Everyday Pensacola

A place to discuss Pensacola, Florida area topics as well as the rest of the nation/world. To write a post, you must register and log in.
 
HomeHome  RegisterRegister  Log in  

Share | 
 

 Al Qaida seized Fallujah

View previous topic View next topic Go down 
Go to page : Previous  1, 2
AuthorMessage
mediawatcher

avatar

Posts : 3139
Join date : 2013-08-07

PostSubject: Re: Al Qaida seized Fallujah   Wed Jan 08, 2014 9:21 am

wilburforce wrote:
If Kennedy was in the White House would the republicans call for him to be impeached?

???????.....Impeached for what?.....Has nothing to do with the intent of the post that todays voters are more concerned with what they can get/expect from a candidate in entitlements....
Back to top Go down
wilburforce

avatar

Posts : 65
Join date : 2013-12-25

PostSubject: Re: Al Qaida seized Fallujah   Wed Jan 08, 2014 7:57 pm

Seems to me Kennedy would be a likely target for todays impeach happy republicans.
Back to top Go down
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: Al Qaida seized Fallujah   Wed Jan 08, 2014 11:02 pm

mediawatcher wrote:
Otter wrote:
First of all, Obama did apologize in a national address for saying thata anyone who wants to keep their healthcare can do so. I'm sorry you didn't watch the speech. As for apologizing for Obamacare itself, he has no reason to do so, not yet anyway. The full repurcussions of Obama care haven't not been realized yet, and they may turn out in a year or so to prove to be very positive.
Therefore, no apology for passing the law, which Congress did, is necessary yet.

The NSA spying began under GWB. He hasn't apologized for that  either.
He also hasn't apologized for manipulating the intelligence that led us into the deaths of over 5000 young Americans in the wars he started.  
The administration "accepted responsibility" for Benghazi.  That was an unforseen event that they should have been more prepared for. Their representatives appeared before congress and answered the questions asked of them.
Bush never did that for the Iraq war.

You don't like Obama because he's a Democrat so you aren't capable of looking through clear eyes towards him. If you did, you could actually use his name in your discussions instead of a derisive term that proves you didn't like him to begin with and had no intent of giving him a chance. That's all you prove when you call him the COWH- that you are incapable of judging his actions in an impartial way.
He's the POTUS and will be for almost 3 more years. He won't be impeached- if he is, he won't be sent packing.
I'm sorry that you are going to be angry for 3 more years, but I'm pretty sure you will.

    NO!!!!....He said that with a qualifier---blaming the insurance companies for cancelling the policies in the first place...the administration didn't see this coming when the insurance companies were mandated to comply?...Nice try but that certainly was no apology of taking responsibility...I dislike the policies of the cowh and for the record disliked the over spending of President Bush while he campaigned a fiscal conservative and yet did not govern as one...Made me laugh...you accuse me of not judging him in an impartial way because of referring to him as the cowh....New but lame....NSA Spying began under President Bush????  WOW....so it all began with Bush?. No other president utilized those capabilities?..Now is that your defininition of impartial judging?...The cowh went on a world tour of apologizing so yes like his speech in Egypt....Believe it or not angry is not an accurate label whatsoever...the cowh didn't fool me and didn't support him twice...seems like the 'teaparty' democrats [far far left] appear to be much angrier because they thought the cowh would be even more of a socialist...But nice statement...."He wont be impeached-if he is, he wont be sent packing"---now that's confidence in his governing abilities...Lastly never have called for him to be impeached but in your world by referring to him as cowh that probably means otherwise....

Well, here's how it goes. When you can grow up and stop calling the president names, I'll believe you are actually objecting to his policies instead of the fact that he's a Democrat or for some other reason. Until you can be more adult than you are with your posts, and argue facts while calling people by their names instead of by some disrespectful term, I'll consider you to be an opponent worthy of debate. Name calling is child's play-an adult with a good argument should be able to use it without disrespect for the person they're discussing.
The truth is that several Republican members of the house have called for Obama's impeachment. Google it, they're easy to find. The truth is that Obama didn't fool the voters- they voted for him as a complete rejection of your party's candidates. I didn't care for what he did his first term but I wasn't. going to jump out of the frying pan into the fire. I'm an Obama voter buddy, so you can believe that or not. And I know a lot of other Obama voters who felt the same.
The Republican party has lost its mind. It's lost the popular vote in 5 of the last 6 elections. It's up to your side to do better and vote in your primaries for somebody,anybody, who isn't so far to the right that they'd take this country off a cliff with them if they went into office.
Back to top Go down
mediawatcher

