Why McCain is more of the same.

[audtatious]

I'm showing your hyposcisty in the matter. I understand you don't see it.

Cindy is a horrible person. She went out with Mac while he was still married. She is involved in big business (brewing). She had an admitted problem with a couple prescription drugs. She was against paying more in taxes base upon what she already gives out in charity work. I can easily see why the democrats would love to bury her in the ground with the label of witch and devil.

Michelle is black. She is racist. She is vocal about how she hates America. I can easily see why the democrats love her.

[Cold_Zero]

First off, I don't "hate" the Serbian people, and I recognize that it's generally a very messy region with a lot of bad history and that no one was really objectively in the right. I think that Milosevic, Karadzic, and Mladic were despicable human beings, but I know better (as most rational people do) than to apply my feelings towards them to the entire Serb population.

Yet you point to three Serbs or Bosnian Serb leaders in your list. Again, I think this is a product of the American Media white washing the issue to justify NATO and America’s involvement.

Personally, I think anyone that perpetrates crimes against humanity is a despicable person.

Quote »That said, at the time, the Bosnian Serb forces were methodically exterminating the ethnic (muslim) Albanians. There were NOT, as far as I'm aware, any widespread military-led campaigns of genocide that went in the other direction. What happened in the second world war is immaterial, if someone is practicing genocide NOW, it must be stopped NOW.

When these guys lined up thousands of men and boys in fields and shot them without any sort of fight, they surrendered their sovereignty and territorial integrity to the judgement of NATO and the international community. When you initiate genocide, all bets are off. [/quote]I must point out that the Bosniacs, who you refer to ethnic (muslim) Albanians, are so far removed from Albania and Islam its not even funny. My cousin David use to remark about few Bosniacs walking down the street with a keffiyeh on and how out of place the person looked. He said it was almost comical. Also, the United Nations has changed the definition of Genocide from its classical understanding (of exterminating people by the basis of their race, religion, ethnicity…) to a very broad term which now includes relocating people or harassing them.

But to be honest, we are talking about Kosovo, not Bosnia and Herzegovina. The two should not be confused. Kosovo had always been a part of the Kingdom of Serbia and even after the break up of Yugoslavia it remained as a part of Serbia. The KLA (a terrorlst organization) provoked the entire situation probably with Western assistances. When the Serbian Police cracked down (as is their sovereign right) and later the military stepped in to take on the KLA, everyone rewound to the Bosnia Civil war and started screaming that it was happening again. It should be noted that it WAS the NATO bombing campaign that displaced people in Kosovo (much of them Serbs getting the **** out of dodge) and the subsequent NATO invasion. NATO created the ‘genocide’ in Kosovo, not the Serbian police.

I have seen evidence of Kosovar troops shooting up Serbian Orthodox churches in Kosovo and crowds of Kosovars destroying the churches and no one condemns these actions. No one in the West talks about the displacement of Serbs from Kosovo. They just say, “Well paybacks are hell.” I say **** the West with their double standards that only fit their agendas.

Quote »The Europeans were hesitant to stand up for Muslims since Christians were the ones exterminating them. It was weak and abhorrent..[/quote]During the civil war it wasn’t Muslim vs Christian. Nothing would be that nice and tidy. You have a myriad of different armies, paramilitary groups, police groups, gangs and warlords duking it out for control of the area. I am sure Kosovo was probably payback for Slobodan’s defiance against the west.

[Soravia]

Quote »families with incomes $100,000 or higher.[/quote]That's $50K by the husband and $50K by wife. How is that RICH?

[Cold_Zero]

Agreed, 100,000 a year in total household income is NOT rich.

[telcoman]

Agreed, 100,000 a year in total household income is NOT rich.

So would you agree that raising taxes for those earning over $250k is not a problem?

Telcoman

[szh]

So would you agree that raising taxes for those earning over $250k is not a problem?

Telcoman

I do not agree. That is a problem. It is manifestly unfair. See the other threads on this topic.

