03-08-09 01:51 PM
387 ... 45678 ...
tools
  1. drjay868's Avatar
    Pathmo and exalant... I appreciate the debate and fully respect your opinions. I just don't agree. And the way it looks, it doesn't matter what any of us say, we're not about to change our minds. Hopefully, we can all just keep an open mind.

    Prada is absolutely right. Like it or not, he won and we all just need to support him and hope for the best. I may not think he's the best for the job, but I'm not going to do anything to undermind something that is working. Its simply too early to tell, and my early feelings are not optimistic.

    Fence also brings up good points. It is interesting to see that we're such a powerful global force that so many other markets are directly affected by ours.

    And that's all I have to say about that.
    02-27-09 03:35 PM
  2. exelant's Avatar
    It's the question that draws me, Doc. Our's is the fundamental debate from the founding of our Republic. While I staked out a position, I do believe the solution to the economic problems we face lay somewhere between us.

    Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com
    02-27-09 06:58 PM
  3. zoi's Avatar
    I think Obama is a complete *****.
    He's untrustworthy, has already spent too much money for something that he shouldn't of and I hate him.
    The end.

    Nobama please.

    The way I look at things now, we might as well kill ourselves.
    We're screwed.
    This is a depression, I don't care what people say.
    It's no recession.
    It IS a depression.

    EDIT: since when does CB censor the word id*ot
    02-27-09 10:36 PM
  4. exelant's Avatar
    So how do you really feel Zoi . Seriously, this whole thread kills me. People act as if the President caused this economic meltdown. Plenty of people are to blame on both sides, but the bottom line is greed got us here and now we have to pay for it. If you're right Zoi and it is a depression, what would you do about it? There aren't a whole lot of options at this point. I'm not with the let it burn crowd, I don't think any of us are prepared for what the world would be like if that happened. I am willing to give the guy a chance to fix something he did not cause.

    Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com
    02-28-09 07:06 AM
  5. Mr Bigs's Avatar
    I think Obama is a complete *****.
    He's untrustworthy, has already spent too much money for something that he shouldn't of and I hate him.
    The end.

    Nobama please.

    The way I look at things now, we might as well kill ourselves.
    We're screwed.
    This is a depression, I don't care what people say.
    It's no recession.
    It IS a depression.

    EDIT: since when does CB censor the word id*ot
    Is that the best you could come up with ??? I'm sure he hates you too. Answer me this what about the dipstick President who left office and pretty much busted this country for nothing but greed. Also what would happen if Obama spent nothing at all and let everything spiral down. This is not a depression or their would be bars on your windows if you still owned a home.
    Last edited by Leo J; 02-28-09 at 09:37 AM.
    02-28-09 09:29 AM
  6. Mr Bigs's Avatar
    So how do you really feel Zoi . Seriously, this whole thread kills me. People act as if the President caused this economic meltdown. Plenty of people are to blame on both sides, but the bottom line is greed got us here and now we have to pay for it. If you're right Zoi and it is a depression, what would you do about it? There aren't a whole lot of options at this point. I'm not with the let it burn crowd, I don't think any of us are prepared for what the world would be like if that happened. I am willing to give the guy a chance to fix something he did not cause.

    Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com
    That is the point I'm making about these kids coming in here and posting B.S. How much did this damn war cost us and what did we accomplish ?
    02-28-09 09:39 AM
  7. Storm7's Avatar
    7, You say you're not about labels, and then start attaching them to people. Liberal, wow, ouch, oh that hurt . You know nothing about me, and if you did, you know how laughable that label is. But if it helps you put some sense to the mess we're in, be my guest. Jimmy Carter?! The poor guy was sure busy during his term, the one where even his own party abandoned him. How about we look at some more of the real culprits:
    Angleo MoziloThe son of a butcher, Mozilo co-founded Countrywide in 1969 and built it into the largest mortgage lender in the U.S. Countrywide wasn't the first to offer exotic mortgages to borrowers with a questionable ability to repay them. In its all-out embrace of such sales, however, it did legitimize the notion that practically any adult could handle a big fat mortgage. In the wake of the housing bust, which toppled Countrywide and IndyMac Bank(another company Mozilo started), the executive's lavish pay package was criticized by many, including Congress. Mozilo left Countrywide last summer after its rescue-sale to Bank of America. A few months later, BofA said it would spend up to $8.7 billion to settle predatory lending charges against Countrywide filed by 11 state attorneys general.*Joe CassanoBefore the financial-sector meltdown, few people had ever heard of credit-default swaps (CDS). They are insurance contracts — or, if you prefer, wagers — that a company will pay its debt. As a founding member of AIG's financial-products unit, Cassano, who ran the group until he stepped down in early 2008, knew them quite well. In good times, AIG's massive CDS-issuance business minted money for the insurer's other companies. But those same contracts turned out to be at the heart of AIG's downfall and subsequent taxpayer rescue. So far, the U.S. government has invested and lent $150 billion to keep AIG afloat.*Frank RainesThe mess that Fannie Mae has become is the progeny of many parents: Congress, which created Fannie in 1938 and loaded it down with responsibilities; President Lyndon Johnson, who in 1968 pushed it halfway out the government nest and into a problematic part-private, part-public role in an attempt to reduce the national debt; and Jim Johnson, who presided over Fannie's spectacular growth in the 1990s. But it was Johnson's successor, Raines, who was at the helm when things really went off course. A former Clinton Administration Budget Director, Raines was the first African-American CEO of a Fortune 500 company when he took the helm in 1999. He left in 2004 with the company embroiled in an accounting scandal just as it was beginning to make big investments in subprime mortgage securities that would later sour. Last year Fannie and rival Freddie Mac became wards of the state.***** FuldThe mess that Fannie Mae has become is the progeny of many parents: Congress, which created Fannie in 1938 and loaded it down with responsibilities; President Lyndon Johnson, who in 1968 pushed it halfway out the government nest and into a problematic part-private, part-public role in an attempt to reduce the national debt; and Jim Johnson, who presided over Fannie's spectacular growth in the 1990s. But it was Johnson's successor, Raines, who was at the helm when things really went off course. A former Clinton Administration Budget Director, Raines was the first African-American CEO of a Fortune 500 company when he took the helm in 1999. He left in 2004 with the company embroiled in an accounting scandal just as it was beginning to make big investments in subprime mortgage securities that would later sour. Last year Fannie and rival Freddie Mac became wards of the state.*Bernie MadoffHis alleged Ponzi scheme could inflict $50 billion in losses on society types, retirees and nonprofits. The bigger cost for America comes from the notion that Madoff pulled off the biggest financial fraud in history right under the noses of regulators. Assuming it's all true, the banks and hedge funds that neglected due diligence were stupid and paid for it, while the managers who fed him clients' money — the so-called feeders — were reprehensibly greedy. But to reveal government and industry regulators as grossly incompetent casts a shadow of doubt far and wide, which crimps the free flow of investment capital. That will make this downturn harder on us all.*Stan O'NealMerrill Lynch's celebrated CEO for nearly six years, ending in 2007, he guided the firm from its familiar turf — fee businesses like asset management — into the lucrative game of creating collateralized debt obligations (CDOs), which were largely made of subprime mortgage bonds. To provide a steady supply of the bonds — the raw pork for his booming sausage business —O'Neal allowed Merrill to load up on the bonds and keep them on its books. By June 2006, Merrill had amassed $41 billion in subprime CDOs and mortgage bonds, according to Fortune. As the subprime market unwound, Merrill went into crisis, and Bank of America swooped in to buy it.