I voted this morning

highfigh

highfigh

Seriously, I have no life.
I look forward to all the factual information then.
Most of what has happened in the Middle East won't and probably shouldn't be made known. As bad as the atrocities were in Vietnam, this makes Vietnam look like a walk in the park.
 
cel4145

cel4145

Audioholic
The KKK is a fringe nutso group. The people crying, blocking highways etc are supposed the be the up and coming people that are going to take over the reigns.
Right. And people that buy expensive power supply cables represent all audiophiles. :rolleyes:

This makes about as much sense as saying the Alt-Right movement is going to take over Washington.
 
jinjuku

jinjuku

Moderator
Right. And people that buy expensive power supply cables represent all audiophiles. :rolleyes:

This makes about as much sense as saying the Alt-Right movement is going to take over Washington.
I used the word 'supposed'. I'm not in disagreement with you.
 
jinjuku

jinjuku

Moderator
Did all this protesting and blocking of highways go on when Obama won both his bids?
 
jinjuku

jinjuku

Moderator
Here is a group of young people responding to hearing the word 'No' for the first time in their lives:

Capture.JPG


And I'll bet you a dollar to a doughnut if you attempted to have a conversation where you deign to have an opposing view point you won't be engaged in a conversation but rather a shouting match.

I'm tempted to go out and video record a millennial just to prove the point.
 
cel4145

cel4145

Audioholic
The people crying, blocking highways etc are supposed the be the up and coming people that are going to take over the reigns.
Did all this protesting and blocking of highways go on when Obama won both his bids?
Well, the guy taking over the reigns right now encouraged people to after the 2nd Obama election:

Donald J. Trump @realDonaldTrump
8:29 PM - 6 Nov 2012

"We can't let this happen. We should march on Washington and stop this travesty. Our nation is totally divided!"

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/266034630820507648?ref_src=twsrc^tfw

I guess that's why you got confused that the current protesters are supposed to "take over the reigns."

:D
 
jinjuku

jinjuku

Moderator
Last time I checked, a President doesn't declare war all by himself. They may have opinions on war. Everybody who was anybody wanted war after Sept. 11th (very few exceptions)
Another famous president once said "The buck stops here".
 
jinjuku

jinjuku

Moderator
Well, the guy taking over the reigns right now encouraged people to after the 2nd Obama election:

Donald J. Trump @realDonaldTrump
8:29 PM - 6 Nov 2012

"We can't let this happen. We should march on Washington and stop this travesty. Our nation is totally divided!"

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/266034630820507648?ref_src=twsrc^tfw

I guess that's why you got confused that the current protesters are supposed to "take over the reigns."

:D
I don't walk off bridges because someone told me to. That finite ability to independently think for oneself is a sign of maturity.

I hate to say it as a Democrat but I think a bit more class was shown during Obama's wins (I voted for him both times).
 
KEW

KEW

Audioholic Overlord
Many, many politicians wanted war:

Saddam Hussein has spent the better part of this decade and much of his nation's wealth not on providing for the Iraqi people but on developing nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons and the missiles to deliver them."
-- President Bill Clinton (State of the Union Address), Jan. 27, 1998

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"No one has done what Saddam Hussein has done, or is thinking of doing. He is producing weapons of mass destruction, and he is qualitatively and quantitatively different from other dictators.""Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
--Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
--Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by:
-- Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
-Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
-- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by:
-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), and others, Dec 5, 2001

"I mean, we have three different countries that, while they all present serious problems for the United States -- they're dictatorships, they're involved in the development and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction -- you know, the most imminent, clear and present threat to our country is not the same from those three countries. I think Iraq is the most serious and imminent threat to our country."
-- Sen. John Edwards (D, NC) Feb. 24, 2002

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them."
-- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power. We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." "
-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein's regime is a serious danger, that he is a tyrant, and that his pursuit of lethal weapons of mass destruction cannot be tolerated. He must be disarmed. We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Edward Kennedy (D, MA) Sep. 27, 2002

"Now let me be clear -- I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power. He has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity. He's a bad guy. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him."
-- State Senator Barack Obama (Democrat, Illinois) Oct. 2, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
-- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

"My position is very clear: The time has come for decisive action to eliminate the threat posed by Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction."
-- Senator John Edwards (D, NC), Oct. 7, 2002

"We stopped the fighting [in 1991] on an agreement that Iraq would take steps to assure the world that it would not engage in further aggression and that it would destroy its weapons of mass destruction. It has refused to take those steps. That refusal constitutes a breach of the armistice which renders it void and justifies resumption of the armed conflict."
-- Sen. Harry Reid (D. NV) Oct. 9, 2002


"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do"
-- Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

"I come to this debate, Mr. Speaker, as one at the end of 10 years in office on the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, where stopping the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction was one of my top priorities. I applaud the President on focusing on this issue and on taking the lead to disarm Saddam Hussein. ... Others have talked about this threat that is posed by Saddam Hussein. Yes, he has chemical weapons, he has biological weapons, he is trying to get nuclear weapons."
-- Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D. CA) Oct. 10, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
-- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