Z

[Cold_Zero]

You know, maybe I should do a similar comparison with Obama and his wife compared with Ayres and his wife to show that he is 100% an anti-American terrorlst.

It astounds me that no one in the American Media is making a stink about Obama's associations. William Ayres, founding member of the Weatherman terrorlst organization and attempted to bomb the Pentagon, Capitol Building and NYPD Headquarters.

Saul Alinsky, community and labor organizer and who also trained Cesar Chavez. Pretty much anything the guy has taught comes from a Marxist and Leninist philosophy.

Tony Rezko, fundraiser and real estate developer convicted of bribery and fraud. Who bought land a joining the Obama's house so that a contract (that both the house and a joining land would be sold together) would be fulfilled.

[Cold_Zero]

So would you agree that raising taxes for those earning over $250k is not a problem?

Telcoman

I know people that make 250-400k a year. These people are by no means 'rich.' They aint hurting like the rest of us folk, but I don't hold it against them that they are not hurting 'as much.' I don’t make anything near 100k a year, but I know some people that make less than I do. Yet I don’t want to get into a pissing match with how much people make and they being the root of all my problems. Different people are blessed with different talents, riches and yes money making ability. I don’t hold it against them…

[ishkabibble]

I see you quoted moveon.org in some of your ramblings. That right there makes any further comment worthless on my part and I should start ignoring you just as I should start ignoring Telco. Time for NICO to implement a proper ignore list.

Says the guy who regularly links to some of the most biased right wing blogs while claiming the source doesn't matter if their points are valid.

I thought hypocrisy was the sole domain of the left.

[rn79870]

Michelle is black. She is racist. She is vocal about how she hates America. I can easily see why the democrats love her.

I see your hyperbole Matt, it's your point I'm not seeing. I've tried a 10 power magnifying glass too.

[Qwerty1942]

You know, maybe I should do a similar comparison with Obama and his wife compared with Ayres and his wife to show that he is 100% an anti-American terrorlst.

You really think Obama is a terrorlst?

[audtatious]

I lean Republican so does it really matter what I say in this forum?

[Qwerty1942]

it matters why would you say it doesnt

[audtatious]

It wasn't sincere, just used for effect. I do believe he is a POS tho.

[HashiriyaS14]

Ok, in regards to our Bosnia discussion, this is pretty much where I'm coming from:





Insomuch as I am aware, we didn't find any mass graves full of Serbs or Bosnian Serbs, we found mass graves full of Muslim Bosnians. If I'm wrong about this and there is credible evidence towards the wholesale mass slaughter of thousands of unarmed Serbs by Muslim Bosnians, please show me the evidence and I will change my tune (not sarcasm, for all I know the evidence is out there and it really is under-publicized).

This is all the United States and the international community needs to know to intervene, period. It DOESN'T MATTER why they did it, no one's ever allowed to do anything like this. These are not buried combat casualties, these bones belong to people who were murdered en masse when they were unarmed.

As for my listing of the three Serbian leaders, yes, I do believe those three guys are terrible human beings. I DO believe that they were the architects of the actions that resulted in the graves above and that they were wholly involved in planning, committing, and covering up the atrocities. My point is that I don't believe that the entirety of the Serb and Bosnian Serb populations condoned the wholesale massacre of unarmed people, so I don't lump them in with those three guys. Thus, I don't "hate" either the nation OR it's people, I realize that they have also suffered far more than their fair share of hardship and violence. But, as far as I'm concerned, all three of THOSE GUYS are heinous war criminals and deserve to hang.

[rn79870]

Okay Hash, let me ask a question.What international law, agreement or charter authorizes the United States to become the police arm of the world? Seriously, some countries see this is our need to control others while not controling ourselves. I'd just like to hear what you believe (other than the moral issue) is the legal justification for the US to intervene.

[Cold_Zero]

Hash do you honestly think that the Bosnia War was only between Bosnian Serbs and Bosniacs? What about the Croatians and their war criminals? Dude, keep lapping up the western propaganda. Why not list any of the Croatians that were tried and convicted by the ICTY? Because you probably can't name any of them, because this country only acts as if the Bosnian Serbs were the only ones committing genocide. Admit it, this country has a problem with protraying or thinking that Serbians are cold blooded killers.

