Who Would You Like to See Run in 2008?

[Chase]

Quote: (Originally Posted by Ana4Stapp)

Well are you admmiting that he was assisted by CIA???

I said Osama bin Laden "assisted more in financing... not armed combat." What does that have to do with the C.I.A. training him? You made an aimless claim the the C.I.A. was, essentially, giving him lessons on how to be a terrorist. What's up with that? lol

[Ana4Stapp]

Quote: (Originally Posted by Chase)

I said Osama bin Laden "assisted more in financing... not armed combat." What does that have to do with the C.I.A. training him? You made an aimless claim the the C.I.A. was, essentially, giving him lessons on how to be a terrorist. What's up with that? lol

Well, Chase making fun of (my) words...is actually an old subterfuge to avoid answering aimless claims...very inteligent ...

[revisfoot]

Quote: (Originally Posted by Chase)

Wait a minute John McCain, a war hero and Senator since 1987 scares you... but Condi Rice... a woman who doesn't have nearly the same amount of experience as him doesn't? You essentially don't like McCain because he isn't a polarizing G.O.P. lapdog that will follow the far right everso blindly. This is a divided and polarized nation because of the leaders of the Democratic and Republican parties. I assume you're referring to the "McCain Detainee Amendment" that was supported in the Senate 90-9. The main was a prisoner of war for five and a half years. What separates the United States from our enemies is the way we conduct ourselves in times of war. We're recruiting terrorists as we speak more and more as stories of torture are leaked. Terrorists are effectively using it in their propaganda machine AGAINST the United States. He's not saying "don't kill the terrorists," he's pushing some form of humanity. Saddam Hussein, for example, used torture. Adolf Hitler, for instance, used torture. The United States military and government is better than that.

Let's have a moment of introspective here, with a moment of hypothetical questioning as well...

Let's say that, in the midst of this global war on terror, we find a man, linked with al-Queda, who has vital information that could save THOUSANDS of American lives. Let's say, supposedly, he has the information inside him about al-Queda using planes as bombs to run into nuclear plants across America. (PanTex may be one of them -- our nation's largest manufacturer of nuclear arms) Would you be AGAINST doing whatever possible to get this information, to extract the facts from this man? Sometimes, torture is an evil neccessary. It is. I'm not talking about Abu Graib, either. That, my friend, was a black mark on the American military. I'm not talking about humiliating these people, I'm talking about professional torture that has been used for decades (blowing water into the eardrum at a high capacity as to explode the eardrum -- this works about 80% of the time, usually with only one ear.) Maybe Mr. McCain would like to go back to Vietnam and have his ANKLES CHAINED TO HIS BACK again; the thing is, even though this ammendment may seem so high and mighty and righteous, it HINDERS the process of protecting America.

[revisfoot]

And, for the thing about McCain being a war hero, and all that, let me quote one very wise Jedi Master:
"Wars not make one great."

The thing is, is I know where Condi stands, I know where McCain stands. McCain is too rogue for me, too into his own thought process, that I believe he as President woudl hinder the nation. Although, I will admit this, that America will NEVER elect McCain into the Presidency, because of this. He is too much of a loose canon. Rice, on the other hand, has her feet planted firmly in the ground. She is strong-willed and smart enough, that I think she could do the job. Remember: the Presidency is not all about wargaming. It's mostly being CEO of a VERY large business. I think she would make a great businesswoman, with the help of a few wargames (ie, Powell, Rumsfield, etc) behind her.

[revisfoot]

And Guliani?! Ha! A pro-choice, pro-gay rights candidate for the REPUBLICAN PARTY?! He would NEVER win over the Conservative base, which, by the way, makes up a very substancial part of the GOP.

[Chase]

Quote: (Originally Posted by revisfoot)

Let's have a moment of introspective here, with a moment of hypothetical questioning as well...

Let's say that, in the midst of this global war on terror, we find a man, linked with al-Queda, who has vital information that could save THOUSANDS of American lives. Let's say, supposedly, he has the information inside him about al-Queda using planes as bombs to run into nuclear plants across America. (PanTex may be one of them -- our nation's largest manufacturer of nuclear arms) Would you be AGAINST doing whatever possible to get this information, to extract the facts from this man? Sometimes, torture is an evil neccessary. It is. I'm not talking about Abu Graib, either. That, my friend, was a black mark on the American military. I'm not talking about humiliating these people, I'm talking about professional torture that has been used for decades (blowing water into the eardrum at a high capacity as to explode the eardrum -- this works about 80% of the time, usually with only one ear.) Maybe Mr. McCain would like to go back to Vietnam and have his ANKLES CHAINED TO HIS BACK again; the thing is, even though this ammendment may seem so high and mighty and righteous, it HINDERS the process of protecting America.

