• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Rally to Restore Sanity attendance estimated at 215,000

Johnny DooWop said:
Someone I knew is no longer here now due to a war that was badly mishandled and based on false pretenses.
Click to expand...

Three of my family members served in Iraq with two of them in the field. Yes, it was badly handled because of the left. We didn't fight the war to win because of the fear of civilian casualties. You can blame the left for your loss as they valued Iraqi civilian life over the lives of our soldiers. You don't fight PC wars, you fight to win.

My family members said we did the right thing, I think we did the right thing, sorry for your loss but you really have a biased, partisan view that totally ignores the intelligence that the President had, intelligence that was supported by both parties and the world.
 
Ockham said:
If we didn't vote because we're afraid one of the two political party's would make the same mistake, no one would vote. I can ask the same thing about 2008 and it didn't prevent people from voting in Obama for the Democrats.
Click to expand...

What would you say to a voter who comes from a military family, who's disgruntled about being led into a war that was based on false pretenses and then gravely mishandled? If he wants to avoid this in the future, should he continue to vote for Republican politicians who are endorsed by Bush and Cheney? Or would his vote be better placed with non-interventionist democrats?
 
Your Star said:
Um, Bush is the one who wanted to FEDERALLY ban Same Sex Marriage, so you must disagree with Bush in this instance?
Click to expand...

Bill Clinton signed the Defense of Marriage Act. Nope, I agree with Bush since it is people like you that want your lifestyle thrust on me. You can get married in certain states around the nation but that marriage isn't recognized in other states and that is what is making it a Federal Issue. I support civil unions but strongly believe that marriage is between a man and a woman.
 
Conservative said:
You can blame the left for your loss
Click to expand...

In the initial stages of the war on terror, the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), under George Tenet, was rising to prominence as the lead agency in the Afghanistan war. But when Tenet insisted in his personal meetings with President Bush that there was no connection between al-Qaeda and Iraq, Vice-President Dick Cheney and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld initiated a secret program to reexamine the evidence and marginalize the CIA and Tenet. A major part of this program was a Pentagon unit known as the Office of Special Plans (OSP), created by Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz and headed by Douglas Feith to supply senior Bush administration officials with raw intelligence pertaining to Iraq, unvetted by intelligence analysts, and circumventing traditional intelligence gathering operations by the CIA. The questionable intelligence acquired by the OSP was "stovepiped" to Cheney and presented to the public. Iraq War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I thought Cheney, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz were Republicans?
 
Your Star said:
Um, Bush is the one who wanted to FEDERALLY ban Same Sex Marriage, so you must disagree with Bush in this instance?
Click to expand...



This is actually incorrect. what he wanted was the same thing Obama wants with DADT, he wanted a federal referendum on it.
 
Conservative said:
Bill Clinton signed the Defense of Marriage Act. Nope, I agree with Bush since it is people like you that want your lifestyle thrust on me. You can get married in certain states around the nation but that marriage isn't recognized in other states and that is what is making it a Federal Issue. I support civil unions but strongly believe that marriage is between a man and a woman.
Click to expand...

Homosexuals have thrust themselves on you? Have you previously been incarcerated in a prison or something? That is the only place I have heard of such actions occurring.
 
Conservative said:
Bill Clinton signed the Defense of Marriage Act. Nope, I agree with Bush since it is people like you that want your lifestyle thrust on me. You can get married in certain states around the nation but that marriage isn't recognized in other states and that is what is making it a Federal Issue. I support civil unions but strongly believe that marriage is between a man and a woman.
Click to expand...

And Clinton was wrong in doing so. See how easy that was, and the fact that you would go against your own belief that marriage is a states issue because you either A) You wan't to defend anyone with a R next to their name no matter what or B) That your so annoyed that I exist, and believe that I want to thrust my lifestyle on you(which couldn't be any further from the truth) that you would go against your belief that it is a state issue just to spite me. You are really showing your true colors here.
 