*John DevanyHedge funds played an important role in the shift to sloppy mortgage lending. By buying up mortgage loans, Devaney and other hedge-fund managers made it profitable for lenders to make questionable loans and then sell them off. Hedge funds were more than willing to swallow the risk in exchange for the promise of fat returns. Devaney wasn't just a big buyer of mortgage bonds — he had his own $600 million fund devoted to buying risky loans — he was one of its cheerleaders. Worse, Devaney knew the loans he was funding were bad for consumers. In early 2007, talking about option ARM mortgages, he told Money, "The consumer has to be an ***** to take on one of those loans, but it has been one of our best-performing investments.*Sandy WeillWho decided banks had to be all things to all customers? Weill did. Starting with a low-end lender in Baltimore, he cobbled together the first great financial supermarket, Citigroup. Along the way, Weill's acquisitions (Smith Barney, Travelers, etc.) and persistent lobbying shattered Glass-Steagall, the law that limited the investing risks banks could take. Rivals followed Citi. The swollen banks are now one of the country's major economic problems. Every major financial firm seems too big to fail, leading the government to spend hundreds of billions of dollars to keep them afloat. The biggest problem bank is Weill's Citigroup. The government has already spent $45 billion trying to fix it.Jimmy CayneWho decided banks had to be all things to all customers? Weill did. Starting with a low-end lender in Baltimore, he cobbled together the first great financial supermarket, Citigroup. Along the way, Weill's acquisitions (Smith Barney, Travelers, etc.) and persistent lobbying shattered Glass-Steagall, the law that limited the investing risks banks could take. Rivals followed Citi. The swollen banks are now one of the country's major economic problems. Every major financial firm seems too big to fail, leading the government to spend hundreds of billions of dollars to keep them afloat. The biggest problem bank is Weill's Citigroup. The government has already spent $45 billion trying to fix it.George BushFrom the start, Bush embraced a governing philosophy of deregulation. That trickled down to federal oversight agencies, which in turn eased off on banks and mortgage brokers. Bush did push early on for tighter controls over Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, but he failed to move Congress. After the Enron scandal, Bush backed and signed the aggressively regulatory Sarbanes-Oxley Act. But SEC head William Donaldson tried to boost regulation of mutual and hedge funds, he was blocked by Bush's advisers at the White House as well as other powerful Republicans and quit. Plus, let's face it, the meltdown happened on Bush's watch. Alan GreenspanFrom the start, Bush embraced a governing philosophy of deregulation. That trickled down to federal oversight agencies, which in turn eased off on banks and mortgage brokers. Bush did push early on for tighter controls over Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, but he failed to move Congress. After the Enron scandal, Bush backed and signed the aggressively regulatory Sarbanes-Oxley Act. But SEC head William Donaldson tried to boost regulation of mutual and hedge funds, he was blocked by Bush's advisers at the White House as well as other powerful Republicans and quit. Plus, let's face it, the meltdown happened on Bush's watch.*Chris CoxThe ex-SEC chief's blindness to repeated allegations of fraud in the Madoff scandal is mind-blowing, but it's really his lax enforcement that lands him on this list. Cox says his agency lacked authority to limit the massive leveraging that set up last year's financial collapse. In truth, the SEC had plenty of power to go after big investment banks like Lehman Brothers and Merrill Lynch for better disclosure, but it chose not to. Cox oversaw the dwindling SEC staff and a sharp drop in action against some traders.*Hank PaulsenWhen Paulson left the top job at Goldman Sachs to become Treasury Secretary in 2006, his big concern was whether he'd have an impact. He ended up almost single-handedly running the country's economic policy for the last year of the Bush Administration. Impact? You bet. Positive? Not yet. The three main gripes against Paulson are that he was late to the party in battling the financial crisis, letting Lehman Brothers fail was a big mistake and the big bailout bill he pushed through Congress has been a wasteful mess.*David LereahWhen the chief economist at the National Association of Realtors, an industry trade group, tells you the housing market is going to keep on chugging forever, you listen with a grain of salt. But Lereah, who held the position through early 2007, did more than issue rosy forecasts. He regularly trumpeted the infallibility of housing as an investment in interviews, on TV and in his 2005 book, Are You Missing the Real Estate Boom?. Lereah says he grew concerned about the direction of the market in 2006, but consider his January 2007 statement: "It appears we have established a bottom."

    Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com
    Your mean your rebuttal is some copied and pasted article? How about the next time you provide a link and let me read it for myself. If you're going to do that, next time could you break into paragraphs...It sure would make it easier to read. On more than one occasion I read the same thing twice. I high lighted the duplications for your convenience.

    Who in their right mind would have voted for Jimmy Carter again? You mean the same Jimmy Carter that gave us double-digit inflation and interest rates in excess of 18% and an unemployment rate at 10 percent. You mean the same spineless weak leader that allowed the Iranians to hold Americans hostage for 444 days? Thank God for Ronald Reagan! Don't you see the same parallel's with B O? What were looking at now is Jimmy Carter part II and he goes by the name of Barack Obama. He wants to push the same liberal/socialist agenda that America rejected under Carter. You have as president someone who wants to be an appeaser to the Islamic terrorists and State (Iran and Syria) sponsors of terrorism. He wants to sit down with the mad jihad or Iran (Armadinajad) and the terrrorist's leaders of Hamas and Hezbollah. You don't negotiate with these homicidal people, you crush them! I couldn't imagine being in the military and having to serve under this guy. The same guy who voted NOT to fund our troops when we are at war, the same guy who couldn't even admit that the surge in Iraq worked...He was to beholden to the far-left anti-war looney liberals to admit that. The Democrats and B O did everything they could to undermind our men and women serving by making comments such as the war in Iraq was a lost cause. Could you imagine being in the military are hearing that BS? And now that the violence is down considerably in Iraq, where is the liberal media at now? They're completely SILENT.
    Last edited by Storm7; 02-28-09 at 10:24 AM.
    02-28-09 10:14 AM
  8. exelant's Avatar
    Your mean your rebuttal is some copied and pasted article? How about the next time you provide a link and let me read it for myself. If you're going to do that, next time could you break into paragraphs...It sure would make it easier to read. On more than one occasion I read the same thing twice. I high lighted the duplications for your convenience.

    Who in their right mind would have voted for Jimmy Carter again? You mean the same Jimmy Carter that gave us double-digit inflation and interest rates in excess of 18% and an unemployment rate at 10 percent. You mean the same spineless weak leader that allowed the Iranians to hold Americans hostage for 444 days? Thank God for Ronald Reagan! Don't you see the same parallel's with B O? What were looking at now is Jimmy Carter part II and he goes by the name of Barack Obama. He wants to push the same liberal/socialist agenda that America rejected under Carter. You have as president someone who wants to be an appeaser to the Islamic terrorists and State (Iran and Syria) sponsors of terrorism. He wants to sit down with the mad jihad or Iran (Armadinajad) and the terrrorist's leaders of Hamas and Hezbollah. You don't negotiate with these homicidal people, you crush them! I couldn't imagine being in the military and having to serve under this guy. The same guy who voted NOT to fund our troops when we are at war, the same guy who couldn't even admit that the surge in Iraq worked...He was to beholden to the far-left anti-war looney liberals to admit that. The Democrats and B O did everything they could to undermind our men and women serving by making comments such as the war in Iraq was a lost cause. Could you imagine being in the military are hearing that BS? And now that the violence is down considerably in Iraq, where is the liberal media at now? They're completely SILENT.
    I wish I could have done a better editing job for you, but I was on wap and it is so hard to format with the 8900. Of course I pasted some stuff, the information was accurate. And once again we are forced to endure your revisionist history blaming Carter. Jimmy Carter's presidency was a failure and he paid the price for it by losing his second election, fyi, I voted for Ford and Ronnie the first time. Haha, 7, you have it all worked out in your mind what my politics are and what label to put on me, too bad you don't have a clue.

    I know what it's like to hear rumors while in the military, but when I served, we were in the last war fought on credit. I don't know if it would really do any good to debate with someone who has all the facts in front of him, but can't see the truth to save his a$$. Conspiracies with the "liberal" media, commies behind every Bush (pun intended), and blame the guy who only had 4 years in office. Sheesh, rant away, man. There isn't anything I can say that'll change your mind.

    EDIT: I went back and cleaned the post up for you Seven.
    Last edited by exelant; 02-28-09 at 11:20 AM.
    02-28-09 10:52 AM
  9. Storm7's Avatar
    People simply aren't listening to what he is saying. They watch his lips move and put what they want to hear in his mouth. A great part of our troubles are not from the mortgages going bad, 97% of all mortgage payments are being made and being made on time. The problem is the investment instruments created from the sub-prime mortgages that the banks invested in after Clinton signed into law the Republican created bill ending the Depression-era Glass-Steagall Act - this in turn allowed them to gamble with depositor's money. Many of us get it, but as much as some want to say let it burn, many would not like the results. It is the truth that the Government is the only entity big enough to do something about it. It is also a fact that if you make less than 250K, your taxes ARE going down. Give the guy a chance to try something, anything. I'm set, I have had the same employer for 30 years and could go home tomorrow on early retirement, I have worked hard my whole life, but it would horrible for our country to have. Those 25% unemployment rates. It truly is pay now or pay later. Keep people in their jobs, or invest in soup kitchens. What do we want to see in our future because we are at the edge of the cliff and slogans won't work any longer. As FDR said,
    "Take a method and try it. If it fails, admit it frankly, and try another. But by all means, try something

