Barack Obama

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by SluttyShemaleAnna

So what you are saying is that saddam could not possibly have got rid of his weapons after 4 years of UN inspections, and no new intelligence was gathered during that time.

Right, you're making more sense by the second.

Try and follow the thread of the conversation.

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

And what do we say today? It's aaaaaaaall Bush's fault. Forgive me if I don't put much stock in people like yourself and burren11 who have no grasp of the big picture.

There has been NOTHING to show that all those people quoted above weren't wrong either. And it's not just up until the end of Clinton's term. AGAIN go look at the quotes. You can see democrats asserting that Iraq had WMD right up until 2002/2003. The fact is most everyone who had access to the intelligence data drew the conclusion that Iraq had WMD, yet Bush is singled out as the lone liar.

[SluttyShemaleAnna]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

You can see democrats asserting that Iraq had WMD right up until 2002/2003.

Oh, after they were out of power and didn't have access to intelligence except what Bush and co released to them...

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by SluttyShemaleAnna

Oh, after they were out of power and didn't have access to intelligence except what Bush and co released to them...

They? The democrats I referred to were IN power. As Ogryn1313 says, congress has the power. They control the budget. They approve presidential appointments. I don't suppose you realize the head of the CIA, George Tenet, during this time (2002) was appointed by Bill Clinton. He was kept on by the Bush administration until 2004 when all this WMD shit hit the fan.

So you're telling me that H. Clinton, John Edwards, John Kerry and Carl Levin had no up to date information when they made those statements? John Edwards and Carl Levin were on the U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence from 2001-2002 btw. But you're telling me these people did not have access to up to date information? Do you want to keep going with this rectal extrapolation of yours or do you want to take a while to actually research what you're talking about?

[Ogryn1313]

The Democrats are in control. They made a lot of promises to reverse all the "damage" Bush has done in his 8 years as president in the "First 100 Hours." In their first 100 hours the only thing of significance they passed was a new set of rules governing how Congress would conduct business. Which, suspiciously, passed virtually unanimously. And, long after this, they've done very little. They're seen as "do nothing" Congress. So much for their lofty promises to change America. Obama, if he wins...I suspect will repeat their vast accomplishments.

Anna is most likely getting her information from biased sources like the BBC or any number of "reputable" online blogs and far left sites. It's blatantly obvious Anna has little knowledge of this matter and only opinion.

[SluttyShemaleAnna]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

They? The democrats I referred to were IN power. As Ogryn1313 says, congress has the power. They control the budget. They approve presidential appointments. I don't suppose you realize the head of the CIA, George Tenet, during this time (2002) was appointed by Bill Clinton. He was kept on by the Bush administration until 2004 when all this WMD shit hit the fan.

So you're telling me that H. Clinton, John Edwards, John Kerry and Carl Levin had no up to date information when they made those statements? John Edwards and Carl Levin were on the U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence from 2001-2002 btw. But you're telling me these people did not have access to up to date information? Do you want to keep going with this rectal extrapolation of yours or do you want to take a while to actually research what you're talking about?

Oh so nothing could possibly change from 2002-2004?

[Bionca]

Ogryn - While I respect what you have said, and I'm glad for you keeping a civil tone in all your posts. I must point out that maintaining the rights and privileges of the majority, and placing the needs of a majority in favor of and at the expense of a minority results in "Tyrrany of the Majority".

While you personally may be against treating different groups poorly, many who share your views do not. Or even worse, fail to see how not supporting issues like Gay marriage are harmful to actual people by making it difficult to access protections and services provided for hetro-married couples. Saying "what they do on their time doesn't bother me, but marriage is sacred".

Issues like restricting access to bathrooms by transwomen in Colorado and recently Maryland. Having an expensive and "cosmetic" surgery needed to change documentation for one's sex assignment. Not having sexual orientation or gender identity/expession protected on a national level. All of these directly impact the real lives of actual people, not nameless "minority groups". The majoity, by virtue of being the majotity gets all the cookies/perks/rights/privliges. When it comes down to an issue of someone's comfort level or emotional squick over an issue and someone losing their house because their 20 year lesbian partner died without a will, or a 20 y/o transwoman who needs to turn tricks to eat and get hormones because she can't get hired at Burger King...

I seriously think that social change in favor of improving the quality of life for people should always trump someone's inability or reluctance to "handle the issues". Even if that reluctance is shared by the overwhelming majority of people.

The comeback will likely be something along the lines of backlashes, and violence targeted against the minority. Well, as a person who has lived as a minority in a variety of forms; I can tell you that violence is happening now.

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by Bionca

While you personally may be against treating different groups poorly, many who share your views do not. Or even worse, fail to see how not supporting issues like Gay marriage are harmful to actual people by making it difficult to access protections and services provided for hetro-married couples. Saying "what they do on their time doesn't bother me, but marriage is sacred".

Originally Posted by Vice Presidential Debate

Moderator: Let's try to avoid nuance, Senator. Do you support gay marriage?

BIDEN: No. Barack Obama nor I support redefining from a civil side what constitutes marriage. We do not support that. That is basically the decision to be able to be able to be left to faiths and people who practice their faiths the determination what you call it.

The bottom line though is, and I'm glad to hear the governor (Palin), I take her at her word, obviously, that she thinks there should be no civil rights distinction, none whatsoever, between a committed gay couple and a committed heterosexual couple. If that's the case, we really don't have a difference.

I'm confused. Why all the support for Obama on this issue?

[jimnaseum]

There is absolutely no question that Democrats are better for PEOPLE issues, but the truth is gay or transgender issues are a polititical hot potato. In the last election(?) the Republicans put a gay marriage proposal on the ballot just so the conservatives would come out and vote for their candidates while they were voting against "perversity"

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by SluttyShemaleAnna

Oh so nothing could possibly change from 2002-2004?

Yeah something changed. The 2004 presidential elections was coming and the democrats decided that agreeing with the president all the time wasn't good if they wanted to get into office so they suddenly started acting like the whole thing was Bush's idea.