Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: ToxicAvenger on May 04, 2007, 01:02:17 PM
-
whether we leave today or 7 yrs from now..as soon as we leave that place is gonna turn into a terrorist training ground immediately.
the only viable option for an exit is to find someone EXACTLY like saddam to take over..ironic aint it...
soo we r there indefinately...
and the dems and repbs BOTH know this..this back n forth..thats just staging for a bid into the presidency..even if the dems win..i dont think we r gonna pull out..
-
whether we leave today or 7 yrs from now..as soon as we leave that place is gonna turn into a terrorist training ground immediately.
the only viable option for an exit is to find someone EXACTLY like saddam to take over..ironic aint it...
soo we r there indefinately...
and the dems and repbs BOTH know this..this back n forth..thats just staging for a bid into the presidency..even if the dems win..i dont think we r gonna pull out..
You couldn't be more right. The Democrats backed down on withdrawl dates after the Veto. They just wanted to create a talking point for the election. Republicans are just stretching things out as long as they can to have their own talking point.
-
According to one buffoon, ... success = an acceptable level of everyday violence. ::)
So I suppose when Iraqi's get used to and accept car bombs going off and killing roughly 200 people everyday,
and dead bodies and body parts rotting in the roads as an everyday thing, ...success will have been achieved.
Guess what, ...they're already there.
-
It means shit.
The real victory is managing the black gold.
-
This is just one grand piece of theatre. How's everyone concerned playing their parts in your opinions?
-
whether we leave today or 7 yrs from now..as soon as we leave that place is gonna turn into a terrorist training ground immediately.
the only viable option for an exit is to find someone EXACTLY like saddam to take over..ironic aint it...
soo we r there indefinately...
and the dems and repbs BOTH know this..this back n forth..thats just staging for a bid into the presidency..even if the dems win..i dont think we r gonna pull out..
come on bro lets be real
winning means "we" secured the bases necessary to continue regional transformation (think iran, then who knows, paki, saudi ...?) and have infostructure around the natural resources of that region
when the age of oil is over most of that region will share africas fate
-
come on bro lets be real
winning means "we" secured the bases necessary to continue regional transformation (think iran, then who knows, paki, saudi ...?) and have infostructure around the natural resources of that region
when the age of oil is over most of that region will share africas fate
Yep, ...Pakistan is definitely next on the list, ...except Pakistan has nukes.
-
Yep, ...Pakistan is definitely next on the list, ...except Pakistan has nukes.
They turned on Iraq, so they can do the same to pakistan or saudia arabia..
-
that place is gonna turn into a terrorist training ground immediately.
And the terrorists will control all the Iraqi oil.
-
They turned on Iraq, so they can do the same to pakistan or saudia arabia..
Except I have a feeling Saudi has tried to cover their asses. They're having their cake and eating it too.
God Forbid the US ever try to cross the Saudis, ...it would be disaster without firing a shot. :-X
-
And the terrorists will control all the Iraqi oil.
No it's not. We're never leaving. Every major dem and repub candidate now agrees any withdrawl will be over several years. The oil will be pumped out as quickly as possible, and we'll be there every minute for it. Nobody with any brains argues it anymore.
Ritter's argument lost me... he said we should pull out over a decade, and let Iraq's neighbors split the oil. Would ANY sane nation walk away from 50-70 trillion in oil? Nope.
So back to your point, tre... iraq only has 500 al-quida there TODAY by all US estimates. They're not gonna 'take over' when all the oil is gone. The place will turn into africa, AIDS will appear magically and knock off 40% of the population in 40 years.
It's eminent domain, and it's the way of the world. We're talking macro level here - individuals matter nothing, as we're all short term consumers. When you talk about the whole middle east - their resources can make 300 to 350 million Americans maintain our #1 spot. And whatever happens afterwards to clean up the useless region once the oil is gone, well, it is what it is.
-
We may never know because the stupid ass libs want us either to lose the war or surrender to the enemy!!