avatar

Posts : 3139
Join date : 2013-08-07

PostSubject: Re: Al Qaida seized Fallujah   Thu Jan 09, 2014 8:55 am

Otter wrote:
mediawatcher wrote:
Otter wrote:
First of all, Obama did apologize in a national address for saying thata anyone who wants to keep their healthcare can do so. I'm sorry you didn't watch the speech. As for apologizing for Obamacare itself, he has no reason to do so, not yet anyway. The full repurcussions of Obama care haven't not been realized yet, and they may turn out in a year or so to prove to be very positive.
Therefore, no apology for passing the law, which Congress did, is necessary yet.

The NSA spying began under GWB. He hasn't apologized for that  either.
He also hasn't apologized for manipulating the intelligence that led us into the deaths of over 5000 young Americans in the wars he started.  
The administration "accepted responsibility" for Benghazi.  That was an unforseen event that they should have been more prepared for. Their representatives appeared before congress and answered the questions asked of them.
Bush never did that for the Iraq war.

You don't like Obama because he's a Democrat so you aren't capable of looking through clear eyes towards him. If you did, you could actually use his name in your discussions instead of a derisive term that proves you didn't like him to begin with and had no intent of giving him a chance. That's all you prove when you call him the COWH- that you are incapable of judging his actions in an impartial way.
He's the POTUS and will be for almost 3 more years. He won't be impeached- if he is, he won't be sent packing.
I'm sorry that you are going to be angry for 3 more years, but I'm pretty sure you will.

    NO!!!!....He said that with a qualifier---blaming the insurance companies for cancelling the policies in the first place...the administration didn't see this coming when the insurance companies were mandated to comply?...Nice try but that certainly was no apology of taking responsibility...I dislike the policies of the cowh and for the record disliked the over spending of President Bush while he campaigned a fiscal conservative and yet did not govern as one...Made me laugh...you accuse me of not judging him in an impartial way because of referring to him as the cowh....New but lame....NSA Spying began under President Bush????  WOW....so it all began with Bush?. No other president utilized those capabilities?..Now is that your defininition of impartial judging?...The cowh went on a world tour of apologizing so yes like his speech in Egypt....Believe it or not angry is not an accurate label whatsoever...the cowh didn't fool me and didn't support him twice...seems like the 'teaparty' democrats [far far left] appear to be much angrier because they thought the cowh would be even more of a socialist...But nice statement...."He wont be impeached-if he is, he wont be sent packing"---now that's confidence in his governing abilities...Lastly never have called for him to be impeached but in your world by referring to him as cowh that probably means otherwise....

Well, here's how it goes. When you can grow up and stop calling the president names, I'll believe you are actually objecting to his policies instead of the fact that he's a Democrat or for some other reason.  Until you can be more adult than you are with your posts, and argue facts while calling people by their names instead of by some  disrespectful term, I'll consider you to be an opponent worthy of debate. Name calling is child's play-an adult with a good argument should be able to use it without disrespect for the person they're discussing.
The truth is that several Republican members of the house have called for Obama's impeachment. Google it, they're easy to find. The truth is that Obama didn't fool the voters- they voted for him as a complete rejection of your party's candidates. I didn't care for what he did his first term but I wasn't. going to jump out of the frying pan into the fire. I'm an Obama voter buddy, so you can believe that or not. And I know a lot of other Obama voters who felt the same.
The Republican party has lost its mind. It's lost the popular vote in 5 of the last 6 elections. It's up to your side to do better and vote in your primaries for somebody,anybody, who isn't so far to the right that they'd take this country off a cliff with them if they went into office.