"People can quarrel with whether we should have more troops in Afghanistan or internationalize Iraq or whatever, but it is incontestable that on the day I left office, there were unaccounted for stocks of biological and chemical weapons."
-- Ex President Bill Clinton, Jul. 22, 2003 (Interview with CNN Larry King)

I asked very direct questions of the top people in the CIA and people who'd served in the Clinton administration. And they said they believed that Saddam Hussein either had weapons or had the components of weapons or the ability to quickly make weapons of mass destruction. What we're worried about is an A-bomb in a Ryder truck in New York, in Washington and St. Louis. It cannot happen. We have to prevent it from happening.
-- Rep. Richard Gephardt (D, MT) Nov. 2, 2003
It is unfortunate that there are intelligent people interested in distorting the truth who blog or send out mass emails to present a false premise for their own gain, and also unfortunate that the amount of effort required to properly evaluate these statements is more than the casual reader will use. Fortunately Snopes does much of the work for us and they provide enough detail and specifics that you can be your own judge.
Several of those quotes are out of context and are truly not in agreement with the premise that these politicians wanted war:

From Snopes:
All of the quotes listed above are substantially correct reproductions of words uttered by various Democratic leaders regarding Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein's acquisition or possession of weapons of mass destruction. However, as is typical of such lists, some of the quotes are truncated — and all of them are provided without context — so as to reinforce the author's point of view even when the proffered material does not fit it. Namely, several of these quotes were offered in the course of statements that clearly indicated the speaker was decidedly against unilateral military intervention in Iraq by the U.S. Moreover, several of the quotes offered antedate the four nights of airstrikes unleashed against Iraq by U.S. and British forces during Operation Desert Fox in December 1998, after which Secretary of Defense William S. Cohen and Gen. Henry H. Shelton (chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff) announced the action had been successful in "degrad[ing] Saddam Hussein's ability to deliver chemical, biological and nuclear weapons."
They provide specifics examples with the quotes in context of the speeches:
http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/wmdquotes.asp
 
C

Chu Gai

Audioholic Samurai
Voting for the office of the President is not the appropriate time to teach anyone a lesson. You think left wingers are too smart for their own good and need put in their place? They're put in their place. Congratulations. Now watch as Sarah Palin gets appointed as Secretary of State, or Giuliani takes over as the Attorney General. You didn't elect a Republican. You elected the Tea Party, the American Taliban. The U.S. has cut off its nose to spite its face. And with the last five years each being consecutively hotter than any previously on record, now was not the time to elect a man-made climate change denier, no matter how unpalatable you found his opponent.

I'm more irritated at the people who didn't vote. Voter turn out was about 1/3 lower than in 2008. If you didn't vote, shame on you. Watch what your inaction has wrought.
Rudy as AG doesn't bother me. I've already suffered through Eric Holder and Loretta Lynch. And in terms of Secretary of State can one honestly say our foreign policy has been a rousing success? Trim, IMO, is not the tea party. He's a pragmatist. Just as with anyone who is elected, I don't know how things will work out. To me Hillary is more than unpalatable. She's the embodiment of corruption and collusion looking to use politics and the people to enrich her family.
 
jinjuku

jinjuku

Moderator
Voting for the office of the President is not the appropriate time to teach anyone a lesson. You think left wingers are too smart for their own good and need put in their place?
No, I'm a left winger that thinks most left wingers have been in the monkey house for too long and can't smell their own poop.

That's that point my fellow left wingers are missing.

My point is I didn't want precisely what you said happen, well, happen. People that think they are too smart for themselves also feel there is no value considering someone else's POV.

I have a handful of friends in Academe that were so Rah-Rah HRC that you couldn't present an opposed view point without:

1. Being dismissed summarily
2. Being told how wrong you were regardless of how salient a point was being made

It happens all the time with idiots in this hobby thinking a power cable or ethernet cable can sound different. Regardless of the data they are going to:

1. Dismiss you
2. Tell you how wrong you are regardless of salient a point you are making

There is only one way for them to learn and that is the hard way. It is literally the only option left. Why can't you grasp that point?

In other words it was all internalized and therefore 'personal'.

There was no talking to them. And my wife was one of them. When the 2nd debate rolled around at the 40 minute mark I told her and two of her friends watching that HRC had a serious problem on her hands.

Of course, as always, I was full of poop. I made sure to thank them yesterday since no apology was forthcoming for them being assholes to me over pointing out what I had experienced.

They're put in their place. Congratulations. Now watch as Sarah Palin gets appointed as Secretary of State, or Giuliani takes over as the Attorney General. You didn't elect a Republican. You elected the Tea Party, the American Taliban. The U.S. has cut off its nose to spite its face. And with the last five years each being consecutively hotter than any previously on record, now was not the time to elect a man-made climate change denier, no matter how unpalatable you found his opponent.