-
We may never know because the stupid ass libs want us either to lose the war or surrender to the enemy!!
Joe, every top dem candidate now agrees we'll be there as long as it takes to withdraw in an orderly and safe fashion.
That means after we have the oil. At that point, we don't give a shit what happens to the place, honestly. NEITHER party does. But both parties know it's about the oil. The dems want a timeline so america thinks they're against it. But BOTH sides know we're in it until the oil is gone.
Joe, here's the problem - you don't think iraq is about oil. Bush HIMSELF stood in the rose garden in december and said it was about oil. It is. They have 50 to 75 tril of it, and we desperately need it. Every economist in the US agrees with this one. We're fucked without iraqi oil. So we're gonna take it.
"Stupid ass libs" = insulting comment against people who understand the oil dynamics of Iraq, which you don't.
-
come on bro lets be real
winning means "we" secured the bases necessary to continue regional transformation (think iran, then who knows, paki, saudi ...?) and have infostructure around the natural resources of that region
when the age of oil is over most of that region will share africas fate
i ws attempting to be politely facetious..lol i guess its not my thing..
-
They turned on Iraq, so they can do the same to pakistan or saudia arabia..
paki has no oil...
paki has access to the indian ocean thru karachi..and access to china thru the karakoram range..2 strategic places..
the US already has a base in Patni ..past Hawksbay...the coastal karachi area infested with robbers and bandits..
there is a paki base there also and i visited when i ws in high school(some class mates dad ws a big shot there)..great beach and the water got real deep real quick..anyhow this gives em access to the ocean..and who knows how many other bases in costal baluchistan..the forgotton province..
and the US has bases up north in the mountains where ya hear stories of fighters appear out of no where " as in from within the mountains"..there ya have it..within striking range of china..
the people of iraq were al least forced to live in harmoney and semi peace by saddam..
paki has never had that...attacking there would be a strategic mistake and ya think this is a mess..you'd have asshole islamists crawling out of the woodwork there....95% of the population is uneducated and and easily swayed into radical thinking..
-
We may never know because the stupid ass libs want us either to lose the war or surrender to the enemy!!
The stupid ass libs want nothing but two things:
1. To stop American servicemen and women from getting killed and;
2. To stop wasting all this money on other countries. This is the most unamerican thing I've ever seen (1 trillion so far has left American's pockets and gone into Hassim's and Abdul's).
Real patriots you guys are!
-
All the dems are doing is appeasing a section of the population that's sick of the war. There will now be a scheduled troop pull out and the dems know this will never happen. In essence they are buying a few more years of supported public opinion so that the corporations and the government can get what they want out of iraq.
-
imagine what would happen if the US left all of a sudden...pure chaos...we screwed it up so bad over in Iraq, we have to stay.
-
All the dems are doing is appeasing a section of the population that's sick of the war. There will now be a scheduled troop pull out and the dems know this will never happen.
I agree with this. I was just talking to someone who returned from Iraq and he believes we are really stuck. He said if we pull out now it will resemble the genocide in Rwanda.
The problem is we cannot identify the enemy. They don't have a command and control center. They don't have an "army." They're basically invisible.
What this tells me is neither party has an answer, because they both appear to be wrong: if we stay, we continue to take casualties and spend money. If we leave, we have Rwanda part II.
-
What this tells me is neither party has an answer, because they both appear to be wrong: if we stay, we continue to take casualties and spend money. If we leave, we have Rwanda part II.
If we stay then we get mo oil and stay competitive against china.
-
If we stay then we get mo oil and stay competitive against china.
Hardly. "We" haven't gotten anything yet. The government is paying through the nose for this war and will continue to do so.
-
Hardly. "We" haven't gotten anything yet. The government is paying through the nose for this war and will continue to do so.
It's so funny that some people still believe that the war in Iraq isn't about oil.