"Have his ankles chained to his back again?" Why? Because he doesn't think having out military treat prisoners of war in the same fashion that the Nazis did? It all depends on how you define torture. Sleep depravation is a form of torture and I have no problem with that. Yet... you just said that Abu Ghraib "was a black mark on the American military," and then a second later you go on to say that you think the Vietcong should go and torture the hell out of an American Senator? How has it hindered terrorism? We haven't caught Osama bin Laden. We haven't caught Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. We haven't stopped the insurgency in Iraq. In fact... since reports of torture leaked... there have been spikes of violece and terrorism in the Middle East. Remembe when the media said that our troops were flushing copies of the Koran down the toilet? Thousands of Pakistanis and other Muslims were protesting in the streets. Show me how torture has worked. Islamic extremists obviously have no problem dying... they would probably die before they give up vital information. You can't protect America by using a tactic that is going to keep increasing the amount of American enemies. Like I've said before... Al Qaeda has a very effective propaganda machine and when reports of torture are leaked, they jump all over that and say that this is why Arabs should fight the "infidels." I have no problem with domestic spying... but when it comes to torture... either do it and not have ANYTHING leak... or don't do it at all. You can torture them all day, but when some moron thinks it's in America's best interests to tell the world that American soldiers are defacing the religion of Islam, you're going to have a massive problem. How is this halting Islamic extremism?

[Chase]

Quote: (Originally Posted by revisfoot)

And Guliani?! Ha! A pro-choice, pro-gay rights candidate for the REPUBLICAN PARTY?! He would NEVER win over the Conservative base, which, by the way, makes up a very substancial part of the GOP.

Wait a minute... America isn't going to elece some far-right, Bible thumping, fascist. You think the Conservative base of the Republican Party would rather go Democrat then vote for a moderate? The problem with America is that the Democrats are lead by far left, liberal socialists and that the Republicans are lead by the far right. Both sides are at fault for creating a polarized nation that is engaged in a political civil war. Americans want moderate candidates... candidates who are actually WILLING to work with the other side.

[Chase]

Quote: (Originally Posted by revisfoot)

And, for the thing about McCain being a war hero, and all that, let me quote one very wise Jedi Master:
"Wars not make one great."

The thing is, is I know where Condi stands, I know where McCain stands. McCain is too rogue for me, too into his own thought process, that I believe he as President woudl hinder the nation. Although, I will admit this, that America will NEVER elect McCain into the Presidency, because of this. He is too much of a loose canon. Rice, on the other hand, has her feet planted firmly in the ground. She is strong-willed and smart enough, that I think she could do the job. Remember: the Presidency is not all about wargaming. It's mostly being CEO of a VERY large business. I think she would make a great businesswoman, with the help of a few wargames (ie, Powell, Rumsfield, etc) behind her.

Wait a minute. The Presidency is not about wargaming... that's exactly right! We have basically been in a war for entire Bush presidency and she's had two roles in this government. One as National Security Advisor... and as Secretary of State. What was she prior to that? A provost at Stanford. Being a provost at Stanford isn't CLOSE to being a "CEO" or anything else. I love Condi, don't get me wrong... but I don't think she's ready to be President. McCain would get the swing voters because he doesn't follow the President blindly like Rumsfeld or Condi. He's a military mind that could effectively fight terrorism and actually TRY to reunite this divided nation.

[JulieCitySlicker]

If Hilary Clinton gets it then I'll have to shoot myself

[guitardude1985]

Quote: (Originally Posted by JulieCitySlicker)

If Hilary Clinton gets it then I'll have to shoot myself

If hillary does get in (shudders) then this will be an almost euopean succession...

Bush , 41 1989-93
Clinton , 93-2001
Bush 43, 2001-2009
Clinton , 2009-?

Quite a pattern huh? And expeacially in a 20 year time frame.

[Ana4Stapp]

Quote: (Originally Posted by guitardude1985)

If hillary does get in (shudders) then this will be an almost euopean succession...

Bush , 41 1989-93
Clinton , 93-2001
Bush 43, 2001-2009
Clinton , 2009-?

Quite a pattern huh? And expeacially in a 20 year time frame.

Well, just following your thought...is there any possible 'new' name in Bush family to try to run it('after' Hillary)? Just curious...

[Chase]

Quote: (Originally Posted by guitardude1985)

If hillary does get in (shudders) then this will be an almost euopean succession...

Bush , 41 1989-93
Clinton , 93-2001
Bush 43, 2001-2009
Clinton , 2009-?

Quite a pattern huh? And expeacially in a 20 year time frame.

Well, what's funny about that is that Democrats were accusing the U.S. of being a monarchy after President Bush was elected. I'm sure, like always, they'll change their opinions once Hillary officially announces her intentions to run for President.

[guitardude1985]

To answer both you guys I'll say this.

I do not think (after bush finishes his second term) there will be another bush on the presidential ticket for a long, long time. Jeb bush I would think after his gouvenorship is done will return to private life. Funny, after W's reelection time put him person of the year and I bought it. In there I learned a few things. One, bush and kerry were actully distant cousins...but the connection went all the way back to the 1500's. However, there is a bush (I forget his name) who's a lawyer and is in his late 30's so perhaps and this is pushing it that he MAY consider a run for president 10-15 years from now.

Now, the bush familiy is all many aspects a american dynasty. Yea, It will be a clinton succession is hillary does become president. But there's a difference between the bush's and the clintons's...and that's familiy. The result would not be a son following in the father footsteps but rather a wife in the husbands.