Bush has been in office for 7 1/2 years

[QUOTE=apb;341634]May be Reagan/Bush should not have trained Bin Laden years ago. Would have saved us a lot of problems.

Gotta love the irony in repubs crying about the Hollywood wackos. After all, their big hero, Reagan, was a former actor....

Andrew[/QUOTE]

Andrew you and I are tighter than the hair on your dogs back, but I don't get why you bash Ronnie he was all that and a bag of chips. Reagan and Bush trained Afghan's to defend themselves against Russian invaders and was a worthy cause at the time. You saying they trained terrorists is a low blow.

Mark,

Not meant as a low blow. If you do some checking around you'll find that during Reagan/Bush the CIA helped out Bin Ladin in Afganistan. Heck, you'll even find photos of Rumsfeld happily shaking hands with Hussien. All part of the "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" mentality. Yes, both parties have stood by that. After getting bitten in the butt on that several times you think they would learn. My point was to kyfinatic. He commented that Clinton let Bin Ladin slip away (note that we had no legit reason to want him at that point), yet he fails to acknowledge that Reagan/Bush trained him. Its not all black and white and no one administration is completely good or evil.

Andrew

ps, to those who want to lump me into the Obama crowd, I'm an indepedant. Personally I think both candidates leave a lot to be desired.

[QUOTE=apb;341722]Mark,

Not meant as a low blow. If you do some checking around you'll find that during Reagan/Bush the CIA helped out Bin Ladin in Afganistan. Heck, you'll even find photos of Rumsfeld happily shaking hands with Hussien. All part of the "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" mentality. Yes, both parties have stood by that. After getting bitten in the butt on that several times you think they would learn. My point was to kyfinatic. He commented that Clinton let Bin Ladin slip away (note that we had no legit reason to want him at that point), yet he fails to acknowledge that Reagan/Bush trained him. Its not all black and white and no one administration is completely good or evil.

Andrew

ps, to those who want to lump me into the Obama crowd, I'm an indepedant. Personally I think both candidates leave a lot to be desired.[/QUOTE]

No I too am not one of these it's all one party's fault type of guys. All politicians are crooks and liars that's why they are in politics so they can be paid to lie, and steal.

[QUOTE=apb;341722]Mark,

Not meant as a low blow. If you do some checking around you'll find that during Reagan/Bush the CIA helped out Bin Ladin in Afganistan. Heck, you'll even find photos of Rumsfeld happily shaking hands with Hussien. All part of the "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" mentality. Yes, both parties have stood by that. After getting bitten in the butt on that several times you think they would learn. My point was to kyfinatic. He commented that Clinton let Bin Ladin slip away (note that we had no legit reason to want him at that point), yet he fails to acknowledge that Reagan/Bush trained him. Its not all black and white and no one administration is completely good or evil.

Andrew

ps, to those who want to lump me into the Obama crowd, I'm an indepedant. Personally I think both candidates leave a lot to be desired.[/QUOTE]


I agree that both candidates have a lot to be desired,I also am aware that the US trained Bin Laden to fight Russia in Afghanistan and even sold arms to Saddam in Iraq to fight Iran,but Bin Laden was wanted when Clinton could have had him handed over by Sudan,he was responsible for bombing the US Embassy in Kenya,the 93' World Trade Center bombing,several other attempted bombings of Albanian US Embassy and others,the plain simple fact is Clinton was too busy playing with his interns to care,he let him walk and 9-1-01 followed.Obama is being backed by the same enemy we are fighting,education paid for by Saudi's with ties to Hamas and the PLO,buddies with Bill Ayers who bombed the Pentagon,definately not Presidential material in my eyes.Dems keep hiding records and playing the old switch the focus game,but some of us have been around long enough to see the truth.

[QUOTE=pontooner;341612]Beatdowns is a interesting choice of words you used, sounds almost as if you think you or your side won or something. I just got tired of the round and round, rehashing stuff..... and just let it all go.

You pubs certainly have a gang like mentalaity on this board whith all the pats on the backs and praises you throw at each other with any post that you remotely agree with but you know what they say: Birds of a feather flock together. :)

I've been tempted to post a few times but have fought hard not to relapse.

Liked I posted before, I read these boards everyday to keep up wih the going ons.

Fight on Col Forbin!!!!!!!!![/QUOTE]

I knew you'd bite, just had to use the right bait. Admit it, you love this stuff. This is a great place to vent frustrations and do a little jousting.

Birds of a feather in our case is the common interest of fishing. There's probably not a person on this board I wouldn't go fishing with and get along with just fine. (Well, maybe I wouldn't turn my back on Col, he'd push me over the side and claim he wanted me to embrace the fishes' culture.)

Anyway, you've got some support against the ganglike mentality. Andrew's back, Jbryant's making kool aid by the 55 gallon drum, and Col of course kicks in when he's not brainwashing hapless kids. Now stop making excuses, and make some contributions.

After all, your 2nd amendment rights are small price to pay to get a socialist president into office. Right?

Since when is posting links and copy/pastes of journalism by independent sources kool aid? The stuff I posted isn't really for or against Obama, it backs up some points that the Republicans have made and dismisses other claims that they have made. I don't think either candidate is great, I just hate to see misinformation spread.

I don't see either one of us changing the other's mind, though. I have done my research, I have not just taken in what Obama's campaign has said. I would hope that you've done yours and not just taken the Republican party's word for it. We have just taken our research and drawn different conclusions. I'm probably done posting here on the off topic board though, I post links with generally useful unbiased information and I'm apparently making kool aid, and not the flavor that you all seem to like.

Sure have thin skin JBryant, no need to take your bat and go home, it's okay to be dead wrong every now and then.

Research can be slanted any way one wants. Myself, I'm not guilty of much research, just dish out my uninformed and 'bout half ignorant opinions, and take my lumps. I call attempting to slant Obama's views on gun control as positive based on his public statements as serving kool aid. The man is anti-gun, his actions as pointed out by another poster proves it.

I got sucked in again..dangit DH.

It's not that I'm thin skinned, but arguing over the internet just isn't going to accomplish anything. You're not going to change my mind and I'm not going to change your mind. I'd much rather be reading about fishing than trying to convince you your wrong and having you try to convince me I'm wrong, hehe. And I agree, research can be slanted any way you want it. I do my research through all different sources though, including Fox News and whatever else I find, either for or against my personal opinion. I may still be biased, but I do try to read and analyze views other than my own and change my beliefs when needed.

As for his actions, I don't think they're being characterized correctly. He never voted to ban the sale of ammunition used in hunting. He voted to ban the sale of ammunition specifically marketed by ammo companies to be armor piercing. There are also a few other portions of his policies that are being misrepresented, as I'm sure there are some of McCain's policies being misrepresented by Democrats. There are some parts of his policy I agree with and some I don't. It's perfectly fine with me if others disagree with all of his policy, as long as they know what his policy actually is, instead of just reading "he tried to ban ammo used for hunting!"

"He never voted to ban the sale of ammunition used in hunting. He voted to ban the sale of ammunition specifically marketed by ammo companies to be armor piercing."

Give me his definition of armor piercing ammo and does it differ from the definition of Handgun Control or the Brady folks? Better do more research, or at least learn the history of firearms and ammo. Many of the SO-CALLED COP KILLER ROUNDS have been around since the 70's...you either don't hunt, don't own a firearm or don't believe anything you can't find on a political web site!