Number-crunching pollster sees decisive Obama win

#29
#29
TennTradition said:
It's pretty easy to win when you have a guy sucking up around 10-20% of the votes, most of whom were not going to vote for you.
Click to expand...

if pero didn't run, Bill would have lost and maybe 9/11 would have happened.

either way, bill didn't get the majority vote in either elections.
 
#31
#31
joevol320 said:
if pero didn't run, Bill would have lost and maybe 9/11 would have happened.

either way, bill didn't get the majority vote in either elections.
Click to expand...

Right...but my point was without a 3rd party candidate sucking away votes from the Republican, I don't see how a democrat can get less than 50% of the vote but still win the electoral college in today's political landscape. So, bringing up Bill Clinton in response to my point doesn't make sense.
 
#32
#32
joevol320 said:
if pero didn't run, Bill would have lost and maybe 9/11 would have happened.
Click to expand...

Um, 9/11 did happen -- on George W Bush's watch. But to blame it on one particular person is just stupid. It was a systematic failure of intelligence and foreign policy going back many years. I don't blame George Bush for 9/11, but I do blame him for everything after that.
 
#33
#33
notverycrucial said:
Um, 9/11 did happen -- on George W Bush's watch. But to blame it on one particular person is just stupid. It was a systematic failure of intelligence and foreign policy going back many years. I don't blame George Bush for 9/11, but I do blame him for everything after that.
Click to expand...

ummm, bush was in president for a little over 8 months. Bill was president for 8 years. we had 6 attack during bill's watch and he treated them as criminal acts. his administration built a wall between fbi and cia that kept them from sharing information.

bill did not see the big picture with the small terrorist attacks. what i was saying if we had a different president during the 90's then he might seen the bigger picture with these attacks and 9/11 may not have happened.
 
#34
#34
Under Clinton all the attacks were overseas, we are still being hit overseas, not much has changed in that arena.

Also we were hit before 9/11 on the WTC, the terrorist strike on US soil come few and far between, if you think for one moment that we wont be hit again, even with Bush's policies you're an idiot.
 
#35
#35
notverycrucial said:
Um, 9/11 did happen -- on George W Bush's watch. But to blame it on one particular person is just stupid. It was a systematic failure of intelligence and foreign policy going back many years. I don't blame George Bush for 9/11, but I do blame him for everything after that.
Click to expand...
It was a byproduct of the gutting that Clinton put on our intelligence services.
 
#39
#39
MontereyVol said:
Under Clinton all the attacks were overseas, we are still being hit overseas, not much has changed in that arena.

Also we were hit before 9/11 on the WTC
Click to expand...

Umm didn't the first WTC attack happen under Clinton?

Not blaming him - just correcting the post.
 
#41
#41
volinbham said:
Umm didn't the first WTC attack happen under Clinton?

Not blaming him - just correcting the post.
Click to expand...

That is correct, but you know that wasn't Clinton's fault (using the logic of your average VN poster) b/c Clinton had only been in office a year. It was really George H. W. Bush's fault b/c ... he, um... gutted the intelligence services, or something.
 
#42
#42
notverycrucial said:
That is correct, but you know that wasn't Clinton's fault (using the logic of your average VN poster) b/c Clinton had only been in office a year. It was really George H. W. Bush's fault b/c ... he, um... gutted the intelligence services, or something.
Click to expand...
I wouldn't blame Clinton at all for that first one. However, that first one and its ties to Bin Laden should have absolutely helped us preclude the second one.

Instead, we went down a route of systematically removing intelligence capabilities and replacing them with technology, which proved a disaster.

It's reasonably well documented that the Clinton admin had multiple opportunities to essentially end Bin Laden and Co. However, we chose to sit idly by and watch him set up shop in more than one nation with sympathetic governments in place.
 
#43
#43
notverycrucial said:
That is correct, but you know that wasn't Clinton's fault (using the logic of your average VN poster) b/c Clinton had only been in office a year. It was really George H. W. Bush's fault b/c ... he, um... gutted the intelligence services, or something.
Click to expand...

using the logic of the average liberal. it was America's fault that we were bombed. we deserved it because we are a greedy corporate nation who enslaves everyone else. oh and we support israel.
 
#44
#44
joevol320 said:
using the logic of the average liberal. it was America's fault that we were bombed. we deserved it because we are a greedy corporate nation who enslaves everyone else. oh and we support israel.
Click to expand...

Please compare your response to papa's. One is productive and conducive to discourse that might actually accomplish something...the other is not. Guess which one is which.
 
#45
#45
TennTradition said:
Please compare your response to papa's. One is productive and conducive to discourse that might actually accomplish something...the other is not. Guess which one is which.
Click to expand...

To be honest, I don't see Joe's as any more non-productive than NotVeryCrucial's - both took swipes using stereotypes and strawmen arguments.
 
#46
#46
TennTradition said:
Please compare your response to papa's. One is productive and conducive to discourse that might actually accomplish something...the other is not. Guess which one is which.
Click to expand...

are you serious. i've heard sound bite after sound bite of liberals blaming us and saying that we deserve 9/11. whether it be politicians, professors or people from the DNC. i'm calling it the way i see it, i don't care if you don't think it's productive, it's the truth.
 
#48
#48
BigPapaVol said:
I wouldn't blame Clinton at all for that first one. However, that first one and its ties to Bin Laden should have absolutely helped us preclude the second one.

Instead, we went down a route of systematically removing intelligence capabilities and replacing them with technology, which proved a disaster.

It's reasonably well documented that the Clinton admin had multiple opportunities to essentially end Bin Laden and Co. However, we chose to sit idly by and watch him set up shop in more than one nation with sympathetic governments in place.
Click to expand...

The US has always had the problem of developing technology over HUMINT. Its nothing that started under Clinton.
 
#49
#49
MontereyVol said:
The US has always had the problem of developing technology over HUMINT. Its nothing that started under Clinton.
Click to expand...

didn't clinton push to rely on technology instead of human intel. i believe he did. that one was of the changes he made when he was cutting the military and intel.
 
#50
#50
joevol320 said:
are you serious. i've heard sound bite after sound bite of liberals blaming us and saying that we deserve 9/11. whether it be politicians, professors or people from the DNC. i'm calling it the way i see it, i don't care if you don't think it's productive, it's the truth.
Click to expand...

That stuff the people you are speaking of are full of it and people know it. There is a difference between suggesting that our policies can cause more harm than good and suggesting that "we made them do it." My point is that there's enough vitriol out there...I don't think it's productive to spew more of it.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top