Of course our govt is paying thru the nose for this war - $200 mil a day. But the windfall from managing Iraqi oil and the fact we now surround Iran on both sides for their eventual topple for oil is worth more than that $200 mil a day. Iran is the sweet eventual target in all of this: Iran ranks second in the world in natural gas reserves and third in oil reserves
-
If we leave, we have Rwanda part II.
r you trying to sell us that we EVER gave a flying fuck aboyt what happened in rawanda??
seriously..r you white enough to glow in the dark...
see how i play your own game..where i connotate white with idiot :)
-
It's so funny that some people still believe that the war in Iraq isn't about oil.
you expect all americans to be smart just cause they live in the 1st world..
doods an idiot..
thankgod he ws born in the US..otherwise he's be a radical muslim by now
-
r you trying to sell us that we EVER gave a flying fuck aboyt what happened in rawanda??
seriously..r you white enough to glow in the dark...
see how i play your own game..where i connotate white with idiot :)
Actually, if you knew how to read, you'd see the point was there would be mass killings in Iraq if we pulled out now, not that the U.S. cared about Rwanda.
-
And the terrorists will control all the Iraqi oil.
Saudi Arabia is the terrorist training ground as anyone with half a brain would know - and they already control a lot of oil.
-
Actually, if you knew how to read, you'd see the point was there would be mass killings in Iraq if we pulled out now, not that the U.S. cared about Rwanda.
if the US pulled out there would be a massive influx of future tewrrorists..
the killings would stop
ya reap what ya sow..
buut in this case....we'll reap what bush sowed...
when the oil runs out..and ohhh yes siree it will..we'll leave...
and then..i'll move to europe and leave girls like you to suffer the suicide attacks! :) ya see..i'm rich...the world is my home!
-
come on bro lets be real
winning means "we" secured the bases necessary to continue regional transformation (think iran, then who knows, paki, saudi ...?) and have infostructure around the natural resources of that region
This is exactly what winning means in military terms. Securing bases is necessary to established a continued influence in the region. Oddly enough this approach is very similar to Domino theory applied towards communists
-
if the US pulled out there would be a massive influx of future tewrrorists..
the killings would stop
ya reap what ya sow..
buut in this case....we'll read what bush sowed...
when the oil runs out..and ohhh yes siree it will..we'll leave...
and then..i'll move to europe and leave girls like you to suffer the suicide attacks! :) ya see..i'm rich...the world is my home!
No, if we pullout, the killings would skyrocket.
You're "rich"? [snicker] Rich like Tony Montana maybe. . . .
-
Saudi Arabia is the terrorist training ground as anyone with half a brain would know - and they already control a lot of oil.
such bad bad terrirost people... ::)
yet we keep being friends with em..
what does that say about us?
-
No, if we pullout, the killings would skyrocket.
You're "rich"? [snicker] Rich like Tony Montana maybe. . . .
the killing would stop...for a repb ya sure care a lot about sand ni gger lives..yet 100s die every day in iraq..pfft
and yeah...honey i could buy and sell your family 2ice over and still have enough $ left over to buy your mum as a whore :)
sux that most sand nigg ers in the US and arabs are richer than repbs dont it ;D
-
No, if we pullout, the killings would skyrocket.
Unfortunately we destroyed the infrastructure and the choice is either a slow burn or giant fire ball. Ultimately, the result is the same.
-
such bad bad terrirost people... ::)
yet we keep being friends with em..
what does that say about us?
Well it doesn't say anything about me - I have no friends.
-
- I have no friends.
need i say more.. :-\
-
i studied 9/11 for about a year, and think i figured out some of what happened that day. however, i still am not sure if even planes were used to hit the towers, as they acted like missiles and looked like planes.
i followed the mid east political mess pretty closely for the last 6 months or so. it's about oil. it's about setting up bases for Iran next, and others down the road. it's about energy to meet our needs in a world where we can't compete anymore. Chinese cheap labor means we can never compete on mnfg again. And the folks leading our country know it, and want to keep us #1 because yes, they do love America.