    So you voted for him to vote against someone else?....Which is exactly what I posted earlier....better candidates for a better choice to be made...Believe you are a [name] cowh voter....NEVER would question that after reading your posts...that's crystal clear...Don't give me that crap about 'far right'...McCain and Romney were 'far right'?...well maybe compared to this guy they were....
Back to top Go down
Jake92



Posts : 1505
Join date : 2013-02-15
Age : 66
Location : Pensaclola, FL

PostSubject: Re: Al Qaida seized Fallujah   Thu Jan 09, 2014 10:15 am

The biggest problem is BOTH parties starting at local levels and going all the way to the president are just worried about filling their own pockets, not doing what the LEGAL voters want..  Find me one taxpaying voter who wants ILLEGAL aliens to recieve benefits for anything....  Find me one taxpaying working voter that wants unemployment to be paid for perfectly able people who would rather sit at home collecting unemployment rather than working ANY job available..  People with ETHICS will find a job and work for their money before crying about unemployment not lasting long enough..
Back to top Go down
mediawatcher

avatar

Posts : 3139
Join date : 2013-08-07

PostSubject: Re: Al Qaida seized Fallujah   Thu Jan 09, 2014 10:22 am

Jake92 wrote:
The biggest problem is BOTH parties starting at local levels and going all the way to the president are just worried about filling their own pockets, not doing what the LEGAL voters want..  Find me one taxpaying voter who wants ILLEGAL aliens to recieve benefits for anything....  Find me one taxpaying working voter that wants unemployment to be paid for perfectly able people who would rather sit at home collecting unemployment rather than working ANY job available..  People with ETHICS will find a job and work for their money before crying about unemployment not lasting long enough..

 cheers cheers cheers  Don't understand how anyone could disagree....
Back to top Go down
nochain

avatar

Posts : 2888
Join date : 2013-04-24

PostSubject: Re: Al Qaida seized Fallujah   Thu Jan 09, 2014 10:52 am

Jake92 wrote:
 Find me one taxpaying voter who wants ILLEGAL aliens to recieve benefits for anything....  Find me one taxpaying working voter that wants unemployment to be paid for perfectly able people who would rather sit at home collecting unemployment rather than working ANY job available..  .

I expect you could find a few here.....at least for the illegals since they want their (legal for once) vote so bad. The unemployment issue is a little stickier - the economy is working great for a small percentage (wealthy) of Americans, not so good for the middle class and poor folks. In short, it's either unemployment or welfare the way things have been going. Cue the Bush blamers (even after 5+ years)



Back to top Go down
mediawatcher

avatar

Posts : 3139
Join date : 2013-08-07

PostSubject: Re: Al Qaida seized Fallujah   Thu Jan 09, 2014 11:06 am

nochain wrote:
Jake92 wrote:
 Find me one taxpaying voter who wants ILLEGAL aliens to recieve benefits for anything....  Find me one taxpaying working voter that wants unemployment to be paid for perfectly able people who would rather sit at home collecting unemployment rather than working ANY job available..  .

I expect you could find a few here.....at least for the illegals since they want their (legal for once) vote so bad. The unemployment issue is a little stickier - the economy is working great for a small percentage (wealthy) of Americans, not so good for the middle class and poor folks. In short, it's either unemployment or welfare the way things have been going. Cue the Bush blamers (even after 5+ years)




The same people that bashed Bush claiming that the wealthy/1%ers flourished at the expense of the middle/lower classes seem to be ok with the trend in which the wealthy 1%ers continue to gain...the middle class dropping...and the increase is in the lower and poverty levels...If this was wrong when Bush was president why is it suddenly different now?....Not talking about what the cowh inherited but HIS policies...HIS decisions....that worsened the situation....
Back to top Go down
Eric

avatar

Posts : 9735
Join date : 2012-07-30
Age : 66
Location : Hoover, AL & Pensacola when I'm lucky

PostSubject: Re: Al Qaida seized Fallujah   Thu Jan 09, 2014 12:22 pm

I blame the Democrats... LBJ in particular. Man, if we could only take back "The Great Society" programs.


_________________
Ideas are funny little things, they won't work unless you do.
Back to top Go down
http://ericericson.net
nochain

avatar

Posts : 2888
Join date : 2013-04-24

PostSubject: Re: Al Qaida seized Fallujah   Thu Jan 09, 2014 12:54 pm

Eric wrote:
I blame the Democrats... LBJ in particular.  Man, if we could only take back "The Great Society" programs.


That is sure the truth - and if only we could have a "redo" on his DISASTROUS Vietnam War policies too.
Back to top Go down
mediawatcher

avatar

Posts : 3139
Join date : 2013-08-07

PostSubject: Re: Al Qaida seized Fallujah   Fri Jan 10, 2014 10:20 am

Eric wrote:
I blame the Democrats... LBJ in particular.  Man, if we could only take back "The Great Society" programs.


