If you think you can survive a nuclear attack against America ! Voting for a Democrat President you will find out you cant. This sound extreme? Do a little research and you will see it's not only possible it's inevitable ( It will happen)
2007-08-20
05:26:21
·
37 answers
·
asked by
Anonymous
in
Politics & Government
➔ Elections
Michael P On Bushes watch? Do you really believe Bin Laden planed that whole 911 attack while Bush was in office? That was done under the Clinton administration ! He started planning it right after the USS Cole was atacted And did Nothing!pull your head out!!!
2007-08-20
07:18:16 ·
update #1
sorry about the spelling I was in a hurry
2007-08-20
07:19:33 ·
update #2
Liberals think this is a scare tactic ????It Damn well should be! Apparently to lazy to do the research them self's ! What a awful price to pay for there lack of common sense!
2007-08-20
07:45:40 ·
update #3
DO THE RESEARCH ! Are you that Lazy ? You people are unbelievable ! You better get it in you heads that it's only a matter of time before Terrorist are able to make a strike like this. With Liberals so worried about Global Warming they are blind to this They are taking away the weapons we need to fight Terrorism on a daily basis. Don't be stupid! If I was making this up I wouldn't ask you to do the research yourself!
2007-08-20
07:56:32 ·
update #4
To be fair I want to make it clear. Having a Republican President will not guarentee this won't happen . as much as I don't like any of the Democrat canadates I'm not to wild about the Republican canadates ether but If you look at the past records of the last 4 Presidents (2 R) (2 D) with a open mind and add the fact the Congress must help instead of hinder .With a Democrat Pres. Realisticley it's going to happen. With a Republican Realisticley it won't happen
2007-08-20
13:38:22 ·
update #5
I don't want a democratic president and that is one reason I plan on working for the Republican nominee. Especially with the current candidates for office in the democrats there is no reason to want any of them to win the office of president.
2007-08-20 05:30:49
·
answer #1
·
answered by ALASPADA 6
·
2⤊
11⤋
Absolutely! The Republican mess has been one disgrace after another. From health care abuse to the war in Iraq these bozo's have screwed our country up. Consider where we were with Clinton? We had a surplus the budget was balanced and any action in Bosnia was resolved with a UN coalition. So the guy gets a reward a blo job and the republicans waste 70 million dollars to impeach him for this. Talk about no fiscal responsibility. What a waste money spent on the largest bureaucracy ever Home land security. Then a war in the wrong country and they never catch Osama bin Ladden. We are not going to have a nuclear anything! This is just more fear mongering. It is the only thing they seem to know how to do. I say republicans out. And the Democrats need to do the right job not more of the same.
2007-08-20 05:37:11
·
answer #2
·
answered by ? 3
·
4⤊
0⤋
Because Republicans are so prepared for disastors?
Put down the republicrack pipe and think about your sensationlistic question. You are pushing your political point of view with pure fear, it's evil. Fear mongoring is not the way to enlist people to your party.
I really do want a Democrat as President because our current administration has put us in far more danger than other president in the past has, ever.
Why did Bush ingore the intelligence he was given regarding the possibility about a strike by Al Queda? http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/0409041pdb1.html
Maybe 9/11 could have been avoided if we had had a Democrat in office then, you know, Al Gore, the one who won the election?
Edit: Yes, you go ahead with that. It doesn't matter if Bin Laden started planning the attack when Clinton was in office. Clinton warned the admin about Bin Laden, even though the right has tried to spin that this did not happen. But why would Clinton try to get him 1998 if he wasn't a threat? He makes it clear in his speech in 1998 (see link below etc) that he was trying to get Bin Laden.
Here's a quote from it:"Our target was terror. Our mission was clear -- to strike at the network of radical groups affiliated with and funded by Osama bin Laden, perhaps the preeminent organizer and financier of international terrorism in the world today. " He says it right here in a public speech that Bin Laden is our biggest threat IN 1998!
2007-08-20 06:12:58
·
answer #3
·
answered by Ellinorianne 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
Unfortunately, neither of the two major US political parties represent clearly intelligible and reasonable (let alone practical) domestic or international agendas but have been reduced to a popularlity contest of sound bites to appease special interest groups. The current Republican administration has radically abandoned the traditional standards of that party and is out of touch with reality and out of control in their operations. The Democrats, on the other hand, are foundering in their attempts to combat the ridiculous characterizations that ultra-conservative groups have marketed to a gullible electorate (such as the OP's incredibly silly and unsupportable premise.)
I believe the nation is best served by intelligent moderation -- so it is best if neither party stays in power for longer than 3 terms (less if they do a lousy job, like Bush Sr. did) AND that the Legislative and Executive branches NOT be the same party for too long. That's the only way to balance the increasing polarization towards the left and the right and assure a rationally balanced government rather than a monopoly of selfishness by any one group.
if the OP would do a little homework he/she would discover a wealth of evidence that the planners of 9/11 were counting on Bush (knowing he would follow in his father's footsteps) to launch military attacks against Middle Eastern countries which would further aid their (the terrorists) cause by turning the US into a boogieman. No one can know what would have happened had Gore been certified the winner in 2000 (as I happen to believe he should have been), but, with Gore's much stronger background in international diplomacy, it stands to reason the outcome would have been much different and less destructive domestically and globally.