Our leaders, taking heat for all of this. yeah, they're greedy and hooking up their friends with the contracts. But yeah, they also love America. Bush, cheney, rummy... these guys were all deca millionaires in the 80s. They don't have to wear suits to stressful jobs in their 50s and 60s, enjoy the guilt of the terrible choices leaders have to make, and know billions hate them. They don't need the money, and the power high subsides quickly. I honestly think they do it because they love America and want her to remain the only superpower, at all costs.
I guess I"m trying to say that after studying the hell out of it, I don't know the truth about 911 (although i do know some here knew and the official story is lies). I don't know all of the reasons, implications, and possibilites in the middle east. And I sure don't know the bigger plan, whether the be a N American union or whatever. And I have a degree in history and another MBA/economics, and I watch the news like a fiend. So despite all my tools and study, the way the world works is still SO far beyond my comprehension.
So when some 21-year old grunt brags about having it all figured out, please, in advance, please STFU already. Cause you don't. And just like me, you never will.
-
i studied 9/11 for about a year, and think i figured out some of what happened that day. however, i still am not sure if even planes were used to hit the towers, as they acted like missiles and looked like planes.
i followed the mid east political mess pretty closely for the last 6 months or so. it's about oil. it's about setting up bases for Iran next, and others down the road. it's about energy to meet our needs in a world where we can't compete anymore. Chinese cheap labor means we can never compete on mnfg again. And the folks leading our country know it, and want to keep us #1 because yes, they do love America.
Our leaders, taking heat for all of this. yeah, they're greedy and hooking up their friends with the contracts. But yeah, they also love America. Bush, cheney, rummy... these guys were all deca millionaires in the 80s. They don't have to wear suits to stressful jobs in their 50s and 60s, enjoy the guilt of the terrible choices leaders have to make, and know billions hate them. They don't need the money, and the power high subsides quickly. I honestly think they do it because they love America and want her to remain the only superpower, at all costs.
I guess I"m trying to say that after studying the hell out of it, I don't know the truth about 911 (although i do know some here knew and the official story is lies). I don't know all of the reasons, implications, and possibilites in the middle east. And I sure don't know the bigger plan, whether the be a N American union or whatever. And I have a degree in history and another MBA/economics, and I watch the news like a fiend. So despite all my tools and study, the way the world works is still SO far beyond my comprehension.
So when some 21-year old grunt brags about having it all figured out, please, in advance, please STFU already. Cause you don't. And just like me, you never will.
I also have a degree in history and am working on my Masters in Political Science. I am also a member of the United States Army Reserves. What your saying is absolutely correct. We are seeing a paradigm shift away from the way that wars were being fought. Economic warfare between nations has replaced direct military action. This applies to large powerful nations. Wars are being fought and have been fought since the cold war against poorer nations mainly for positioning and the aquisition of valueable resources by which to encourage industry
-
great posts both of you
traditional warfare is obsolate because of advanced weaponry like nuclear capabilities ... when push comes to shove we can blow up the world 10x over and nobody wants to see that (well thats a stretch, im not convinved that certain people wouldnt like to see an 80% population reduction)
the idea of the us government killing 3k of its own may seem absurd at first, but when you think of the 3k amreekans who volunteered to die in iraq, the 60k who died in vietnam ... does it reall matter that 3k (involuntarily) gave their lives for (y)our future?
-
great posts both of you
traditional warfare is obsolate because of advanced weaponry like nuclear capabilities ... when push comes to shove we can blow up the world 10x over and nobody wants to see that (well thats a stretch, im not convinved that certain people wouldnt like to see an 80% population reduction)
the idea of the us government killing 3k of its own may seem absurd at first, but when you think of the 3k amreekans who volunteered to die in iraq, the 60k who died in vietnam ... does it reall matter that 3k (involuntarily) gave their lives for (y)our future?