Sometimes the best intentions aren't the solution...the war on poverty has been an expensive failure...
Back to top Go down
riceme

avatar

Posts : 3098
Join date : 2012-12-02
Age : 45
Location : Fox, Alaska

PostSubject: Re: Al Qaida seized Fallujah   Sat Jan 11, 2014 2:49 am

Excellent article:

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/01/10/us/fallujas-fall-stuns-marines-who-fought-there.html?_r=0&referrer=
Back to top Go down
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: Al Qaida seized Fallujah   Mon Jan 13, 2014 1:05 am

riceme wrote:
Excellent article:

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/01/10/us/fallujas-fall-stuns-marines-who-fought-there.html?_r=0&referrer=


That's the great loss of it. It changed my generation when we realized all those buddies lost in 'Nam were lost over nothing. In the end, the commies got the country anyway. How is this generation going to act when they see how little the deaths of those guys and girls over there changed anything?

War sucks.

This country doesn't learn from history.
Hell, they don't even know history.
Back to top Go down
Jake92



Posts : 1505
Join date : 2013-02-15
Age : 66
Location : Pensaclola, FL

PostSubject: Re: Al Qaida seized Fallujah   Mon Jan 13, 2014 5:52 pm

BOTH parties sent them over in 90-91, then again to get even for 9-11
Back to top Go down
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: Al Qaida seized Fallujah   Mon Jan 13, 2014 10:32 pm

Jake92 wrote:
BOTH parties sent them over in 90-91, then again to get even for 9-11

The first Gulf War had the support of numerous other countries and was instigated by an obvious invasion of Kuwait.
The second war was supported by both parties because Americans wanted somebody's blood to pay for 911 and didn't much care whose it was.
War still sucks.

It doesn't matter who supported it when it turns out to not change a thing and soldiers die for nothing.
Read my signature sometimes. That says about all there is to say.

We think we're on the moral high plain and can tell the world what to do, or force them to do what we want them to with our military.
Most of the time we don't even own the high moral ground.
It's about the MIC flourishing.
Back to top Go down
nochain

avatar

Posts : 2888
Join date : 2013-04-24

PostSubject: Re: Al Qaida seized Fallujah   Tue Jan 14, 2014 1:25 pm

Otter wrote:
Jake92 wrote:
BOTH parties sent them over in 90-91, then again to get even for 9-11

The first Gulf War had the support of numerous other countries and was instigated by an obvious invasion of Kuwait.
The second war was supported by both parties because Americans wanted somebody's blood to pay for 911 and didn't much care whose it was.
War still sucks.

It doesn't matter who supported it when it turns out to not change a thing and soldiers die for nothing.
Read my signature sometimes. That says about all there is to say.

We think we're on the moral high plain and can tell the world what to do, or force them to do what we want them to with our military.
Most of the time we don't even own the high moral ground.
It's about the MIC flourishing.

I would never agree that Iraq II was the right to do but about 50 other countries supported the invasion according to Politifact in responding to Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, D-Fla who said Bush acted alone. I am tired of the country sending troops off to war with their hands tied behind their back or prosecuting them when, inevitably, a civilian gets killed. If this country decides a war is necessary then send them with a mandate to win - decisively. If the wimps we have running things now had been in charge during WWII that war would either still be raging or we would be speaking German on the East coast and Japanese on the West coast.

"Although Democrats often criticize Bush for invading Iraq without more global backing, including that of the United Nations, Bush did put together a coalition. Nearly 50 countries, most notably Britain, ultimately supported the invasion, with many sending troops of their own. That's roughly on par with the support network that Obama has put together for action against Syria, and possibly exceeds it. We rate her claim Pants on Fire!"

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2013/sep/13/debbie-wasserman-schultz/wasserman-schultz-bush-invaded-iraq-alone-syria/

The reality of winning a war - firebombing Dresden:

Back to top Go down
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: Al Qaida seized Fallujah   Tue Jan 14, 2014 5:41 pm

mediawatcher wrote:
Jake92 wrote:
The biggest problem is BOTH parties starting at local levels and going all the way to the president are just worried about filling their own pockets, not doing what the LEGAL voters want..  Find me one taxpaying voter who wants ILLEGAL aliens to recieve benefits for anything....  Find me one taxpaying working voter that wants unemployment to be paid for perfectly able people who would rather sit at home collecting unemployment rather than working ANY job available..  People with ETHICS will find a job and work for their money before crying about unemployment not lasting long enough..

       cheers cheers cheers   Don't understand how anyone could disagree....

