Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Udie on November 12, 2002, 11:26:05 AM
-
http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtribune/breaking_5.html
Don't know why but I always liked Ed Coch. Good introspecive (sp?) into the problems of the democratic party. Who knows you guys get rid of all the libs and maybe I'd even think about voting for a dem. :eek:
-
2004 is going to be another disappointment for the Democrats too.
-
Just that middle one I'm guessing..
OK Thrawn, this would have made sense if you hadn't deleted your post.
-
sure rip, cause the economy is really gonna take off now, you betcha! Saddam isnt going to gas a bunch of kids(you did read where they are looking for more Atrophine..Not for the population being gassed by us but by his using those WMD on our guys to protect his troops.
So, the economy is gonna pick up gangbusters, the war will be won with no loss of life. Remember, now that Reps have the White House, and both the Senate and House, then whatever happens, or doesnt happen is gonna lie on the Reps head. Only thing worse than losing can be winning. The next 2 years will define the Reps like no other time. If things go great, they will be back in, if things go badly, they may never be in again.
HC
-
Any Jellyfish….er…Democrat with any backbone would have voted against the use of military force on Iraq.
To kill people now because they may develop weapons and kill people in the future is absurd. Actually it’s insane.
People always whine about how terrible war is and then turn around and start another one!
Since this administration wants war so bad I’m fervently hoping that Saddam tells Shrub to stick his weapons inspectors up his ass. Then if the Iraqi people have the guts to defend their country we’ll have a good ‘un on our hands. Street-to-street fighting, carpet-bombing kindergartens, body bags piling up…wow this sounds exciting!
:)
-
Yeah, the Democrats are in for a long dry spell.
I just wish I was in that top 1 percent. Those guys are really gonna party!
-
Originally posted by hardcase
sure rip, cause the economy is really gonna take off now, you betcha! Saddam isnt going to gas a bunch of kids(you did read where they are looking for more Atrophine..Not for the population being gassed by us but by his using those WMD on our guys to protect his troops.
So, the economy is gonna pick up gangbusters, the war will be won with no loss of life. Remember, now that Reps have the White House, and both the Senate and House, then whatever happens, or doesnt happen is gonna lie on the Reps head. Only thing worse than losing can be winning. The next 2 years will define the Reps like no other time. If things go great, they will be back in, if things go badly, they may never be in again.
HC
What ever are you talking about Hardcase? I was speaking from a historical perspective..not knee-jerk emotional like you ;) what I find really funny is how the Dems are saying "Well they better do something NOW because they have control!" And my answer is "What should they do, should they do what the Dems in the Senate did for the past 2 years? ;)
On the heels of a shocking two-seat loss in lastTuesday's election, Senate
Democrats looking to win the chamber back in 2004 face decidedly long
odds.
Nineteen Democrats are up for re-election compared to 15 Republicans, a
drastic reversal from 2002, whenRepublicans had to defend 20 seats to
just 14 for Democrats.
And, although no Democrat up for re-election retired last cycle, a number
of Senators are pondering a departure this time. In addition, seven
Democrats up for re-election in 2004 received 55 percent or less in their
last race, making them likely targets for Republicans.
Only three Republicans who are up for re-election this cycle won their
1998 races with less than 55 percent of the vote.
Mitch Bainwol, executive director of the National Republican Senatorial
Committee, said that "2004 looks like a good opportunity to build on the
new majority."
Bainwol noted that "our class looks extremely strong and we are going to
see retirements on their side."
One Democratic strategist, while admitting 2004 is "another tough cycle,"
noted that there are "more genuine pickup opportunities in more
Democratic states than 2002."
President Bush carried 22 states that will hostSenate elections in 2004,
while Al Gore won 12.
Open seats will be the central focus of both senatorial campaign
committees, as Democrats seek to keep their retirements to a minimum in
order to preserve their chances of winning back the majority.
Leading the list of possible retirees is Sen. Fritz Hollings (D-S.C.), who will
be 82 years old on Election Day 2004 and will lose the chairmanship of the
Commerce Committee when the 108th Congress convenes.
Hollings broached the possibility that he might bow out Thursday in a
South Carolina newspaper.
"I'm not announcing yet; I'm thinking about it. I have a year or so to
make up my mind," he said.
Regardless of what Hollings does, a number of Republicans are waiting in
the wings to run for the seat, bolstered bytheir party's strong showing at
the ballot box last Tuesday. The GOP won the openSenate seat of retiring
Sen. Strom Thurmond (R) and knocked off Gov. JimHodges (D).
Leading the list of Republican aspirants is Rep. Joe Wilson, who won a
special election last December to replace deceased Rep. Floyd Spence (R)
in the 2nd district.
"Many people have approached the Congressman within the party
organization" about the Senate race, said Wilson spokesman Wesley
Denton. "They believe he would be the strongest candidate."
"It is too early to make a decision," Denton added, "but he is absolutely
going to listen."
Wilson was a longtime protege of Spence, organizing the late
Congressman's first Congressional campaign in 1970.
An attorney by trade, Wilson was elected to the South Carolina state
Senate in 1984, where he served until he was elected to replace Spence.
Wilson faced little competition in the Republican primary or the general
election to replace Spence.
Wilson had $51,000 in his campaign coffers throughOct. 16 but raised $1.3
million in the 2002 cycle. He faced only minor party opposition in
Tuesday's election.
