge Hades Posted July 15, 2006 Posted July 15, 2006 Well, I just learned that there are some Iowans in the crossfire in beruit. With the major transportation hubs turned into rubble there is no way for them to get out. If Bushie gives a crap about his citizens he needs to intervene and tell Israel to stop.
Azarkon Posted July 15, 2006 Posted July 15, 2006 Bush: "We don't negoti-ate with terrorists." There are doors
Judge Hades Posted July 15, 2006 Posted July 15, 2006 Who the hell said they were in the hands of terrorists?
Lucius Posted July 15, 2006 Posted July 15, 2006 Should the world stop spinning because Iowa wants it to? DENMARK! It appears that I have not yet found a sig to replace the one about me not being banned... interesting.
Judge Hades Posted July 15, 2006 Posted July 15, 2006 No, but a president shouldn't take a back seat when its citizens are being threatened. Hell, we invaded a country because a supposed threat against Americans existed and now when there is an actual threat he does nothing.
Azarkon Posted July 15, 2006 Posted July 15, 2006 Who the hell said they were in the hands of terrorists? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Bush did :D Hizbollah is named a terrorist organization by both Israel and the Bush administration. There are doors
Judge Hades Posted July 15, 2006 Posted July 15, 2006 (edited) Idiot. Who the hell said they were prisoners of those guys? They aren't. Sheesh. Just because they are in Lebonon they must be held by terrorists! OH NOES! Give me a f**king break. Edited July 15, 2006 by Judge Hades
Lucius Posted July 15, 2006 Posted July 15, 2006 (edited) We have well over 2000 people there, and they ain't getting out either just yet. Best bet for anyone would probably be to fly home from Damaskus. Edited July 15, 2006 by Lucius DENMARK! It appears that I have not yet found a sig to replace the one about me not being banned... interesting.
Judge Hades Posted July 15, 2006 Posted July 15, 2006 Israel needs to be stopped by whatever means necessary.
Azarkon Posted July 15, 2006 Posted July 15, 2006 (edited) Idiot. Who the hell said they were prisoners of those guys? They aren't. Sheesh. Just because they are in Lebonon they must be held by terrorists! OH NOES! Give me a f**king break. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Well, the first two posts were in jest, but since you took it seriously, there is a gesture of truth in'em: Bush isn't going to do anything about Israel, because Israel is an American ally and he'd look a real hypocrite for calling an end to Israeli hostilities while his country is still in Iraq, and he isn't going to negotiate with Hizbollah, which runs this war in Lebanon, because Hizbollah is a terrorist organization. That's the bottom line. Edited July 15, 2006 by Azarkon There are doors
Judge Hades Posted July 15, 2006 Posted July 15, 2006 Yet he asks Syria to tell Hizbollah to end their attacks even though they are defending themselves against Israeli aggression. Israel is at fault here, not Lebonon, yet our esteemed Republican President is too thick headed to see that or doesn't have the back bone to tell Israel to back off.
Lucius Posted July 15, 2006 Posted July 15, 2006 Isn't there enough forces in Iraq to redirect some of them, incase Syria needs a whipping as well? DENMARK! It appears that I have not yet found a sig to replace the one about me not being banned... interesting.
Azarkon Posted July 15, 2006 Posted July 15, 2006 Israel is at fault insofar as it was a fault to put Israel there in the first place. National survival, with respect to Israel, means putting an end to anti-Israeli organizations like Hamas and Hizbollah before they can gain a significant following. Israeli politicians that do not think like this won't last long in a country that's been the target of terrorist attacks ever since it was born - it only took, what, one major attack to make the US go berserk? Israel's been taking it for decades. Feel free to blame the Western-centric "international" organization that decided Israel's fate back in the day, but it's too late to regret that decision now. You can't ask every Israeli to pack up and leave the land that's been their home for many years, and which has always possessed a symbolic value in their religion, even if the US is willing to offer relocation within its borders. And there's a fat chance of that happening. There are doors
Recommended Posts