    One thing is sure. We have to do something. We have to do the best we know how at the moment... If it doesn't turn out right, we can modify it as we go along"

    Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com
    I listened very closely to what this guy said when he was campaigning and what he say's now that he is in office. He's spending money that we don't have like there's no tomorrow. With the majorities in the Democrats favor and a few turn coat Republicans in the senate, his socialist agenda is rolling right along. George Bush started this crap with the bailouts and B O is going to expand it exponentially.

    It's more like 93 percent, not 97 percent of mortgages being paid on time...but I get your point. Let's see, how do we reward those responsible homeowners. I know, the government is going to force those who lived with in their means to sacrafice more through higher taxes to bail out unscrupulous lenders and irresponsible borrowers.

    The sub-prime market was created through the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977. The primary role of this act was to allow lower income people into homes. Another great liberal intention but look at the results. You force banks to lend money to people who are a poor credit risk and what's the end result, disaster.
    02-28-09 10:56 AM
  10. Storm7's Avatar
    I wish I could have done a better editing job for you, but I was on wap and it is so hard to format with the 8900. Of course I pasted some stuff, the information was accurate. And once again we are forced to endure your revisionist history blaming Carter. Jimmy Carter's presidency was a failure and he paid the price for it by losing his second election, fyi, I voted for Ford and Ronnie the first time. Haha, 7, you have it all worked out in your mind what my politics are and what label to put on me, too bad you don't have a clue.

    I know what it's like to hear rumors while in the military, but when I served, we were in the last war fought on credit. I don't know if it would really do any good to debate with someone who has all the facts in front of him, but can see the truth to save his a$$. Conspiracies with the "liberal" media, commies behind every Bush (pun intended), and blame the guy who only had 4 years in office. Sheesh, rant away, man. There isn't anything I can say that'll change your mind.
    Far from a rant, just stating the obvious. I'm not blaming Carter for the situation we are in now, I'm just showing the parallel's between Carter and Obama...weak, spend like there's no tommorrow leaders are a disaster. My friend, he who forgets their history is doomed to repeat it.
    Last edited by Storm7; 02-28-09 at 11:18 AM.
    02-28-09 11:10 AM
  11. Fence's Avatar
    Your mean your rebuttal is some copied and pasted article? How about the next time you provide a link and let me read it for myself. If you're going to do that, next time could you break into paragraphs...It sure would make it easier to read. On more than one occasion I read the same thing twice. I high lighted the duplications for your convenience.

    Who in their right mind would have voted for Jimmy Carter again? You mean the same Jimmy Carter that gave us double-digit inflation and interest rates in excess of 18% and an unemployment rate at 10 percent. You mean the same spineless weak leader that allowed the Iranians to hold Americans hostage for 444 days? Thank God for Ronald Reagan! Don't you see the same parallel's with B O? What were looking at now is Jimmy Carter part II and he goes by the name of Barack Obama. He wants to push the same liberal/socialist agenda that America rejected under Carter. You have as president someone who wants to be an appeaser to the Islamic terrorists and State (Iran and Syria) sponsors of terrorism. He wants to sit down with the mad jihad or Iran (Armadinajad) and the terrrorist's leaders of Hamas and Hezbollah. You don't negotiate with these homicidal people, you crush them! I couldn't imagine being in the military and having to serve under this guy. The same guy who voted NOT to fund our troops when we are at war, the same guy who couldn't even admit that the surge in Iraq worked...He was to beholden to the far-left anti-war looney liberals to admit that. The Democrats and B O did everything they could to undermind our men and women serving by making comments such as the war in Iraq was a lost cause. Could you imagine being in the military are hearing that BS? And now that the violence is down considerably in Iraq, where is the liberal media at now? They're completely SILENT.
    Amazing; Rush Limbaugh is a CrackBerry addict too ( hey; at least it's BETTER to be addicted to something such as CrackBerry and your BlackBerry...isn't it Rush? Mr. Limbaugh; you should know what I'm referring to...medication is ONLY meant to alleviate/vanquish ailments. ;-) ).