Last edited:
Conservative said:
Three of my family members served in Iraq with two of them in the field. Yes, it was badly handled because of the left. We didn't fight the war to win because of the fear of civilian casualties. You can blame the left for your loss as they valued Iraqi civilian life over the lives of our soldiers. You don't fight PC wars, you fight to win.
Click to expand...
PC war? You've got to be kidding, you don't remember Shock and Awe at the beginning, Fallujah? Besides the was over on May 1, 2003, but Bush let the place go to hell in hand basket.
 
ReverendHellh0und said:
This is actually incorrect. what he wanted was the same thing Obama wants with DADT, he wanted a federal referendum on it.
Click to expand...

The amendment would have limited marriage to one man, and one women, thus banning SSM, at a federal level.
 
Johnny DooWop said:
What would you say to a voter who comes from a military family, who's disgruntled about being led into a war that was based on false pretenses and then gravely mishandled? If he wants to avoid this in the future, should he continue to vote for Republican politicians who are endorsed by Bush and Cheney? Or would his vote be better placed with non-interventionist democrats?
Click to expand...

You seem to be a one issue voter and totally ignore the massive expansion of the govt. that Obama is doing. It really is a shame to be so blinded that you cannot see what damage is really being done.
 
Your Star said:
The amendment would have limited marriage to one man, and one women, thus banning SSM, at a federal level.
Click to expand...



yes but don't you see? what he did was the right thing to do, the issue should have been solved at a federal amendment level. He was not pushing for support of its passage, iirc he didn't say one way or the other on the bill other than that it should go up for a vote. Now he I am sure is a man woman=marriage guy like Obama, but what he was doing was putting it up for the people to decide.

I give him credit here.
 
Johnny DooWop said:
What would you say to a voter who comes from a military family, who's disgruntled about being led into a war that was based on false pretenses and then gravely mishandled?
Click to expand...
I'd agree it was mishandled and mistakes were made - of that there's no doubt. As for false pretenses - soldiers go where their commander and chief sends them and sometimes that's in harms way. A soldiers job is not the same job as a politician or statesman. Their job is to do what they are ordered to do and the family of a solider is there to support the soldiers in their mission and to do everything they can to get them home again safe.

Not that your question has ANY relevance whatsoever to my answer to you...


Johnny DooWop said:
If he wants to avoid this in the future, should he continue to vote for Republican politicians who are endorsed by Bush and Cheney? Or would his vote be better placed with non-interventionist democrats?
Click to expand...
Got news for ya pal... looking back on the 20th century, it wasn't Republicans who got us into 2 world wars, and 2 South East Asian wars now was it.

Wilson - WWI
Roosevelt WWII
Truman - Korea
Kennedy/Johnson - Vietnam / Bay of Pigs

It was the non interventionalists Democrats. Amazing!

G.H. went into Iraq with the rest of the world and then setup the no-fly zone.
Clinton kept the no-fly zone for 8 additional years
G.W. Invaded Afghanistan (which is still supported by Democrats and Republicans) and also invaded Iraq - the one you don't like.

So if we have history to use as a barometer - we should be very scared of Democrats using your logic. Thank God no one other than you uses your logic.
 
Johnny DooWop said:
In the initial stages of the war on terror, the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), under George Tenet, was rising to prominence as the lead agency in the Afghanistan war. But when Tenet insisted in his personal meetings with President Bush that there was no connection between al-Qaeda and Iraq, Vice-President Dick Cheney and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld initiated a secret program to reexamine the evidence and marginalize the CIA and Tenet. A major part of this program was a Pentagon unit known as the Office of Special Plans (OSP), created by Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz and headed by Douglas Feith to supply senior Bush administration officials with raw intelligence pertaining to Iraq, unvetted by intelligence analysts, and circumventing traditional intelligence gathering operations by the CIA. The questionable intelligence acquired by the OSP was "stovepiped" to Cheney and presented to the public. Iraq War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I thought Cheney, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz were Republicans?
Click to expand...

George Tenet was appointed by Bill Clinton and told GW Bush that Saddam Hussein having WMD was a slam dunk. Looks like selective facts in your case.
 
ReverendHellh0und said:
yes but don't you see? what he did was the right thing to do, the issue should have been solved at a federal amendment level. He was not pushing for support of its passage, iirc he didn't say one way or the other on the bill other than that it should go up for a vote. Now he I am sure is a man woman=marriage guy like Obama, but what he was doing was putting it up for the people to decide.