But seriously, what does the Bosnia Civil War have to do with Kosovo? Other than a knee jerk reaction by NATO and the west to bomb the **** out of Belgrade and invading Kosovo.Again we piss and moan that we invaded Iraq under false pretenses, yet we have no problem invading Kosovo.

[HashiriyaS14]

Because you probably can't name any of them, because this country only acts as if the Bosnian Serbs were the only ones committing genocide. Admit it, this country has a problem with protraying or thinking that Serbians are cold blooded killers.

On this point, you are absolutely correct, I can't name a single one, and I WILL admit that the United States probably has a problem with generalizing all Serbs as being "Bad Guys" when it is obviously and patently untrue.

I'm also getting the distinct sense that we're sort of talking about two different NATO involvements, although they are somewhat intertwined. I will wholeheartedly agree that the KLA was a nasty terrorlst organization with ties to all sorts of other unspeakable entities, you'll get no argument from me there. I'm not really even talking about the Kosovo conflict. I will admit to probably having been a little mixed up towards the beginning of this thread, when I was lumping it all together.

I'm really arguing that the 1995 air campaign "operation deliberate force", that was indirectly in response to the Serbian invasion of the UN "Safe Zone" in Srebrenica (and the following brutal massacre) was justified. The bottom line is that the Srebrenica massacre was unacceptable and it violated a UN resolution and, following this, Republika Srpska effectively kidnapped a number of UN personnel. Then, later, in response to the Markale massacre, NATO got involved (justifiably, IMO), and ended the conflict.

I know most Serbs view all this as a civil war and most of the rest of the world views it as an aggressive invasion. If you're going to try to change my mind on a single point, this is the one to focus on, because I will admit that my justification for my viewpoint is probably the very western media bias that you're referring to.

Maybe I'm totally confused, who knows.

Nations are allowed to have civil wars, but no one is allowed to do what happened at Srebrenica. THIS is what I see as the primary justification for NATO and UN involvement in the region, because shxt like that just can't happen.

[Jager]

wait wait wait... we are talking about how mccain is more of the same as bush, and how obama is better yes?

why is obama better? because he voted all over the place? or because hes more like the clintons? who did more in 8 years to slow us economically then ever, or are we talking about the same obama who has reiterated repeatedly his wish to remove combat troops and only send them in again if the situation gets worse....

Im rather lost here. id rather have economic growth (abet very slow) the lowest troop deaths we have EVER had for a non nato/UN war/police action. and someone who doesnt pile bull**** so high his eyes and mine go brown.

I died laughinging almost watching Baracks speech last night, some of the things hes said were ludicrious., yet joe q public will and did eat it up.

Id love to see Obama with a set of reading glasses poring through the congressional budget line by line to cut spending and pay for his programs. The last one only needed a few trucks to haul all the paper around....

Obama talks a big game, yet I don't see him being able to make a better situation out of health care, just a fact. (government screws it up worse, if you aren't on government Medicare please don't comment, you dont know the annoyances nor how it actually would work, I do, i preferred and do prefer my state Medicaid, they seem to understand reality alot better and require a hell of alot less lawyers to get stuff done(yes i went to court against my government and won)

I dont "like" Johnny", but seeing as Obama is the clintons all over again, Id say I will be voting for the bush clone, Id rather not have the 1994-2000 years replayed full of avoidable and ridiculous propaganda fed to us as laws.

I will watch the debates with joy as I get to see our democratic process unfold, and I hope we aren't all led hook line and sinker into bull**** whichever party wins.

<- is staying out of the kosovo/bosnia part of this all together

[C-Kwik]

It's absolutely amazing how many people respond to comments regarding McCain being McSame. It's so unbelievably easy to document this with a minute or two of google-fu. The right wing anarchist (yes, I said anarchist) here really get upset about McSame comments.