    Mr. Limbaugh...diplomacy; rather than silence or aggression; is the best proactive step to FIRST take towards working with a group of persons/individual. 'Crushing' people should neither be the first, second or third step. The ramifications of a comic book/video game-style wielding of power doesn't work as such in reality (particularly in a 21st Century reality).

    So not to come across as a broken record; there's no need to reiterate the point again after this...but remind yourself (as reality reminds so many, in so many ways)...what the actions/inactions of the President the past eight years have placed us in domestically and internationally.

    It's the same 'crush' this; 'crush' that mentality...it's the same 'for the moment' approach to things; that has deteriorated so many aspects of domestic and international well-being. That is the methodology that was acted on by the administration/President the past eight years unfortunately. What you're suggesting is the same 'recent-not-so-old'.
    Last edited by Fence; 02-28-09 at 11:16 AM.
    02-28-09 11:13 AM
  12. Storm7's Avatar
    How many times did they attack us before we finally got the message that they were at war with us? To name a few, lets start with the first bombing of the World Trade Center in 1993, that didn't get our attention. In 1998, US embassies in Africa were simultaneously bombed. In 2000, the USS Cole was attacked and 17 sailors were killed by homicidal bombers. Let's move forward to 9/11, somewhere in the range of 3,000 innocent Americans were slaughtered. Did that get your attention? When an enemy tells you that they want to destroy you and your way of living, if you don't act preemptively you are derilect in your duty to protect your nation.
    02-28-09 12:00 PM
  13. jdoc77's Avatar
    Yo fence.. you have to know your "enemy" in order to deal with them. This is why cross cultural understanding is so important.

    There is a 4 tier scale of alien-ness or other-ness of thought that goes something like this.

    1. Simple mis-understanding. Two opposing viewpoints, but able to reason with one another based on common core philosophies, whatever differences exist.

    2. Simple core mis-understanding. Two opposing view points where at least one party has a core philosophy that differs from the other. Common ground still exists based on other over-arching core philosophies.

    3. Complex core mis-understanding. One of the opposing parties has a set of core beliefs that is at odds with the entire set of the opposition. Common ground is not impossible based on other inter-related, or even shared needs.

    4. Complete core mis-understanding. One of the parties holds as its core that the opposing party is unfit to reason with, and or is completely unable/unwilling to admit it's possible to reason with the opposition.

    I hate to bring up holocaust deniers and baby killers.... but what we are dealing with when we talk about "fundamentalist terrorists" are people in the 4th category. People who refuse to even acknowledge that the opposition (um.. us) are worth of being reasoned with in any way. This is different that saying all terrorists are bad and should be killed. It is saying that fundamentalist terrorists hold as their core principle that the West is not to be dealt with from any position but one of strength and destruction.

    This is not the desperate cry of an under-powered, economically starved minority. This is a cry every bit as sinister as Eugenics... it calls for the destruction of the opposition... and sadly, as the opposition, we can't exactly reason with people in category #4. ...Except by show of force. It's not us who has no option, it's them who has allowed us no option.
    02-28-09 01:10 PM
  14. exelant's Avatar
    How many times did they attack us before we finally got the message that they were at war with us? To name a few, lets start with the first bombing of the World Trade Center in 1993, that didn't get our attention. In 1998, US embassies in Africa were simultaneously bombed. In 2000, the USS Cole was attacked and 17 sailors were killed by homicidal bombers. Let's move forward to 9/11, somewhere in the range of 3,000 innocent Americans were slaughtered. Did that get your attention? When an enemy tells you that they want to destroy you and your way of living, if you don't act preemptively you are derilect in your duty to protect your nation.
    We absolutely must act decisively. I don't believe anyone is looking for a withdrawal from Afghanistan. The Iraq war, however, did nothing to make us safer and did quite a bit to make us less safe. When Saddam was in power, he kept the Iranians somewhat distracted, and they are, last time I looked, the backers of Hamas and the Hezbollah. One must ask oneself how are we to fight a war with these enemies, along with the stateless Al Qaeda? We can attack them in Afghanistan and Pakistan, but otherwise they are too elusive for the military to confront.