A lot of things would have been different if they had kept the military intact. I am certain there were a lot of bad guys in the Iraqi military but they would have understood the quickest way to maintain order. Generals and soldiers are forced to do what commanders instruct them to do. We all make an pledge. It is no surprise that many generals turned down flat the opportunity to fill the new position of war czar. The position of War Czar is scary for two reasons, first is demonstrates that the current policy makers do not have a handle on the situation and it also indicates that the "global war on terror" is going to continue for some time beyond the current administration. I wonder if creating the war czar is an attempt to distance policy from political parties. Blame is ultimately shifted towards a third party and not a particular political party who might be effected in future elections by the fall out of bad policy. Just my opinions.
-
nobody wants ownership of this war, even tho all parties reap the benefits (oil and position) and the pitfalls (world hatred and lost soldiers/$).
Bush and friends are the face of it, but the thinktanks and economists are the ones who strongly advised it. Bush and friends had to go on tv and sell the mushroom cloud scare, cause a group of nerds explaining longterm economics wouldn't have motivated folks to support the war. but fear? that'll do it!!
Dems support it, and they now support bombing iran. it is what it is. A war czar would allow for another 9-months stretch of "blame it on incompetence". I mean, it's been 4 years, and people are still saying "it wasn't bushs fault, it was the generals.... this new plan will WORK!"
It's asinine, but people buy the 'incompetence' card. The FAA supervisor destroying all the 911 recordings -> incompetence! WMD intel being cherry picked for congress? Incompetence!
In the pvt sector, incompetence gets you fired. In politics, people don't care, because they'd rather support their own wrong party, than the other guys when they're right on something.
-
scott ritter had a great point when he if a sports writer fucks up vince carters ppg avg he will be fired on the spot yet nobody cares when the mainstream media drops the ballon 911, war, terrorism etc
the same sort of philosophy applies to politics ... doesnt matter when the politicians lie about WMD, 911/saddam links but god forbid someone should get a blowjob or go on a compt vacation ::)
-
nobody wants ownership of this war, even tho all parties reap the benefits (oil and position) and the pitfalls (world hatred and lost soldiers/$).
Bush and friends are the face of it, but the thinktanks and economists are the ones who strongly advised it. Bush and friends had to go on tv and sell the mushroom cloud scare, cause a group of nerds explaining longterm economics wouldn't have motivated folks to support the war. but fear? that'll do it!!
Dems support it, and they now support bombing iran. it is what it is. A war czar would allow for another 9-months stretch of "blame it on incompetence". I mean, it's been 4 years, and people are still saying "it wasn't bushs fault, it was the generals.... this new plan will WORK!"
It's asinine, but people buy the 'incompetence' card. The FAA supervisor destroying all the 911 recordings -> incompetence! WMD intel being cherry picked for congress? Incompetence!
In the pvt sector, incompetence gets you fired. In politics, people don't care, because they'd rather support their own wrong party, than the other guys when they're right on something.
Your absolutely right, the PNAC, American Heritage Foundation and others have had their sights on Iraq for some time. Listening to some of them try to back pedal now is pretty sad.
-
But yeah, they also love America.
occums razor dosen't fit here..
selfish needs does..
-
IMO, they met their own needs decades ago.
Cheney is on a machine to keep his ticker going. He spends his days in meetings with a frown on his face. He's worth hundreds of millions. Most of us would be sipping pina coladas someplace warm, if we were in our 60s with that much money, not working the most stressful job on earth.
He spent the 90s negotiating with the taleban to give the US oil/gas rights in afghanistan, helped get them into power the minute he took office, then attacked them when they changed their mind and decided to give the oil contract to a S. American firm. He didn't need the money. But his actions were useful for longterm US energy goals.
Honestly, in 20 years or 100 years, when we look back, aside from the horror of 9/11 and the grudge the world will hold, the influence of Cheney will have meant stronger US position in that region, and another decade or two of energy supremacy for us that we couldn't have had without these wars.
-
IMO, they met their own needs decades ago.
Cheney is on a machine to keep his ticker going. He spends his days in meetings with a frown on his face. He's worth hundreds of millions. Most of us would be sipping pina coladas someplace warm, if we were in our 60s with that much money, not working the most stressful job on earth.
