GarageAlchemist;245503 wrote:
Yay! now we're the terrorists! hey, wait....

Well, think of it this way.

Do you want us to go find them? Or just have them fly to our doorstep AGAIN and potentially kill another couple thousand of Americans.

Also, nobody mentioned the attack on the Khobar Towers.

fallguy;245487 wrote:
The point is that we are on offense now. There are many planned attacks and they aren't all just from Al Qaeda. Being more aware that there are people that want to end what we have and having a plan to stop it before it happens. We have declared "war" on terror..vs just treating it like a police action.

Yay! now we're the terrorists! hey, wait....

FG2;245171 wrote:
I would write in Ron Paul.....again.
dude.. give it up...

tjamz;245451 wrote:
True...forgot about that one, though I find it hard to believe we will go to war with ourselves because some nutjobs from here decided to harm their own country by blowing up a building. Hard to pin that one on Al Qaeda.

The point is that we are on offense now. There are many planned attacks and they aren't all just from Al Qaeda. Being more aware that there are people that want to end what we have and having a plan to stop it before it happens. We have declared "war" on terror..vs just treating it like a police action.

1998 Attacks on embassies in Kenya and Tanzania as well as the 2000 attack on the USS Cole....

RidinRails;245323 wrote:
There were no terrorist attacks on US soil before 911 either...so did clinton prevent terrorist attacks too? lol

World Trade Center Bombings and also Oklahoma City bombing from what I recall.

tjamz;245405 wrote:
until Bush took office....then there was one successful event and then no further attempts....

There were no further attempts? Or there were no further successful attempts?

Afsil80;245329 wrote:
Uh, 1993 World Trade Center bombing?

Damn you're an idiot.

I completely missed John saying that or I would have brought it up....however under clinton there was one failed attempt and no further attempts until Bush took office....then there was one successful event and then no further attempts...until Obama takes office....until whoever else takes office. So basically Clinton was as successful as Bush at preventing future attempts.

GarageAlchemist;245400 wrote:
over the last 25 years gold hasn't held a candle to silver. With inflation figured in, gold has actually dropped in value over the last quarter century.

I couldn't find a 25 year chart of each so I had to piece on together for each. All charts for each given commodity are from the same site....though I couldn't find a single site that had both of them listed together...it should be damn close though.

http://goldprice.org/30-year-gold-price-history.html

http://www.silverinstitute.org/19811990.php
http://www.silverinstitute.org/19901999.php
http://www.silverinstitute.org/2000pres.php

Looks to me like silver bottomed out at about $4/oz and Gold at about $275/oz....Silver rose to ~$12 whereas gold briefly topped $1000.

So, Silver rose 300% and gold rose 363%

If you have a better source than me Heath, please post it. This is not a witch hunt...however I do like as factual of info as I can get.

bush administration victories, no doubt.

fallguy;245293 wrote:
uhh...no terror attacks on US soil since 911, positive growth in the US economy even though he took over his presidency with a start of a recession and biggest terror attack on US soil, took offense to terrorist instead of being on defense, defeated Saddam Hussein and backed up what we say.

We'll see how Obama handles Iran and North Korea.....and if he can maintain a terror free USA.

Only thing I have to say to this is, we defetead saddam (soldiers, marines). not bush. He really didnt defeat shit, he just sent us there. the military and generals and all the grunts did the work. OK I am done talking.

And yes I did vote for McCain.

Damn you're an idiot.

fallguy;245293 wrote:
uhh...no terror attacks on US soil since 911, positive growth in the US economy even though he took over his presidency with a start of a recession and biggest terror attack on US soil, took offense to terrorist instead of being on defense, defeated Saddam Hussein and backed up what we say.

We'll see how Obama handles Iran and North Korea.....and if he can maintain a terror free USA.

There were no terrorist attacks on US soil before 911 either...so did clinton prevent terrorist attacks too? lol

RidinRails;245228 wrote:
so if GW isnt a fuck up....then what is he?

what good has he done?

besides having tons of people killed and wasted tons of money?..

uhh...no terror attacks on US soil since 911, positive growth in the US economy even though he took over his presidency with a start of a recession and biggest terror attack on US soil, took offense to terrorist instead of being on defense, defeated Saddam Hussein and backed up what we say.

We'll see how Obama handles Iran and North Korea.....and if he can maintain a terror free USA.

There is a strong disconnect between intelligence and one's political preferences. There are lots of professional economists that will continue to politically support the nonsense economic policies of the left when their professional work and area of expertise shows these to all be losing propositions. People tend to decide their politics first and then warp reality to suit.

For most people, no matter how dumb or bright they are, its an emotional choice. Ayn Rand's Objectivism or something like lbertarianism comes the closest to an objective/rational analysis of governance, but even it relies on axiomatic foundations from which everything else follows.

I would vote for pretty much anyone over Obama. I voted Badnarik in 04 since ND was wrapped up for GWB anyway, but I was definitely glad to see 4 more years of GWB over a John Kerry presidency.

Congress is where the real issue lies. The only REAL power the President has is the veto and ability to appoint judges. But again, those can either be overridden or have to be approved by Congress.

RidinRails;245259 wrote:
since when does congress, the cheif economist, and wall street decide on sending people to iraq to start a war?

Like i said the only thing bush is good at is wasting money and getting people killed..

no one can prove that he's done any good.

It is just uneducated people like you that just jump to blame the president about everything. The war he definately can be partly blamed for...the rest is a collabarative effort by our government.