Bin Laden Tape: Who Does It Hurt?

HomeLAN said:
Those points DO matter. It's you who are being insulting by insinuating that they never crossed my mind. In fact, I don't think either one of these yahoos will be able to do shit about the economy, although at least Bush has a coherent plan. You might not agree with it, but he has one (think continued tax cuts).

If you read back a ways, Bish, you'll find that I didn't intend to vote for Bush until the tragedy at Beslan (or, more accurately, the responses to it that were demonstrated in places like this one). The positions that you, yourself, espoused in PM's awhile back forced me to reassess some priorities.

So, no, the war on terror isn't the only issue. I've been forced to concede, however, that it's the most important one, and you had a lot to do with that. Thanks once again for clarifying for me which path is correct.
Click to expand...
Thought that you didn't want to take this out of PM. :shrug:

We have different ideas as to how to stop terrorism, but we both agreed that it had to be stopped. I don't think that I changed your mind any, I just tried to explain why I felt that it would be better to attack terrorists at their source (Why they become terrorists and stopping that) as opposed to attacking them after they're already terrorists (too little and too late IMHO).

It IS an important issue..and some would say that it's the MOST important issue...but it shouldn't be the ONLY issue.

BTW - I wasn't specifically attacking your thinking re: who you picked as a political leader. I was stating that whenever I watched anything in the news or of here for that matter...that the topic of the economy took a far-back seat if it was brought up at all. When you elect a leader... you should be electing the whole platform...not just the most prominent one.

Where are the discussions re: religious education, where are the ones re: abortion, women's rights, same-sex unions, unemployment insurance, job-creation? I am just not seeing them.
 
Gonz said:
Those will never go away.
Click to expand...



are you sure? or is it you dont want the answer? we may be "at war" with them but there are ways of battling them. More homes and shelters, more jobs should be available. For the drugs: legalising them wont help much in terms of getting rid of tehm but could help lower the crime rate. and also like alcohol should be restricted sales. Crime itself may not but you can combat it.
 
Stopping them at their source? What more can we do? President Carter allowed the Ayatollah to take over & now look at the mess we have. That was the opening salvo of this 25 year war on terrorism. Everybody, including some of ours, have ignored & pacified as the terrorists have slowly ratcheted up & enlarged the killing fields.

GW is only doing what should have been done 20+ years ago.
 
freako104 said:
are you sure? or is it you dont want the answer? we may be "at war" with them but there are ways of battling them. More homes and shelters, more jobs should be available. For the drugs: legalising them wont help much in terms of getting rid of tehm but could help lower the crime rate. and also like alcohol should be restricted sales. Crime itself may not but you can combat it.
Click to expand...
I'm sure that those will never go away.
 
freako104 said:
are you sure? or is it you dont want the answer? we may be "at war" with them but there are ways of battling them. More homes and shelters, more jobs should be available. For the drugs: legalising them wont help much in terms of getting rid of tehm but could help lower the crime rate. and also like alcohol should be restricted sales. Crime itself may not but you can combat it.
Click to expand...

I want it all gone. I'm a pragmatist however.

We have homes for every single person in the US. They don't want to work to support thermselves. I don't want to work to support them either.

Drugs...Gods way of saying die in your own puke.
Alcohol is already heavily regulated (I bet Mark like that)

All we can do is punish the criminal & give them better options. We already do both.
 
about the only thing there I will agree with is the idea of punishing the criminal though I am more for punish the crime. Drugs: thats only if you overdose.

Shelters: gets them off the streets. thats why I said then get them a job somewhere. If they do not want to work that is different
 
Don't want to and/or can't, there is always going to be a percentage point that just do not or cannot keep it together to keep a home. There will always be mental illness, criminality, always be addiction.
 
Gonz said:
Stopping them at their source? What more can we do?
Click to expand...

If you understand what the recruiters are using to gain new terrorists, what they're telling the population to allow them to hide out in their homes. Why the population protects them..why people allow their sons and daughters to become martyrs...you can counter that. If you remove the support of the general populace from terrorists, then they have no place to hide, and no way to recruit new members. As long as terrorists are supported by the population where they're hiding, you shall never find them, no door-to-door search will turn them up and no curfew will stop them from moving abouts.

Get the people on your side and the terrorists' support dies off.

Keep ticking off the people at large and you're basically creating a breeding grounds and support network for the people you're trying to eradicate.
 
Leslie said:
Don't want to and/or can't, there is always going to be a percentage point that just do not or cannot keep it together to keep a home. There will always be mental illness, criminality, always be addiction.
Click to expand...



there are ways around the mental illnesses. Medicnes, Asylums and such. Addiction can and in some cases has been overcome. The only real problem I cant see being solved fully is the criminality.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top