He spent the 90s negotiating with the taleban to give the US oil/gas rights in afghanistan, helped get them into power the minute he took office, then attacked them when they changed their mind and decided to give the oil contract to a S. American firm. He didn't need the money. But his actions were useful for longterm US energy goals.
Honestly, in 20 years or 100 years, when we look back, aside from the horror of 9/11 and the grudge the world will hold, the influence of Cheney will have meant stronger US position in that region, and another decade or two of energy supremacy for us that we couldn't have had without these wars.
But it is only a short to mid-term solution - we need to switch to the corn oil 240 you know that.
-
But it is only a short to mid-term solution - we need to switch to the corn oil 240 you know that.
We are. But the transition hit will be a big one. This year's planting season has the LARGEST corn planting in sixty years, for the specific reason that ethanol is coming. however, it'll take a few years for production to become cost effective, and it'll take longer to convert a half a billion cars, or spawn a whole new generation of vehicles. With the US dollar taking a beating in the world, a hit like that might put us into the recession we've been stifling since 2001.
My opinion is that we are using the oil from the mid east to enable this transitional time. We know the farmers all planted it last year - so they got their directive. And we know we took Iraq (and surrounded iran) - and that directive is pretty clear - use the oil from those nations.
All we want is a seamless transition. Without a surplus, the transition will be painful. Big Oil is gonna have to plunder to keep its head above water while the US energy infrastructure is converted, cause its refinery and exploration capacities will be reduced by the resource shift. Simple as that.
-
Mean while there is chaos in iraq, possibly iran - what is the total toll in human casualties for the iraq war, I wonder if they think it was worth it.
-
Mean while there is chaos in iraq, possibly iran - what is the total toll in human casualties for the iraq war, I wonder if they think it was worth it.
the earth has too many people. there is a trend by the higher thinkers to gradually reduce the 6 billion number. population controls like birth control and education are used, as are techniques like "let them kill each other" and "don't treat this disease".
It's in OUR interests for there not to be 6 billion people on earth, so population decline is in our best interests too. Whether people in Iran live to 15 and die violently, or live to 75 and die peacefully doesn't affect 300 million Americans. Have you noticed trends? Half of Africa has AIDS? Have you seen the population decline in Iraq? The population in the US has leveled off. This is by design. Discouraging folks in Africa (who have 5 or 8 kids they can't feed) from breeding ain't a bad thing. Since they don't take our word for it on a micro scale, we make the changes on a MACRO scale. One or two policy shifts at the CDC mean 100 million Africans don't reproduce. make sense?
-
Bush redefined success in Iraq a few days ago.
"Success is not, no violence. There are parts of our own country that have got a certain level of violence to it. But success is a level of violence where the people feel comfortable about living their daily lives. And that’s what we’re trying to achieve."
From building a democratic state in the middle east to this. What a tard and waste of lives. :-\
We were much better off with a President that was screwing an intern than one that is screwing the whole country.
-
It's in OUR interests for there not to be 6 billion people on earth, so population decline is in our best interests too. Whether people in Iran live to 15 and die violently, or live to 75 and die peacefully doesn't affect 300 million Americans. Have you noticed trends? Half of Africa has AIDS? Have you seen the population decline in Iraq? The population in the US has leveled off. This is by design.
do you NOW believe in masonic control?
-
IMO, they met their own needs decades ago.
Cheney is on a machine to keep his ticker going. He spends his days in meetings with a frown on his face. He's worth hundreds of millions. Most of us would be sipping pina coladas someplace warm, if we were in our 60s with that much money, not working the most stressful job on earth.
my dad can retire yesterday..
the man wake up at 5 every day and comes home at 1 pm..eats..takes a nap and then goes back to work till 8 pm..
i cant do it..
power is addicting..
like cheney wants to be just another old fart on another pleasure island..
-
do you NOW believe in masonic control?
No, but I find conspiracists endlessly entertaining. :)
-
do you NOW believe in masonic control?
i haven't studied that, and i don't have the time or energy to do it.
