Discussion about hot topics trending today

[Annoyed]

Nope, and that's why you will always mess up.
You need to corroborate the -facts-.

Here, I'll help:
http://www.breitbart.com/big-governm...lobalism-away/

You can corroborate the facts of the story, so this is actually passable as journalism, determining bias is critical thinking.

Of course, then you can read the comments section of Brietbart or Huffpo and see the level they are really pitching to...........

But again, consider the source. In this case, Bush II.

This is the president that crafted the auto industry bailouts, which in my opinion grossly overstepped the limits placed upon govt. He is also responsible for the Patriot act, granting broad new survellance powers to the govt. as a knee-jerk reaction to 9/11. I recall other actions of Bush II which did not endear him to me, but can't recall the details atm. But Bush II was not a good President in my view. Why would I pay much attention to whatever he says today?

[Gatefan1976]

But again, consider the source. In this case, Bush II.

This is the president that crafted the auto industry bailouts, which in my opinion grossly overstepped the limits placed upon govt. He is also responsible for the Patriot act, granting broad new survellance powers to the govt. as a knee-jerk reaction to 9/11. I recall other actions of Bush II which did not endear him to me, but can't recall the details atm. But Bush II was not a good President in my view. Why would I pay much attention to whatever he says today?

Did you vote for him?
Better question, did you vote for him in 2004?

Either way, this is incidental to my point, I am asking you to consider facts, not source.

[Annoyed]

Did you vote for him?
Better question, did you vote for him in 2004?

Either way, this is incidental to my point, I am asking you to consider facts, not source.

First time, yes, 2nd no.

[Gatefan1976]

First time, yes, 2nd no.

Did you just not vote?

However, this still says nothing about the facts, the issue at hand.
I can consider the source later, you think I suddenly think Dubya is a saint based on one speech??

GW was a moron as president, Hell McCain was a Moron as a presidential runner as well, but what they do speak to recently is what are supposed to be "essential truths" of American Exceptionalism in the modern era, summed up best by a man who I really care not for at all, Churchill. "You can always rely on America to do the right thing, but only after they have exhausted the list of wrong things to do"
America fails, CONSTANTLY.
It's greatness lies in it's capacity to keep trying DESPITE that.
Are you really willing to give that up?

[thekillman]

I recall other actions of Bush II which did not endear him to me, but can't recall the details atm.

A completely pointless, in fact counterproductive war in the middle east?

[SoulReaver]

But Bush II was not a good President in my view. Why would I pay much attention to whatever he says today?

because he's basically the same camp & ideology as the LSOS who rules now?

A completely pointless, in fact counterproductive war in the middle east?

that's oil forgotten

[Annoyed]

And, in the free speech arena...

I'm glad they didn't manage to shut him down. He was allowed to speak.
But give it up, dude. You were allowed to speak, and your audience isn't interested.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/10/19...-protests.html

[Annoyed]

A completely pointless, in fact counterproductive war in the middle east?

I've long wondered something about that. Might there have been a bit of intergenerational "mine is bigger than yours" going on there?

[garhkal]

And, in the free speech arena...

I'm glad they didn't manage to shut him down. He was allowed to speak.

Good. I would hate to have it be up to the rabble to decide who can and can't speak on colleges..

[thekillman]

I've long wondered something about that. Might there have been a bit of intergenerational "mine is bigger than yours" going on there?

I think it was more that after 9/11, which was basically a huge humiliation to the US, Bush felt he needed to show the US as strong. So someone had to be invaded. Excuses like WMD's were convenient, but already flimsy before the war started. Aspects like Oil were likely also convenient but i doubt it was definitive. I simply think Bush felt that he had no choice but to invade someone.

Of course he forgot that 9/11 wasn't caused by nations but by international terrorists, and that sending a multi-billion army after a bunch of guerrilla's hasn't worked in decades.

(the UK investigated the Iraq invasion and the resulting Chilcot report, an interesting read, can basically be summarized as "the US wanted war and the UK wanted to please the US".)

And now, Kim in Korea has seen what the US does to dictators that disarm. The moment the last nuke in NK is gone is also the last hour of Kim's dictatorship.

[Womble]

I think it was more that after 9/11, which was basically a huge humiliation to the US, Bush felt he needed to show the US as strong. So someone had to be invaded. Excuses like WMD's were convenient, but already flimsy before the war started. Aspects like Oil were likely also convenient but i doubt it was definitive. I simply think Bush felt that he had no choice but to invade someone.