I'm more irritated at the people who didn't vote. Voter turn out was about 1/3 lower than in 2008. If you didn't vote, shame on you. Watch what your inaction has wrought.
The DNC's insistence, come hell or high water, to make sure Hillary was heir apparent, along with the media, is at fault.

Donald Trump is mid-America's big, fat, middle finger to the political establishment.
 
Rickster71

Rickster71

Audioholic Spartan
It is unfortunate that there are intelligent people interested in distorting the truth who blog or send out mass emails to present a false premise for their own gain, and also unfortunate that the amount of effort required to properly evaluate these statements is more than the casual reader will use. Fortunately Snopes does much of the work for us and they provide enough detail and specifics that you can be your own judge.
Several of those quotes are out of context and are truly not in agreement with the premise that these politicians wanted war:

From Snopes:


They provide specifics examples with the quotes in context of the speeches:
http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/wmdquotes.asp
First off, I hope we can all agree the off topic discussion of Bush getting us into war was nothing more than a distraction used in this thread. I did indeed get led down a rabbit hole.
What's your takeaway from Snopes?
I don't see the quotes substantially debunked.
Frankly, I'd rather stay on topic. :)
 
Rickster71

Rickster71

Audioholic Spartan
No, I'm a left winger that thinks most left wingers have been in the monkey house for too long and can't smell their own poop.

That's that point my fellow left wingers are missing.

My point is I didn't want precisely what you said happen, well, happen. People that think they are too smart for themselves also feel there is no value considering someone else's POV.

I have a handful of friends in Academe that were so Rah-Rah HRC that you couldn't present an opposed view point without:

1. Being dismissed summarily
2. Being told how wrong you were regardless of how salient a point was being made

It happens all the time with idiots in this hobby thinking a power cable or ethernet cable can sound different. Regardless of the data they are going to:

1. Dismiss you
2. Tell you how wrong you are regardless of salient a point you are making

There is only one way for them to learn and that is the hard way. It is literally the only option left. Why can't you grasp that point?

In other words it was all internalized and therefore 'personal'.

There was no talking to them. And my wife was one of them. When the 2nd debate rolled around at the 40 minute mark I told her and two of her friends watching that HRC had a serious problem on her hands.

Of course, as always, I was full of poop. I made sure to thank them yesterday since no apology was forthcoming for them being assholes to me over pointing out what I had experienced.



The DNC's insistence, come hell or high water, to make sure Hillary was heir apparent, along with the media, is at fault.

Donald Trump is mid-America's big, fat, middle finger to the political establishment.
I have to tell you... very well done! If I could vote twice for your post I would.
If the "fix" wasn't in and the DNC had a primary with Hillary, Bernie, Joe Biden, Liz Warren..... Trump may not be where he is right now.
 
C

Chu Gai

Audioholic Samurai
The Wikileaks exposure to me was the equivalent of turning the light on and seein a room full of roaches. That Debbie Scultz and Brazille were and still are rewarded is indicative that the Dem party hasn't learned a damned thing.
 
rojo

rojo

Audioholic Samurai
The DNC's insistence, come hell or high water, to make sure Hillary was heir apparent, along with the media, is at fault.
Very much this. That interview I linked Thursday explains this thoroughly. The DNC convinced the media to promote the Republican candidates they thought they could easily defeat -- Trump, Carson, and Cruz; leaving the more moderate and reasonable candidates with little to no air time and little to no consideration. I voted Kasich in the primaries, as did everyone I know. But he never had a chance precisely because the DNC believed if he got his chance he could win. Same with Bernie. It was Hillary's turn to be President, not Bernie's.

The Democratic Committee's plan worked. The most ridiculous parody of a candidate won the Republican primaries. Then the media who had once celebrated his antics attempted to vilify him. That part of the plan backfired. Trump's support grew while Hillary's shriveled. Republican voters did what they do with loyalty while Democratic voters did what they do with intellectual reservation and without enthusiasm.
 
panteragstk

panteragstk

Audioholic Warlord
Very much this. That interview I linked Thursday explains this thoroughly. The DNC convinced the media to promote the Republican candidates they thought they could easily defeat -- Trump, Carson, and Cruz; leaving the more moderate and reasonable candidates with little to no air time and little to no consideration. I voted Kasich in the primaries, as did everyone I know. But he never had a chance precisely because the DNC believed if he got his chance he could win. Same with Bernie. It was Hillary's turn to be President, not Bernie's.

The Democratic Committee's plan worked. The most ridiculous parody of a candidate won the Republican primaries. Then the media who had once celebrated his antics attempted to vilify him. That part of the plan backfired. Trump's support grew while Hillary's shriveled. Republican voters did what they do with loyalty while Democratic voters did what they do with intellectual reservation and without enthusiasm.
I think that's the biggest change that needs to be made. The people should choose the nominees, not the party. All candidates should get equal air time as well. That's why so many feel their vote doesn't matter.

Now I know none of those things are going to happen unless the people demand it.
 

Latest posts

newsletter

  • RBHsound.com
  • BlueJeansCable.com
  • SVS Sound Subwoofers
  • Experience the Martin Logan Montis
Top