Last, but not least, this is a forum for "questions" not a soap-box for demagoguery (anyone "smart" enough to be "sure" that a Democratic president would assure Armageddon should be "smart" enough to look up "demagogue.")
2007-08-20 06:02:12
·
answer #4
·
answered by c_kayak_fun 7
·
1⤊
0⤋
No one except crazy people care what party anyone is from.
What good people care about is ending the atrocities of war.
Any president of any gender, color or political persuasion is acceptable so long as they are not puppets for the military industrial complex and the federal reserve.
Who is going to nuke you? Korea? Iran?
Neither of those countries has the capability yet and they are not likely to get it unless some insane war mongering officials give them the technology. Korea might have the engineers and capability to make a nuclear device, but they can't project much force without substantial improvement in rocket technology.
Iran is a mess and its leader is certifiable, but he doesn't have the capability to even make a reactor, let alone bombs and rockets to deploy them.
Where do you get this paranoid delusion? You do realize that most of the terrorist activity in Iraq is a direct result of the American war there, don't you? Most of the other terrorism you hear about is purely propaganda.
The biggest terrorist attack in human history was perpetrated by current republicans on September 11th.
If any attack happens on US soil, it will probably be another false flag operation by republicans, not foreigners or foreign terrorists.
2007-08-20 05:44:58
·
answer #5
·
answered by Dr. Trevor 3
·
1⤊
0⤋
Well, I did, until I read your question. Thank you so much for letting me know what will inevitably happen. I'm so relieved to have found this out. Imagine how I would have felt if I had helped elect a Democratic president, only to then have a nuclear weapon detonate in my backyard. I certainly can't argue with the clear evidence and persuasive argument you've presented, so I'll surely be changing my vote now.
2007-08-20 06:27:50
·
answer #6
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
0⤋
if I have to choose between republican and democrat, yes
Military-industrial theocracy isn't something I would like to live under. I used to vote Republican. I won't anymore. I didn't leave the GOP; they left me. But the Dems aren't much better. A viable Independent Party might be the answer, but the pols on both sides of the aisle will do their level best to stop that from happening, because it threatens their grip on power.
you argument is ridicules and unfounded ... was it inevitable that we would get attacked on 9/11 during the republican watch?
2007-08-20 05:33:02
·
answer #7
·
answered by Anonymous
·
6⤊
0⤋
Sure, as soon as a Democrat is President the media will report that terrorism doesn't exist. They are just disaffected youth. There is no social security crisis. Global warming has been solved. Unemployment is at an all time low. The stock market rockets to all time highs. Everything is peaceful and beautiful there is not a problem in the world. And everybody will become a Muslim and submit to allah.
2007-08-20 05:51:14
·
answer #8
·
answered by Steel Rain 7
·
0⤊
2⤋
Oh! Good Gracious No! My God! We all want more of the same gross incompetence and special interest serving you flee-bags have given us.
Who needs a good economy?, Our freedoms back, less contrived fear mongering? Respect around the world.!An administration that can read and speak English? We don’t want these things.
More abuse! That’s what we all want.
More unbelievably stupid decisions, one compounding the other…That’s what we want more of. Yeah!
Jaysus, maybe we really are as dumb as the rest of the world thinks we are.
ASK NOT WHAT YOUR COUNTRY CAN DO FOR YOU…ASK WHAT YOU CAN DO TO YOUR COUNTRY!
The real Repugnant slogan.
Girly-boys unite! More Repugnants! Oh Yeah!
Say, where did you get those new thumb screws; I see they have no rust; mine are infecting my thumbs.
Forget it, I guess you have to know somebody in the White House; or is it the BROWN House?
Jim D
2007-08-20 05:41:26
·
answer #9
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
0⤋
presidents a million-8 have been incredibly stable, as have been 10, 11, and 12. each of something sucked in my opinion. After 12, there replaced into little admire for the form, and by ability of the time Lincoln took workplace the rustic replaced into damned, regardless of if Andrew Johnson replaced into ok in my e book.
2016-10-16 05:46:23
·
answer #10
·
answered by broderic 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
Wow Bill O Reiley II, Shawn Hannity II., Rush Oxycotton II Stop watching Fox News. You are a victim of forced ignorance. Why dont you share your research with us. If you can sit there and tell me that you are safer today with a Republican President (God I hate to put this moron in any catagory), then your lost and spinning down a sewer drain along with the other die hard Bush people.
2007-08-20 05:38:32
·
answer #11
·
answered by Anonymous
·
4⤊
1⤋