If he runs for Senate, Wilson could face primary competition from within
the South Carolina Congressional delegation, however, as Rep.JimDeMint
(R) has also expressed an interest in a Senate bid.
"Jim would welcome the chance to run," said spokesman Dan Lara. "He
would run a campaign based on issues and ideas."
DeMint, who was elected to the UpCountry 4th district in 1998, pledged to
serve only three House terms, which would put him out of office after the
2004 election.
Other names being mentioned for the GOP nomination are former state
Attorney GeneralCharlie Condon, who ran unsuccessfully for governor in
2000, former Gov.David Beasley and former Rep.Tommy Hartnett.
If Hollings does retire, the Democratic bench is sparse.
Names being mentioned include 2000 Senate nominee Alex Sanders,
Columbia Mayor Bob Coble and state Sen. Luke Rankin. [/i]
http://www.rollcall.com/pages/politics/00/2002/11/pol1111b.html
-
Originally posted by blur
To kill people now because they may develop weapons and kill people in the future is absurd. Actually it’s insane.
do you treat your house for termites as you build it or after you move in and lose a wall?
today you cannot afford to wait until "after"
all we want is the goon in Iraq to follow the rules he agreed to 10 years ago and never did
we now have the leadership to make him or kill him or both
Today, the course of this is in saddams hands- no one else-
tomorrow er Friday - this will not be the case
-
A little known variant of a famous statement:
"Why risk killing a few people now when if we a just a lil bit patient we can risk the death of a many people later."
The more famous short version.
"Peace in our times!"
-
The logic is odd. "He may get the bomb."
We HAVE the bomb. Not only that; we INVENTED it. And we are the only nation on earth to use it to kill women and children.
-
Originally posted by easymo
The logic is odd. "He may get the bomb."
We HAVE the bomb. Not only that; we INVENTED it. And we are the only nation on earth to use it to kill women and children.
Actually, is "He WILL use the bomb"...thats the logic here. And, the women and children were collateral to the war itself, in Saddams case, this would be the specific target.
-
Rip. I simply have no reason to belive that. When I was a boy there where more than a few people around that wanted to bomb the Russians. Where do you think the phrase "preemptive strike" came from. The only reason they didn't, was that the Russians had a bomb also.
-
Lighting up oil wells in order to create (what he thought would create) a "winter" effect on the globe was not enough to convince you? Along with the speech made shortly after that this was his intentions, to make the world pay? Gassing your own civvy's was not enough?
-
I wonder if Saddam is sitting there saying....
"But we must attack the USA! Look! They already used the bomb once, they are sure to do it again!"
while GWB is saying...
"But he already used WMD against his own people and against Iran! He is sure to do it again!"
Go read the history of the real cause of WW1. It all comes down to misjudging the resolve of the other guy.
-
This isn't about us. Its about the Jews, at least that is the target he use's to draw support. He would have to deliver the thing. Israel is the closest, and most probable target. Thanks to them ignoring UN resolutions, they already have the bomb. These two would be in much the same boat as us and the Russians back in the cold war.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Just that middle one I'm guessing..
OK Thrawn, this would have made sense if you hadn't deleted your post.
You were right though. ;)
-
Originally posted by easymo
This isn't about us. Its about the Jews, at least that is the target he use's to draw support. He would have to deliver the thing. Israel is the closest, and most probable target. Thanks to them ignoring UN resolutions, they already have the bomb. These two would be in much the same boat as us and the Russians back in the cold war.
the last time isreal though they were in danger from iraq (1981) they bombed iraq's atomic facilities. isreal has better inteligence in the reigon & more to lose. if saddam was near getting it isreal would be doing something about it. i wouldn't be surprised if mossad has been sabotaging the iraqi atom bomb project since '81...those sneaky jews
¦¬þ
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
I wonder if Saddam is sitting there saying....
"But we must attack the USA! Look! They already used the bomb once, they are sure to do it again!"
while GWB is saying...
"But he already used WMD against his own people and against Iran! He is sure to do it again!"
Go read the history of the real cause of WW1. It all comes down to misjudging the resolve of the other guy.
Big diference there. Bush never used the Bomb on anybody. Saddam HAS killed his own people and others w/ WMD. HUGE diference, then I can't expect that a liberal would undertand that.
-
Udie. Have you ever heard of Afghanistan. They where dropping things over there, that were referred to as a "poor mans nuke".
The slopes to the high moral ground are slippery indeed. I see people trying to claim that ground, on this bbs, all the time. So far no one has made it.
I don't care about it. The high moral ground just makes my feet itch. If Jr. wants to kill off some ragheads, thats fine with me. Just leave off using ground troops. There is no reason our boys have to die to protect Israel. The Jews can take care of themselves.
-
Originally posted by Udie
Big diference there. Bush never used the Bomb on anybody. Saddam HAS killed his own people and others w/ WMD. HUGE diference, then I can't expect that a liberal would undertand that.
And I wouldn't even consider the fact that a conservabrain could ever even try to generalize the concept to see the big picture.
But thats just me. :p
-
Saddam is a murderous dictator. THAT is why he doesn't need the bomb. The U.S. is a democratic republic. There is a lot of difference between the two.
Besides, we developed the bomb to counter a similar atomic program underway in Nazi Germany. If Hitler had perfected it first, would we even be concerned about it today?
Regards, Shuckins