Of course he forgot that 9/11 wasn't caused by nations but by international terrorists, and that sending a multi-billion army after a bunch of guerrilla's hasn't worked in decades.

(the UK investigated the Iraq invasion and the resulting Chilcot report, an interesting read, can basically be summarized as "the US wanted war and the UK wanted to please the US".)

Oh, that nonsense again.

Do recall that in 2011, after 9/11, the USA actually did invade someone- namely Afghanistan, the nest of Al-Qaeda. The Iraq war rationale was more complicated and did not hinge on 9/11.

And now, Kim in Korea has seen what the US does to dictators that disarm. The moment the last nuke in NK is gone is also the last hour of Kim's dictatorship.

He has also seen what the US does to dictators who begin arming themselves. Namely, nothing.

[Annoyed]

And now, Kim in Korea has seen what the US does to dictators that disarm. The moment the last nuke in NK is gone is also the last hour of Kim's dictatorship.

How many years has that tinpot nutjob and his predecessor been running that country? We haven't take him out till this point, and I don't think we will strike first now.
I think it would be more accurate to say that the moment he launches an attack against the U.S. or its allies will be the last moment of his dictatorship. I don't really think he'll do anything more than the sabre rattling he's been doing all along. His ability to strike the U.S. is iffy at best, but he also has to know that 2-3 of our carrier attack groups can reduce his entire country to rubble without resorting to using our nukes. Particularly since China has said that if NK strikes first, they won't back him up.

I don't even think we would go that far; more likely we will flatten the capitol city, or wherever he and his military leaders hole up.

[Annoyed]

They need to make examples out of these three.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/10/20...er-speech.html

Three men have been arrested and charged with attempted murder after one of them shot at protesters outside a speech by white nationalist Richard Spencer at the University of Florida, police said Friday.

The Gainesville Police Department identified the men as Tyler Tenbrink, 28; William Fears, 30; and his brother, 28-year-old Colton Fears. All three men are from Texas.

The three were in a vehicle Thursday immediately after Spencer's speech and began making Nazi salutes and shouting Hitler chants at a group of people holding anti-Nazi signs near a bus stop, Gainesville Police Officer Ben Tobias told the Associated Press.

One person in the group of about six people struck the back window of the men's vehicle with a baton, police said.

Tenbrink, a convicted felon, showed a handgun after exiting the car while the Fears brothers encouraged him to shoot, police said.

"Colton Fears and William Fears were also yelling, 'Kill them' and 'Shoot them,"' the police report stated.



Tenbrink fired a single shot, police said, missing the group and striking a nearby building. He is also being charged as a felon in possession of a firearm, police said.

[garhkal]

GOOD. Those 3 need to get smacked down.. BUT The idiots that bashed the car with the batons also need to be arrested.

[thekillman]

How many years has that tinpot nutjob and his predecessor been running that country? We haven't take him out till this point, and I don't think we will strike first now.

A few years. But the Kim family has been successfully leading the country for decades.

We haven't take him out till this point, and I don't think we will strike first now.

It seems they've learned from Iraq at least somewhat, and don't want to break open another pandora's box.

I think it would be more accurate to say that the moment he launches an attack against the U.S. or its allies will be the last moment of his dictatorship

People aren't afraid of who will win the war. People are afraid of what will happen during the war. Kim still has a capacity to inflict massive damage to the region, while removing him from power is absolutely no guarantee things will improve.

It's a situation that sucks, but there is no easy alternative.

I don't really think he'll do anything more than the sabre rattling he's been doing all along

Well, that IS the strategy of the Kim family. Their seat of power is based on the idea that the US is a hostile foreign invader and that nukes are the only way to keep them at bay. Couple this ideological reason with keeping the population starved and extreme punishment of dissenters and you have a successful recipe for dictatorship.

Oh, that nonsense again.

Do recall that in 2011, after 9/11, the USA actually did invade someone- namely Afghanistan, the nest of Al-Qaeda. The Iraq war rationale was more complicated and did not hinge on 9/11.

Not sure what the Afghanistan war has to do with it. But it's a fact that the reports on which the invasion and accusation of WMD's were built on, were sketchy at best. And they were questionable BEFORE the war started. No WMD's were found. So all indications are that Iraq did as asked by international treaties and yet still got invaded for breach of those treaties.