Its because it has little to do with the topic being discussed at the time you state it. Its a generalization. Any good argument makes a clear and consise point each time you make it. Referring to McCain as McSame does nothing within said topic. It reeks of Propaganda and those with any inkling of intelligence will see right through it. My point here is, if you want to make the argument that McCain's stance on an issue is the same as Bush's, then insert your argument with supporting evidence wso we can discuss it directly. Using a general statement like this in the midst of a specific debate doesn't leave it open to an intelligent debate. Its perhaps the safe way to respond as it doesn't put your thought on the line, but it doesn't help the debate and certainly doesn't prove your point.

[rn79870]

I dunno C_Kwik, the part of my post you quoted didn't mention the 16 paragraphs following it where I showed the more of the same. Also consider, it was posted during the DNC where there were literally hours each day of examples of the poor performance of the administration during the last 8 years, and the promise of more of the same in the next 4 years with McCain.

[Jager]

sorry bob, the "poor performance" of the administration is also the "poor performance" of the democratically controlled congress.

bush cant wave a wand and voila it happens, congress has to pass the bills.

sorry you cant pull this out bob, your party has the lowest popularity of a congress since the 1860s when the south seceded.

bush may have a hand in the cookie jar, but democrats are just as far in with him.

[rn79870]

For 2 of the 8 years maybe. That still leaves 3/4 of the blame you know where.

[C-Kwik]

I was addressing the reason you felt compelled to write out your points. I think its great you created this post, but I'd like to see you point out specifics like this when you feel compelled to write out McSame/McBush within the threads you say it in.

sorry bob, the "poor performance" of the administration is also the "poor performance" of the democratically controlled congress.

bush cant wave a wand and voila it happens, congress has to pass the bills.

sorry you cant pull this out bob, your party has the lowest popularity of a congress since the 1860s when the south seceded.

bush may have a hand in the cookie jar, but democrats are just as far in with him.

To be fair, this post isn't much better. Lets talk about the specific policies enacted by congress, perhaps show if they were vetoed or approved by Bush and if vetoed, if the Congress overruled it by the 2/3rds vote. I don't know what's happened, but I'd speculate that all legislation passed under this congress and president didn't take the exact same steps...

[audtatious]

For 2 of the 8 years maybe. That still leaves 3/4 of the blame you know where.

Can we have a list of specifically what the Republicans did in those 6 years that was opposed by the Dems (and did not have dem "fingers in the cookie jar) that were absolute failures?

[Jager]

bob, while the republicans held a majority in congress for 6 years, they did not have a majority enough to simply pass whatever they wanted.

everything from the trying to renew the assault weapons ban, to going to war in iraq, to funding the darfur area with aid, pakistan. good and bad was a bipartisan effort to pass.

Bush vetoed very few major bills and the ones he did did not pass 2/3 muster or were redone so they were not vetoed.

asking me to give you specifics further then that is something currently I am unable to do, however, the republicans did not tank congress for 6 years on their own, they had a resonably high level of approval until about 3-4 years ago. but again thats ALL congressmen and women.

Bob I wont deny the republicans weren't at fault as well, but lets be honest most of what the white house has pressed for has been 50/50 ok for our nation and our economy, however congress is the one spending the money like its about to go outa style. so why are you blaming bush? he may ask for more money, but congress says yes or no. so why do I see you trying to pass that buck in several threads.

[rn79870]

See the other thread for the discussion of the alternative fuel fiasco and the tantrum the republicans threw.

[Jager]

your failing to answer the question bob, why is that bush's fault? bush isnt all republicans, nor is bush congress, so him being for or against a bill has some weight, but not nearly what you think.

so why again are you saying mccain will be another bush? we dont know congress will act the same so how can we possibly assume any plan idea or bill will for sure happen.

short answer we dont. same goes for obama.

congress makes laws bob the president just suggests, so start chiding your own party as much as mine, or you really start looking like a hypocrite.

btw all that debt we are in, why are democrats still spending money like its about to get taken from them? I mean uif its all bush's fault wouldn't you assume they having a majority would put the kibosh on spending?

or is that another no no area for democrats to go into?