But I know there is some group which is managing the direction of the world. Without em, the earth would probably burn out sooner. I can't imagine this planet in 2100, with 15 or 20 billion people, no oil, two billion cars that won't run, and China overrunning the place.
-
...
But I know there is some group which is managing the direction of the world. ...
Sounds like the beginning of a new religion. Go for it, muchas dinero to be made. :D
-
the earth has too many people. there is a trend by the higher thinkers to gradually reduce the 6 billion number. population controls like birth control and education are used, as are techniques like "let them kill each other" and "don't treat this disease".
It's in OUR interests for there not to be 6 billion people on earth, so population decline is in our best interests too. Whether people in Iran live to 15 and die violently, or live to 75 and die peacefully doesn't affect 300 million Americans. Have you noticed trends? Half of Africa has AIDS? Have you seen the population decline in Iraq? The population in the US has leveled off. This is by design. Discouraging folks in Africa (who have 5 or 8 kids they can't feed) from breeding ain't a bad thing. Since they don't take our word for it on a micro scale, we make the changes on a MACRO scale. One or two policy shifts at the CDC mean 100 million Africans don't reproduce. make sense?
Have you heard of birth control and yes - dare I say it - abortion. The right wing idiots in the US insist that the only preventitive measure for pregnancy (and AIDS) is abstinence. These people have just as much of a right to live as anyone in the US, it is not thier fault that they were born into poor/developing countries.
-
Have you heard of birth control and yes - dare I say it - abortion. The right wing idiots in the US insist that the only preventitive measure for pregnancy (and AIDS) is abstinence. These people have just as much of a right to live as anyone in the US, it is not thier fault that they were born into poor/developing countries.
I agree that abstinence is just plain silly, especially since the quality of food increase (and hormones) mean today's kids are bigger and more aggressive (and therefore hornier from higher hormone levels) than ever, and sex is gonna happen.
Those right wing idiots are just pandering to their extremist base, the religious nutjobs who don't believe in evolution.
-
I agree that abstinence is just plain silly, especially since the quality of food increase (and hormones) mean today's kids are bigger and more aggressive (and therefore hornier from higher hormone levels) than ever, and sex is gonna happen.
Those right wing idiots are just pandering to their extremist base, the religious nutjobs who don't believe in evolution.
Sounds like a job for natural selection right there.
-
240..I'm right wing and u need to separate the religious conservatives from the rest of us. While they are pretty powerful they don't represent most of us. Evolution is a theory with a billion holes but its much better then 'god did it just like the bible says".
-
240..I'm right wing and u need to separate the religious conservatives from the rest of us. While they are pretty powerful they don't represent most of us. Evolution is a theory with a billion holes but its much better then 'god did it just like the bible says".
I agree. But that extreme right group do vote in blocks, based upon which candidate is the furthest right. And since the repub field is so splintered (no candidate has even a quarter of the votes currently), whoever can grab the extreme religious block will grab the nomination - even if it means alienating 50%+ of his OWN party doing it.
Once he gets the nod, he'll back off earlier statements and position to appear more centrist to the general population, but his promises to the religious right on supreme court nominees, etc, will remain quiet and intact.
-
I agree. But that extreme right group do vote in blocks, based upon which candidate is the furthest right. And since the repub field is so splintered (no candidate has even a quarter of the votes currently), whoever can grab the extreme religious block will grab the nomination - even if it means alienating 50%+ of his OWN party doing it.
Once he gets the nod, he'll back off earlier statements and position to appear more centrist to the general population, but his promises to the religious right on supreme court nominees, etc, will remain quiet and intact.
On this note, I was watching a television program where a high ranking republican offical said that elected officals had a responsibility only to those people who elect them. As long as they have there support the rest of american matters very little. Voting blocks are intergal to becoming reelected. Think tanks figure this one out in the seventies. Its much to difficult to appeal to every one. Its much easy to manipulate fears of certain groups. For example, threaten to take away your guns, the abortions issue, burning the flag.....ect
-
Which in a nutshell is way nothing ever gets done.