I give him credit here.
Click to expand...

This isn't correct, he supported the amendment, Bush Backs Amendment Banning Gay Marriage
 
zimmer said:
Nice, but it doesn't change the fact this is a guy who OK'd the Fatwa against Salman Rushdie... and of all the artists they invited to a... Rally... to ... Restore ... Sanity... they chose someone who supported a religious and state assassination plan.

And why was this man a threat? Writing a book.

Perhaps we should invite those who want to kill cartoonists next time... or those that kill film makers.

B R A I N ... D E A D.

.
Click to expand...

Had never heard that about Cat Stevens. If true, I'm guessing/hoping that Stewart and crew weren't aware of it. But yeah, that is kind of a clumsy little detail to have about one of the feature singers at a "let's all try to get along" rally....:3oops:


.
 
Conservative said:
George Tenet was appointed by Bill Clinton and told GW Bush that Saddam Hussein having WMD was a slam dunk. Looks like selective facts in your case.
Click to expand...

I never thought you'd finally admit Alqaeda in Iraq and WMDs were false pretenses. See what a healthy debate can do? Congratulations!
 
Johnny DooWop said:
I never thought you'd finally admit Alqaeda in Iraq and WMDs were false pretenses. See what a healthy debate can do? Congratulations!
Click to expand...

I wasn't the only one wrong about WMD but there were 22 reasons that were approved by the Democrat controlled Senate and WMD was only one of them. The world got it wrong but Saddam Hussein did have a WMD program and it was ready to be reconstituted. Saddam Hussein was a continuing and growing threat and Bush addressed it, like it or not.
 
Ockham said:
I'd agree it was mishandled and mistakes were made - of that there's no doubt. As for false pretenses - soldiers go where their commander and chief sends them and sometimes that's in harms way. A soldiers job is not the same job as a politician or statesman. Their job is to do what they are ordered to do and the family of a solider is there to support the soldiers in their mission and to do everything they can to get them home again safe.

Not that your question has ANY relevance whatsoever to my answer to you...


Got news for ya pal... looking back on the 20th century, it wasn't Republicans who got us into 2 world wars, and 2 South East Asian wars now was it.

Wilson - WWI
Roosevelt WWII
Truman - Korea
Kennedy/Johnson - Vietnam / Bay of Pigs

It was the non interventionalists Democrats. Amazing!

G.H. went into Iraq with the rest of the world and then setup the no-fly zone.
Clinton kept the no-fly zone for 8 additional years
G.W. Invaded Afghanistan (which is still supported by Democrats and Republicans) and also invaded Iraq - the one you don't like.

So if we have history to use as a barometer - we should be very scared of Democrats using your logic. Thank God no one other than you uses your logic.
Click to expand...

So if I am currently worried about international terrorist and state sponsored terrorism, according to your logic, I should vote for a Democrat in the next presidential election since history shows they are the ones most likely to wage war and keep us safe?
 
ReverendHellh0und said:
I must have read something else. But you are correct. That said though, be happy he supported the proper process rather than an executive order, you must admit he put it on the hardest road to ratification.
Click to expand...

It was put through the hardest process, and I'm glad it was overturned.
 
Conservative said:
I support it as well as do about 80% of the public. Those that want gay marriage want it legislated by the courts and marriage is no where in the Constitution, not even mentioned.
Click to expand...

The Constitutional argument for SSM is an equal protection argument, not that marriage is a Constitutional right.
 
ReverendHellh0und said:
I must have read something else. But you are correct.
Click to expand...

I'm loving this thread. Conservative admitted there was no WMDs and that several Bush policies didn't work. Rev Hell Man is admitting he can get facts wrong too sometimes. Ockahm admits Bush was way off trying to put a federal ban on gay marriage. Who said liberals and conservatives can't agree on things?
 
Your Star said:
The Constitutional argument for SSM is an equal protection argument, not that marriage is a Constitutional right.
Click to expand...

You have the same protection as I have and can marry just like I did. How is the right to marry equal protection for anyone?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom