tme:
I’ll be glad to compare my “posting record” with yours. I think I have helped more people in the training threads for sure. You do know where the training threads are …right? Hmm…
We happen to be on opposite sides of the political spectrum. I have no problem with that. Apparently, however it bothers the heck out of you.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
I think the war in Iraq is a showcase of military strategy to the entire world and nothing else. I don’t think it has deterred one person away from acts of terrorism if they already had their minds in that vane to begin with. Yes, those fighting our soldiers are being kept busy, however, exactly how foolish would one have to be to think that there weren’t dormant cells sitting right here in America waiting on an opportunity? We have increased security around the country and THAT is the only thing that will help prevent another attack. I think it would be very naive to think that we have stopped terrorism here or across the globe because of Iraq.[/quote]
Prof:
But that’s a separate matter – I don’t think it’s an either/or thing. I don’t think anyone is saying, “Stop worrying about security here at home because we’re taking out people in Iraq.”
Iraq is one part of the GWOT. Some people there are “dissuaded” from further terrorism because they’ve been taken out. Some are just concentrating efforts there rather than elsewhere.
And there are still terrorists to worry about at home and elsewhere abroad. Given the amount of damage that can be wrought by one person who has access to the right materials, I think you’re quite correct it that it would be naive in the extreme to let down our guard. It’s the Global War on Terror – we need to prosecute it at home and abroad, and we need to engage our allies and work via diplomatic and other means to get state sponsors such as Iran and Syria to cease and desist with their activities.
So if we didn’t kill the foriegn born terrorists in Iraq…they would have been doing what? Helping the poor and oppressed in the middle east? Providing aid to impoverished people in the third world?
If you want to kill Rats…gotta kill them where they live. Iraq presented itself as the largest rathold we could hit.
Pretty basic strategy, politics aside.
[quote]hedo wrote:
So if we didn’t kill the foriegn born terrorists in Iraq…they would have been doing what? Helping the poor and oppressed in the middle east? Providing aid to impoverished people in the third world?
If you want to kill Rats…gotta kill them where they live. Iraq presented itself as the largest rathold we could hit.
Pretty basic strategy, politics aside.[/quote]
Yes, pretty basic until, as this current administration just found out, they realize their strength is in their warped belief system instead of their arsenal.
P.O.X. wrote:
“Yes, pretty basic until, as this current administration just found out, they realize their strength is in their warped belief system instead of their arsenal.”
Great!!!
Still waiting for you to give us ANY indication you have thought of a viable alternative to our current actions.
Sorry pal, whining and criticizing just isn’t enough.
Good luck!!!
JeffR
Hey Zeb 
Been awhile and I’m glad to see I can still piss you off soo much. Of course I don’t really hope to see someone burst out to a crowd of people with a snub nosed 22 and ventilate our president’s skull.
Sometimes I just go a little overboard in my exaggerations of how I feel. I’m not a fan of our president.
But here’s two simple quesions for you. Do you think that given our president’s education and verbal skills that he would have been elected president had his father not been president before him? Second, when you look at his face staring back at you on television do you see an honest, strong, and inspiring leader who cares about nothing more that the wellfare of ALL AMERICANS?
BTW, thanks for the suggestion I was considering starting a new thread on the sex forum and I think I’ll dedicate this one to you for the holidays
[quote]Wideguy wrote:
Hey Zeb Been awhile and I’m glad to see I can still piss you off soo much. Of course I don’t really hope to see someone burst out to a crowd of people with a snub nosed 22 and ventilate our president’s skull.
Sometimes I just go a little overboard in my exaggerations of how I feel. I’m not a fan of our president.
But here’s two simple quesions for you. Do you think that given our president’s education and verbal skills that he would have been elected president had his father not been president before him? Second, when you look at his face staring back at you on television do you see an honest, strong, and inspiring leader who cares about nothing more that the wellfare of ALL AMERICANS?
BTW, thanks for the suggestion I was considering starting a new thread on the sex forum and I think I’ll dedicate this one to you for the holidays [/quote]
Wideguy:
Please don’t mistake “anger” for “disgust.” I think you are above the sort of post that you wrote earlier, and was surprised and disgusted at it’s content.
If you don’t like the President there are other ways that you can articulate that and get your point across. Many on this forum who dislike President Bush do a great job of stating why. Sometimes they almost have me convinced…(naw).
To answer your first question: Since this is only the second time that a son of a President was elected President I don’t think his father had much to do with it. In fact, as GW himself is fond of saying regarding his Dad: “I have all of my fathers enemies, but only half of his friends.” If you think it’s easy following in the footsteps of a highly successful father, think again! There are untold of pressures that you will never imagine.
The answer to your second question: I do see a very well intended good man when I look at GW. I met him a few years back and had the chance to look directly into his eyes. He is not the bafoon that the liberal media likes to portray him as being. I forgot what he got on his college entrance exam but it was extremely high.
GW’s IQ on his National Guard exam was higher than what John Kerry got on his military IQ test. GW’s verbal part of the pre college exam was higher than Al Gores.
Don’t take my word for it. Take some time away from bragging about your sexual exploits and go look it up.
By the way, the last time I checked in on you, you were going through some sort of depression. I hope you are feeling better.
Take care
[quote]JeffR wrote:
JusttheFacts,
Excellent post!!!
They definetly screwed up on those two!!!
However, George W. joins:
1927-Charles Lindbergh
1930-Mohandas Gandhi
1990-George Bush Senior.
They are especially prescient when they pick the person twice:
1932-1934-FDR
1940-1949-Winston Churchill
1943-1947-George Marshall
1944-1959-Dwight Eisenhower
1945-1948-Harry Truman
1980-1983-Ronald Reagan
1987-1989-M. Gorbachev
and
George W. Bush: 2000-2004.
In summary, some of the one-time winners have been off. However, if they’ve been selected twice, they are RIGHT ON!!!
JeffR[/quote]
Well, you forgot some two time winners:
Stalin - 1939, 42
FDR was a 3-timer - 32, 34, 41
Lyndon Johnson - 64, 67
Nixon - 71, 72
Clinton - 92, 98
So in your own words, “they are right on” in selecting Clinton twice. That must drive you nuts.
Also, you start off by saying they “screwed up” by picking Hitler and Stalin. But they picked Stalin twice. So now are they “RIGHT ON” with Stalin?
You do realize that “Person of the Year” is not necessarily an award for positive achievements or influences. Right??
Yes Zeb, while it seems a bit off color here in the politic section of this forum to mention my the sruggles I was facing awhile back (ie. grandfather suddenly dieing of cancer, neighbor/freind dieing of cancer a few weeks later, brother with relapsing drug problem, widowed grandmother with alzhiemer’s, ect. ect.) However I’ve taken all those obstacles and done with them what I can.
On a similar note since we’re going off topic here let me ask you a somewhat related/unrelated question. Under the impression that you and I are freinds (we have both agreed on this). If one of your freinds was talking to you about say a case of genital warts. You gave him some advice on what to do about them creams, not banging skanks, using protection ect. Then months and months later you and other people where in the middle of a political conversation. In this same conversation your “freind” says something that “disgusts” you. Would you decide to ask how the warts on his dick are doing?
Liberal or conservative media? Please folks, read Manufacturing Consent for an excellent disection of mass media propaganda. It will certainly open yur eyes.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
To answer your first question: Since this is only the second time that a son of a President was elected President [/quote]
How many times has the son of a president ran? I don’t know the answer and right now I’m too lazy too look it up, but I have a point. If only 2 sons of presidents have ran, and both were elected than your reply is off base. Being that it’s “only the second time” no longer means anything.
I’m not trying to imply anything here against or in favor of Bush; just trying to show the fault in your reasoning.
[quote]
Don’t take my word for it. Take some time away from bragging about your sexual exploits and go look it up.[/quote]
This seemed a little out of line. We have separate forum subjects for a reason and I’m glad that we do. It would drive me nuts if every “Strength Sports” thread ended in an argument over the war in Iraq.
So he posts a lot in the “Sex…” forum. Does it need to be brought up here? He said something negative about Bush, someone you support, and it offended you. Fine. Defend Bush. Attack Wideguy’s point of view. You could even bring up other statements he posted related to the subject. But I don’t see it necessary to bring in his history in the “Sex…” forum.
However, to your defense, Zeb, I know you are often the victim of this yourself. It’s hard to say “Zeb” without thinking of chin ups. As a result, the words “Zeb”, “Bush-lover”, and “chinups” get thrown around each forum topic.
This, too seemed very inappropriate. Even more so than the previous comment. So he has been going through personal problems, we all do. God knows, I have had my share lately. I think it would have been much more appropriate to just wish him well without saying what for.
A simple, “I hope things are going OK for you” would have been more than enough. I think Wideguy illustrated it well, in his own way, in his “genital warts” reply.