What I don't understand about today's society

[Reaganfan]

It's alright to have videos about how stupid the President of the USA is...but it's not alright for politicans to make wisecracks about a threatening country.

It's alright for our young people to turn on the radio and hear filth about sex and use profanity and terrible language...but when someone makes a "nappyheaded ho" remark or calls a black presidential candidate articulate...that's not alright.

For liberals, it's bad to execute people like Tookie Williams and to pull a "Jack Bauer" on terrorists to get information, but it's alright to perform late term abortions.

Is it just me, or are these times hypocritical?

[Reaganfan]

Naso, the difference is that liberals use reason, whereas your responses are all simply emotional.

Actually, it's the opposite. Take Iraq for example. Terrorists are blowing stuff up...the Democrats want out because they are acting on emotion, not reason.

[Reaganfan]

Naso, the difference is that liberals use reason, whereas your responses are all simply emotional.

Actually, it's the opposite. Take Iraq for example. Terrorists are blowing stuff up...the Democrats want out because they are acting on emotion, not reason.

So, why not go after the terrorists rather than invading one of the countries that had the fewest connections to terrorists.  (if traveling through an area is considered sponsoring terrorism, we need to bomb Florida - where as far as I can recall the 9/11 terrorists attended flight school.

Special ops and intel gathering aren't as 'sexy' as blowing up bridges and buildings, but they tend to be a whole lot more effective at stopping terrorists.

Speaking of inconsistencies - why is seeing a boob on tv (the anatomical part, not assorted actors, personalities, and talking heads) considered so much worse than seeing a murder on tv.

Look, I think liberals and the media intentionally ignore what President Bush gives as his reasoning.

He's President of the United States, he has overwhelming support, about 60-80% approval ratings, it's one year after September 11th, all intel shows that Saddam Hussien has WMDs and we know he used them on his own people 15-25 years back. Congress, including Senators like Edwards, Kerry, Clinton, Kennedy ect. give the President the authority to invade to find weapons, remove Saddam and try to put in place a free government. We invade, and easily take over Baghdad, kill Saddam's sons, then we capture Saddam in less than 12 months.

We invaded because after 9/11 any threat needed to be taken seriously. Bush said that 9/11 sparked a War on Terror where "you are either with us, or you are with the terrorists." Iraq wasn't with us...now they are. We just have to stop the milita violence.

[Reaganfan]

Naso, the difference is that liberals use reason, whereas your responses are all simply emotional.

Actually, it's the opposite. Take Iraq for example. Terrorists are blowing stuff up...the Democrats want out because they are acting on emotion, not reason.

So, why not go after the terrorists rather than invading one of the countries that had the fewest connections to terrorists.  (if traveling through an area is considered sponsoring terrorism, we need to bomb Florida - where as far as I can recall the 9/11 terrorists attended flight school.

Special ops and intel gathering aren't as 'sexy' as blowing up bridges and buildings, but they tend to be a whole lot more effective at stopping terrorists.

Speaking of inconsistencies - why is seeing a boob on tv (the anatomical part, not assorted actors, personalities, and talking heads) considered so much worse than seeing a murder on tv.

Look, I think liberals and the media intentionally ignore what President Bush gives as his reasoning.

He's President of the United States, he has overwhelming support, about 60-80% approval ratings, it's one year after September 11th, all intel shows that Saddam Hussien has WMDs and we know he used them on his own people 15-25 years back. Congress, including Senators like Edwards, Kerry, Clinton, Kennedy ect. give the President the authority to invade to find weapons, remove Saddam and try to put in place a free government. We invade, and easily take over Baghdad, kill Saddam's sons, then we capture Saddam in less than 12 months.

We invaded because after 9/11 any threat needed to be taken seriously. Bush said that 9/11 sparked a War on Terror where "you are either with us, or you are with the terrorists." Iraq wasn't with us...now they are. We just have to stop the milita violence.

1.  Berger summed it up quite well

2.  The authority you speak of was also about war AS A LAST RESORT, something which well never happened

3.  You have still yet to give a reason or how 9/11 was connected to Iraq without mentioning the words Bush Said.  Just because Bush said something doesn't make it right.  So try to make the argument without using (Bush said)

4.  The reasoning has changed many many times

5.  The Iraqis still aren't with us, and in invading we turned a blind eye to a bunch of other horrible leaders around the world, whoa re much bigger threats to us.

We knew Iraq was a threat and that after 9/11/01...no threat...whether directly connected to 9/11 or not...could be taken lightly.