    The only effective strategy we have is police work. As the good doctor pointed out - and I think we all agree, one cannot reason with such an enemy. We must find them where they live in their isolated cells and arrest them. That also means having good relationships with our allies so that we can all work together to root these people out into the open. The Spanish have shown us this can work. After the Madrid train system bombing, the Spanish have had zero attacks by Muslim extremists.

    The Spanish learned that to apprehend accused terrorists and put them on trial with full due process rights before putting them in cages for life will keep their citizens safe. A result of this policy of using law enforcement is that there has not been another terrorist attack in Spain for five years. This is the future for all Western nations under attack by the extremist - and we need to work together to get the job done. We need to give our military a rest and let them prepare for what lies ahead, like North Korea and Iran.
    Last edited by exelant; 02-28-09 at 02:13 PM.
    02-28-09 02:08 PM
  15. Storm7's Avatar
    We absolutely must act decisively. I don't believe anyone is looking for a withdrawal from Afghanistan. The Iraq war, however, did nothing to make us safer and did quite a bit to make us less safe. When Saddam was in power, he kept the Iranians somewhat distracted, and they are, last time I looked, the backers of Hamas and the Hezbollah. One must ask oneself how are we to fight a war with these enemies, along with the stateless Al Qaeda? We can attack them in Afghanistan and Pakistan, but otherwise they are too elusive for the military to confront.

    The only effective strategy we have is police work. As the good doctor pointed out - and I think we all agree, one cannot reason with such an enemy. We must find them where they live in their isolated cells and arrest them. That also means having good relationships with our allies so that we can all work together to root these people out into the open. The Spanish have shown us this can work. After the Madrid train system bombing, the Spanish have had zero attacks by Muslim extremists.

    The Spanish learned that to apprehend accused terrorists and put them on trial with full due process rights before putting them in cages for life will keep their citizens safe. A result of this policy of using law enforcement is that there has not been another terrorist attack in Spain for five years. This is the future for all Western nations under attack by the extremist - and we need to work together to get the job done. We need to give our military a rest and let them prepare for what lies ahead, like North Korea and Iran.
    There are pros and cons of the Iraq war. The war did destabilize the region by making Iran a more powerful and formidable opponent without the counter balance of Iraq and Saddam Hussein. Looking back on the war now, covert action to remove Saddam Hussein would have been a more effective way to deal with him without totally destroying their military. On the other hand, Saddam was a ruthless dictator who bombed and gassed his own people. At least now they are no longer ruled by dictatorship but have open and free elections. Whether or not if you want to admit it, Saddam had the potential and the ability to provide to the terrorists weapon's that could kill on a mass level, be it either chemical or biological that if provided to the terrorists and used in this country could have killed potentially thousands more here in America. So I applaud Bush for his actions and keeping America safe for the last seven plus years.

    When Clinton was President, we had knowledgeable intelligence on where the terrorists training camps were, but we did very little to confront and destroy them...That's until 9/11. To say that the only successful strategy for combating terrorism is through police work is naive at best. Yeah, that strategy may work for cells here already in America, but what about the terrorists we are fighting now on the battlefield? You want to give them full rights as citizens and haul them in front of a judge and jury for a trial? Since when do we give constitutional rights to terrorists captured on the battlefield? Thus the purpose of detaining such individuals on foreign soil (Guantanamo Bay) so as not to confer any constitutional rights to them. I'm sure those in the ACLU would just love this...They would be the first in line to defend the terrorists. That group should be renamed the Anti-American Civil Liberties Union. Our newly elected President signed an Executive Order within his first week in office to shut down Guantanamo Bay...Now how does that make America safer?
    02-28-09 03:33 PM
  16. Nycxice's Avatar
    Universal healthcare=BAD. People have the right to free healthcare to treat their condition called medicare..
    As a former 911 emt I can vouch for the fact that the 911 system is abused beyond belief by absolutely pointless calls by people both with and without health insurance. If you were to give people a free pass the call volume would shoot up. Its already on pace to set a record in NYC. Add in the fact of hiring freezes in all emergency services and we run into another problem where we don't have enough man power to respond to those "emergency" calls. Socialised healthcare is a nice idea. Just not a good one.

    Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com
    02-28-09 03:54 PM
  17. zoi's Avatar
    That is the point I'm making about these kids coming in here and posting B.S. How much did this damn war cost us and what did we accomplish ?

    Kids?
    Excuse me.
    I'm sorry some of us are ACTUALLY educated enough to complete a sentence.
    Most youth aren't intelligent enough to even know what the helll is going on.
    I hate when people classify all youth as being idiotic.

    Most of you on this website are stuck up wankers.
    02-28-09 11:38 PM
  18. exelant's Avatar
    That was a good smoke screen, 7, but when I mentioned police work, I was not talking about combatants captured on the battlefield. I was talking about terrorists arrested by law enforcement - FBI, CIA, Justice Department, ICE/Border Patrol, Secret Service, ATF, and all State and Local Agencies when needed. I don't know if you've noticed, but we're running out of battlefields for our armed forces to attack terrorists - or do you suggest we invade someone else? Nave or not, our military can only do so much. We have to stop them the old fashioned way, investigate and arrest them. You seem to minimize the danger of those small cells, but those were exact operations that Al Qaeda ran leading up to 9/11. I'm not sure how I would feel about not giving suspects arrested in the US any rights - I take it you don't want to give them any. Maybe we can do a little waterboarding, too.

    Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com
    02-28-09 11:51 PM
  19. Tlynnsmith's Avatar
    Kids?
    Excuse me.
    I'm sorry some of us are ACTUALLY educated enough to complete a sentence.
    Most youth aren't intelligent enough to even know what the helll is going on.
    I hate when people classify all youth as being idiotic.

    Most of you on this website are stuck up wankers.
    Well...be an example of the opposite, and not the stereotype you hate so much. You can start by not making foolish, childish statements, like the one above. If you're intelligent, then act like you've got some sense.
    02-28-09 11:58 PM
  20. WhiteGold's Avatar
    Nobama Nobama Nobama
    03-01-09 04:03 AM
  21. fla030's Avatar
    NObama. No further statements.
    N
    N

    Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com
    03-01-09 05:17 AM
  22. bbomlet's Avatar
    Short and sweet Obama:"I refuse to give our children a debt they cannot repay"
    Well how could he go out and push a plan through congress worth about 3/4 of a trillion dollars?
    There are only about 250 million tax paying americans! I personally would rather if I could spend my own
    money, instead of the government spend it for me.
    NOBAMA.

    PS. It doesn't make you a racist when you disagree with Obama.

    Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com
    03-01-09 05:41 AM
  23. Tlynnsmith's Avatar
    Short and sweet Obama:"I refuse to give our children a debt they cannot repay"
    Well how could he go out and push a plan through congress worth about 3/4 of a trillion dollars?
    There are only about 250 million tax paying americans! I personally would rather if I could spend my own
    money, instead of the government spend it for me.
    NOBAMA.

    PS. It doesn't make you a racist when you disagree with Obama.

    Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com
    No one said it did.
    03-01-09 07:07 AM
  24. bbomlet's Avatar
    No one said it did.
    I'm just saying a lot of people start by saying "I'm not racist" when disagreeing with Obama
    I feel that race is not applicable. He is our president, and people should not care if he is black, purple, white, or orange.
    Further than that, he does not get a pass, just like bush didn't or clinton for that matter.

    Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com
    03-01-09 07:53 AM
  25. Mr Bigs's Avatar
    Kids?
    Excuse me.
    I'm sorry some of us are ACTUALLY educated enough to complete a sentence.
    Most youth aren't intelligent enough to even know what the helll is going on.
    I hate when people classify all youth as being idiotic.

    Most of you on this website are stuck up wankers.
    Include yourself in that statement !!!! I hate him,I hate him,I hate him. You get the prize of being the first female ******.
    03-01-09 07:59 AM
387 ... 45678 ...
LINK TO POST COPIED TO CLIPBOARD