I don't disagree with everything you said, I certainly don't want illegal aliens receiving government benefits or even drivers licenses here in the states. I do understand them receiving medical care at our hospital ERs though, because there's something to be said for just being human.
As far as unemployment insurance goes, it is insurance and is paid into the system by the employer of the people who work for them.  It's not welfare as such, which is paid for in full by taxpayers.  I also think that up to a year in unemployment is too much. I think that anyone who is healthy should be able to find some kind of employment within 6 months. A lot of the problem with unemployment is white collar professionals who won't look for anything but a job that is similar to the one they left. They don't want to work at Walmart like a lot of the rest of us do. The PNJ focused this morning on a guy who is over 67 and getting unemployment. He's going to lose it.  Why should we worry about people like that?  He should be retiring on Social Security and not receiving unemployment.


And nochain- what was that picture of the firebombing of Dresden? I hope you're not advocating we do that to civilian populations intentionally? Yes, that's the reality of war.
That's why war sucks.
Back to top Go down
nochain

avatar

Posts : 2888
Join date : 2013-04-24

PostSubject: Re: Al Qaida seized Fallujah   Wed Jan 15, 2014 10:37 am

Otter wrote:
mediawatcher wrote:
Jake92 wrote:
.

       .




And nochain- what was that picture of the firebombing of Dresden?  I hope you're not advocating we do that to civilian populations intentionally? Yes, that's the reality of war.
That's why war sucks.

The photo was meant to illustrate the ugliness of a war. Having been through one war and several other incidents I would be the last person to want another. The point is to illustrate the decision to enter a war should not be taken lightly but if made then have the intestinal fortitude to WIN - of course the definition of "win" is the difficult issue. That is the major problem in Afghanistan - what does "win" mean?
Back to top Go down
mediawatcher

avatar

Posts : 3139
Join date : 2013-08-07

PostSubject: Re: Al Qaida seized Fallujah   Wed Jan 15, 2014 11:12 am

Otter wrote:
mediawatcher wrote:
Jake92 wrote:
The biggest problem is BOTH parties starting at local levels and going all the way to the president are just worried about filling their own pockets, not doing what the LEGAL voters want..  Find me one taxpaying voter who wants ILLEGAL aliens to recieve benefits for anything....  Find me one taxpaying working voter that wants unemployment to be paid for perfectly able people who would rather sit at home collecting unemployment rather than working ANY job available..  People with ETHICS will find a job and work for their money before crying about unemployment not lasting long enough..

       cheers cheers cheers   Don't understand how anyone could disagree....

I don't disagree with everything you said, I certainly don't want illegal aliens receiving government benefits or even drivers licenses here in the states. I do understand them receiving medical care at our hospital ERs though, because there's something to be said for just being human.
As far as unemployment insurance goes, it is insurance and is paid into the system by the employer of the people who work for them.  It's not welfare as such, which is paid for in full by taxpayers.  I also think that up to a year in unemployment is too much. I think that anyone who is healthy should be able to find some kind of employment within 6 months. A lot of the problem with unemployment is white collar professionals who won't look for anything but a job that is similar to the one they left. They don't want to work at Walmart like a lot of the rest of us do. The PNJ focused this morning on a guy who is over 67 and getting unemployment. He's going to lose it.  Why should we worry about people like that?  He should be retiring on Social Security and not receiving unemployment.


And nochain- what was that picture of the firebombing of Dresden?  I hope you're not advocating we do that to civilian populations intentionally? Yes, that's the reality of war.
That's why war sucks.

"Retiring on Social Security".....There's the problem...Never intended to be a retirement but to supplement a retirement and/or income....Having the belief as stated above about a limit on unemployment and to examine exactly who is on unemployement (white collar) would have many screaming that is a 'right-wing' opinion and those that believe are blasted on a regular basis...The cowh and many congressional democrats echoed this recently and blamed republicans for allowing unemployemnt to expire...so correct it's a political football and an entitlement that's become an occupation...
Back to top Go down
Sponsored content




PostSubject: Re: Al Qaida seized Fallujah   

Back to top Go down
 
Al Qaida seized Fallujah
View previous topic View next topic Back to top 
Page 2 of 2Go to page : Previous  1, 2

Permissions in this forum:You cannot reply to topics in this forum
Everyday Pensacola :: Politics-
Jump to: