Election Decided by 'Skins Game

[mr_gyptian]

OK, I'm going to take you through this slowly. We were fighting communism. We supported some fascists, I do not deny that. As far as the Contras go:

"The Iran-contra affair was the product of two separate initiatives during the administration of President Ronald Reagan. The first was a commitment to aid the contras who were conducting a guerrilla war against the Sandinista government of Nicaragua. The second was to placate “moderates” within the Iranian government in order to secure the release of American hostages held by pro-Iranian groups in Lebanon and to influence Iranian foreign policy in a pro-Western direction."

Was that absolutely on the level, no. Should we have gone into Lebanon and then Iran to maybe secure the safety of the hostages? That is a huge maybe. Of course we could have done nothing. maybe 400 days in captivity was not enough for the innocent hostages. of course some were businessman, I guess they got lucky they weren't killed.

What I am curious about is what are the other countries I rail against going for? What was France or Russia's reason for not supporting the ousting of Hussein? Take a look at the Oil for Food scandal. get back to me. I can assure you they make our operations in S.A. in the 80s look like an after school special.

What were France's objectives in Africa?

Now you look at all the bad things the US does. According to up and down. Then you balance it with the good for the rest of the world. The funding for the international organizations from hosting and bankrolling the UN to also being the bank roll for the IMF. Then to the disaster relief we do all around the globe, regardless of politice. Think of the earth quake that destroyed the city in Iran. who went in to help? not France or Russia. Who intervened in the former Yugoslavia? Not France or Russia. 15 billion to Africa for AIDS and who knows what else relief. Again, not Russia, France, or China. Oh wait, France has done a bang up job putting down that rebellion in the Ivory Coast. Google Algeria and French Benevolence. see what you come up with.

South America. google Mexico (Central, I know) and Bailout. Google Argentina and Bailout.

the reason why I rail against these countries is because all they do is support dictators, thieves, terrorists, and the like. certain instances in our history we've supported each. but no where near the amount France, Germany, or Russia have. Additionally, what do either of the aforementioned three ever do for another country?

I'm all eyes.

[13]

You know, mr_g, for a guy who likes to argue, you don't do too well with facts.

We supported Afghani's against the Soviet Union.

If you get the chance some day, ask an Afghani how much help they got from the Arabs in fighting the Soviets. It was not much at all. There's a great article on this by Jeff Goldburg in the New Yorker about a year ago. So to say we supported Osama is stretching it quite a bit.

From the 9/11 Commission Report:

"Young Muslims from around the world flocked to Afghanistan to join as volunteers in what was seen as a “holy war”—jihad—against an invader.The largest numbers came from the Middle East. Some were Saudis, and among them was Usama Bin Ladin."

"Saudi Arabia and the United States supplied billions of dollars worth of secret assistance to rebel groups in Afghanistan fighting the Soviet occupation. This assistance was funneled through Pakistan:the Pakistani military intelligence service (Inter-Services Intelligence Directorate, or ISID), helped train the rebels and distribute the arms."

Not much help from Arabs, you say?

The report then goes on to say that we didn't support Usama directly. Of course not! We would never do such a thing and admit to it, especially if it came back to bite us in the ass years later. Hindsight is not 20/20, my friend.

I don't think it's all that much of a stretch.

[mr_gyptian]

what I was saying is that these supposed jihadists did not do the fighting, the Afghani's did. I do not dispute the funding. Bin Laden paid rent in Afghanistan in the form of funding the Taliban.

Oh and it is Jeffrey Goldberg's writing. I'll try and link tomorrow.

[repeat]

So this means kerry will win?

[The AD]

That's right. So all you Bush supporters might as well just vote for Kerry now, since the outcome is inevitable

[Duker]

Green bay: 28
Washington: 14

George bush: 1 term president
John kerry: 43rd president of the Usa.

[kchri]

Trick? Or treat?

[snowfire]

yeah Packers!!

(and not because of kerry, I really am a Packers fan. )

[Telekóptero]

Atta boy, Favre!!! hilarious, after all the analysts and polls and often one sided coverage, this game result gives me far more confidence about the election than anything i've seen on BushTV. C'mon kerry! snarf Team Rove whole, and clean your teeth with their bones!

hot damn, this is good.

[karma]

This just means that Kerry will win the election. By no means does it mean he will actually become president...

[Duker]

actually the skins' lost four years ago.... Bush didnt really win the election but hes in the white house now. Even a better sign for kerry

[karma]

4 years ago didnt qualify for the skins win thing because there was no incumbant president...

[Duker]

its the incumbent party.... not candidate.

[Dexter Rutecki]

you must have missed the statue of Saddam being toppled.

