ACLU = LOSERS

[maxcamaro]

ill have access to lexisnexis in a few days also

[Machiavelli]

Originally posted by maxcamaro:
ok Machiavelli i guess since im in 11th grade and im 16 years old that somehow makes me blind to everything thats going on in the world. But your wrong, i keep up with politics and im better informed than anyone i know. I watch FOX news as well as CNN and i form my own opinion around what they report. And for u to say im "to young" to understand politics that makes you the ignorant one.

Not what I said at all... try again.
I was interested in politics since I was 15 as were many of my friends, and only until recently when my friends and I have really gotten "into the buisness" have we realized how shallow our understandings really were.

Do NOT just watch FOX news and CNN - theyre crap.
Read the Economist, New Republic (yeah its biased but good), other similar weeklies (avoid the Weekly Standard, not only is it skewed big time to the right, its also horribly written), books of political commentary, proposed legislation or the briefs concerning them, think tank's statements/studies, academic essays on policy topics that interest you, etc etc...
even read the washington post or other newspapers... just STAY AWAY FROM TV MEDIA. Only watch shows like O'Reily, Crossfire, Hannity, Meet the Press, Hardball, etc etc after you have a good understanding of policy...b/c whether its biased left OR right, it is CERTAINLY oversimplified.

[Skapimp]

Originally posted by Stefan:
Yes, let's continue this "war on terror" and every now and then up the national terror state to orange just to keep people on edge! The more scared the people are the more spending on defense is justified. Then when nothing happens we'll say "see, we prevented the attack!"

You guys honestly trust government watch lists and all this "war on terror" BS?

As much as I hate the ACLU, in general they are a very strong opponent to big oppressive government and they stand up for basic privacy. In that regard they are probably better for this country than the government is.

First post I agree with Stefan on.

This whole war on terrorism is bull****, and those lists are completely innacurate. Sure, there are people on there that should be on the list, but how much would that suck if you couldn't get a job becuase your last name happened to be the same as one of the people who crashed into the WTC?

We live in a world of misinformation.

[maxcamaro]

ok then lets just let the terrorist blow all of our asses up [img]smile.gif[/img]

Machiavelli perhaps your right i do not read eneough stuff online or magazines related to politics...i have school and work and other things to focus on...tv is so much easier lol

however i do watch oreilly, hannity and colmes, crossfire and meet the press (occasionally)

[3.4 [deployed]]

Originally posted by Machiavelli:

And who is this "other nate".. I assumed you were referring to me, but my name is Nicolo Machiavelli....

[img]graemlins/rofl.gif[/img] [img]graemlins/rofl.gif[/img] [img]graemlins/twak.gif[/img] [img]graemlins/rofl.gif[/img] [img]graemlins/rofl.gif[/img]

edit: O'rielly, well the best thing I've ever seen/heard on him was what Snoop Dog had to say: Snoop: I'd bytch slap him
MAxim/SFH Mag: Why?
Snoop: "cause he's a bytch
[img]graemlins/dj.gif[/img] [img]graemlins/rofl.gif[/img]

[Skapimp]

I wouldn't mind this war on terrorism so much if we were going after terrorists.

[maxcamaro]

Originally posted by Skapimp:
I wouldn't mind this war on terrorism so much if we were going after terrorists.

do the facts not suggest that al queda is like 2/3 of the way destroyed

[Machiavelli]

Originally posted by maxcamaro:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Skapimp:
I wouldn't mind this war on terrorism so much if we were going after terrorists.

do the facts not suggest that al queda is like 2/3 of the way destroyed </font>[/QUOTE]Yes, the facts do not suggest that Al Queda is like 2/3 of the way destroyed. In fact, the facts suggest the opposite.

[ABH]

"Trying to eliminate Saddam...would have incurred incalculable human and political costs. Apprehending him was probably impossible.... We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq....There was no viable "exit strategy" we could see, violating another of our principles. Furthermore, we had been consciously trying to set a pattern for handling aggression in the post-Cold War world. Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the United Nations' mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression that we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion route, the United States could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land."

Guess who wrote that. The first President Bush.
It is all happening just as he foresaw. The US is seen as an occupying power. You see more and more fanatics being sucked into Iraq as they have a ready target.

The Najif standoff. It is a tricky situation. The US must win the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people. And if they storm the shrine, with the inevitable damage or destruction, kiss that goodbye. So it will be up to the Iraqis. And then you have the US Army in the middle of a civil war.
Remember what happened when the Marines were put in the crossfire in Beruit.

A year after Mission Accomplished, and the fighting still goes on. The new goverment is shaky at best. And it can be argued that its power stems from the US occupation. And any goverment that can't protect its own citizens from bombings, kidnappings, etc can't be seen as legitimate.

At last count, 948 Americans are dead. Most of them as a result of terror attacks. There is no end in sight. Every terrorist who harbored desires to kill Americans doesn't have to worry about crossing the ocean anymore.

Now they can blend in. Just as you could not tell the VC from the South Vietnamese, you can't tell a AQ or Hamas or a p.oed Iraqi from one another.

Having the Great Satan on your doorstep is a boon to recruiting for the terror camps.

[maxcamaro]

Originally posted by Machiavelli:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by maxcamaro:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Skapimp:
I wouldn't mind this war on terrorism so much if we were going after terrorists.

do the facts not suggest that al queda is like 2/3 of the way destroyed </font>[/QUOTE]Yes, the facts do not suggest that Al Queda is like 2/3 of the way destroyed. In fact, the facts suggest the opposite. </font>[/QUOTE]dude whos been lying to you??

[Machiavelli]

Originally posted by maxcamaro:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Machiavelli:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by maxcamaro:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Skapimp:
I wouldn't mind this war on terrorism so much if we were going after terrorists.

do the facts not suggest that al queda is like 2/3 of the way destroyed </font>[/QUOTE]Yes, the facts do not suggest that Al Queda is like 2/3 of the way destroyed. In fact, the facts suggest the opposite. </font>[/QUOTE]dude whos been lying to you?? </font>[/QUOTE]youre the one who admits your only source of knowledge is Fox and CNN and youre questioning ME?

[maxcamaro]

yes

[Machiavelli]

Originally posted by maxcamaro:
yes

I know there are plenty of people who know more about things than I do... and I know how to recognize those people. Trust me, I am better informed about this than you.

[3.4 [deployed]]

Originally posted by ABH:
"Trying to eliminate Saddam...would have incurred incalculable human and political costs. Apprehending him was probably impossible.... We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq....There was no viable "exit strategy" we could see, violating another of our principles. Furthermore, we had been consciously trying to set a pattern for handling aggression in the post-Cold War world. Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the United Nations' mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression that we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion route, the United States could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land."

Guess who wrote that. The first President Bush.
It is all happening just as he foresaw. The US is seen as an occupying power. You see more and more fanatics being sucked into Iraq as they have a ready target.

The Najif standoff. It is a tricky situation. The US must win the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people. And if they storm the shrine, with the inevitable damage or destruction, kiss that goodbye. So it will be up to the Iraqis. And then you have the US Army in the middle of a civil war.
Remember what happened when the Marines were put in the crossfire in Beruit.

A year after Mission Accomplished, and the fighting still goes on. The new goverment is shaky at best. And it can be argued that its power stems from the US occupation. And any goverment that can't protect its own citizens from bombings, kidnappings, etc can't be seen as legitimate.

At last count, 948 Americans are dead. Most of them as a result of terror attacks. There is no end in sight. Every terrorist who harbored desires to kill Americans doesn't have to worry about crossing the ocean anymore.

Now they can blend in. Just as you could not tell the VC from the South Vietnamese, you can't tell a AQ or Hamas or a p.oed Iraqi from one another.

Having the Great Satan on your doorstep is a boon to recruiting for the terror camps.

yup, let's stick to Americans killing Americans:

gang violence, drug deals gone bad, drunk & non-drunk traffic accidents. Let's keep the violence home people.

[VaeVictus]

http://www.contracostatimes.com/mld/...7475177.htm?1c

Link to California School and Islam.