Man, you're an ignorant fuck. That's been exposed as a military orchestrated media event, featuring about 75 Iraqis.
Hardly explains the rest of them killing our soldiers, and maiming them, because chickenshit George recklessly threw them in harm's way (ignoring the advice of military planners and instead taking the word of his favored civilian advisers, intent on proving the Pentagon wrong and fighting on the cheap) without adequate protection or planning.
And your lie about Clinton remains a lie. What's factually true is that AWOL George decided to stand down our military at Tora Bora to let the mercenaries/warlords have their chance, and lost Bin Laden for us. Then he decided to wag the dog with Iraq so we'd forget about this failure, and the fact that Afghanistan remains largely under warlord control.
Incredible how the right has no conception of reality.

[BobMc]

Damn dude, let it die. Considering the fact you claim to have Brett on ignore, you sure do spend a lot of time replying to him.

BobMc

[Dexter Rutecki]

president of the USA? What a disgrace....

Daddy helped him dodge Vietnam service, he went AWOL while in the Guard, his records were cleaned up thanks to daddy's connections, he went on coke binges and DUI but once again daddy intervened to bail his ass out, he ran the businesses he had (courtesy of daddy) into the ground but was never held accountable, he was a male cheerleader.

And you want to make issue of a guy who served, was decorated multiple times, and then had the courage to tell the truth to America about what was happening?
It's too bad you're not capable of shame.

[Dexter Rutecki]

Damn dude, let it die. Considering the fact you claim to have Brett on ignore, you sure do spend a lot of time replying to him.

BobMc

I had him on ignore until he changed his name.
You know what to do if you don't like it...

[BobMc]

I had him on ignore until he changed his name.
You know what to do if you don't like it...

As has been said this was a thread started in jest, merely a trend in a football series. Being a Packers fan I've read the thread a few times, hoping to see some lighthearted football discussion. As usual, you two ass-clowns (Is there supposed to be a hyphen between ass and clown?) can't keep from clawing at each others throats.

Dexter, you truly need to stop focusing on Brett, let him be. The dude is in another state far from home skiing, yet you feel the need to bring up days old posts. I know, I know, you just couldn't let his posts from a few days ago go without a reply, puhhlease.

Don't start using the "if you don't like it don't read it" shit, like I said, you two decided to turn it into "politics."

BobMc

[karma]

its the incumbent party.... not candidate.

Guess i should have reread the original post.... Yer right. I must have assumed it was Incumbent so that there was no asterick on 2000, but since the asterick is in Kerrys' favor I'm happy.

[Dexter Rutecki]

As has been said this was a thread started in jest, merely a trend in a football series. Being a Packers fan I've read the thread a few times, hoping to see some lighthearted football discussion. As usual, you two ass-clowns (Is there supposed to be a hyphen between ass and clown?) can't keep from clawing at each others throats.

Dexter, you truly need to stop focusing on Brett, let him be. The dude is in another state far from home skiing, yet you feel the need to bring up days old posts. I know, I know, you just couldn't let his posts from a few days ago go without a reply, puhhlease.

Don't start using the "if you don't like it don't read it" shit, like I said, you two decided to turn it into "politics."

BobMc

I didn't post here until page six when the thread was the third from the top, and you're talking to me about letting things die? Why not talk to someone who made one of the 150 other posts before mine.
How many of those were fun football related posts?
Telling me that I'm 'focusing' on Brett (right) and that I turned this thread into politics (have you looked at any of the other five pages??) is bullshit. Get real.
When I force you to read a thread, then you can bitch to me.

[freshies]

Pack wins!
Red Sox win!
Lunar eclipse!
Tahoe resorts have earliest opening dates in history!
I ski'ed pow on Sat 10/30!

Strange things happening this past week, all good.

My call: Kerry wins tomorrow.

[up an down]

bush has a "victory salute" up his sleeve though


http://static.vidvote.com/movies/bushuncensored.mov

[Grange]

Packer's win ( ), Vikings lose, and I went grouse hunting with my puppy. Great weekend indeed. Considering I already voted I will just sit back and watch the coverage of the long lines at the voting booth tomorrow with my Packer hat.

[FNG]

Favre threw three INT's bwahahahahaha!

[mr_gyptian]

"Speaking of courts, Republicans who are superstitious about sports and politics can take comfort in another trend: Every time the Minneapolis or Los Angeles Lakers have gone to the NBA finals in an election year, win or lose--and it's happened seven times before, in 1952, 1968, 1972, 1980, 1984, 1988 and 2000--a Republican has gone to the White House. This year, of course, the Lakers lost to the Detroit Pistons in five games. The Pistons (then of Fort Wayne, Ind.) were also in the finals in 1956, the only year a Republican won the presidency without the Lakers making it to the finals."

Anyone see Russert's crazy marker board math? 269 to 269. Then have Cheney cast the deciding vote. Heh.