Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
It's the job of the one making an insinuation to defend their position.
Yes, they were.
Ok? We had no reason to invade Iraq regardless of "who didn't get the job done." The American people were lied to so that the Bush administration could continue it's un-winnable war on terrorism.
Hate to break this to you, a large percentage of the troops in Iraq are simply going to move two countries over. The "war" will continue for the next four years, unabated, only in a different venue. So get used to it.
I think the democrats are OK with that so technically everyone will be happy. And being happy and feeling good are what counts, ya know.
Hate to break this to you, a large percentage of the troops in Iraq are simply going to move two countries over. The "war" will continue for the next four years, unabated, only in a different venue. So get used to it.
Obama cant accomplish everything he proposed.
The GOP wont allow it. Some DEMs wont allow it.
Buy he can do 2 things...by himself.
First of all....You've got to allow the Bush tax breaks to lapse.
None of it trickled down, That was broken down theory.
As a country, we are hugely in debt and we cant afford tax breaks for companies , some of which are profiting at record rates...
He dosen't have to act. The cuts simply expire.
Secondly, he has to end the war as quickily as possible.
There was no purpose for the Iraq occupation and there still isnt.
It is making the USA a bad word world wide and bankrupting our economy.
Bush would never admit a blunder.
We have to save money and lives.
Obama dosent need anyone's approval. He can simply order the troops to come home and the Iraq governemnt will take care if itself.
What will happen when we leave?
That's their problem.
I dont care.
Those two acts will stabilize our economy and lift national morale.
A raise in the minimum wage wouldnt hurt either.
Get that done and we'll be better off in 4 years than we are now.
a very very very good question.
It's the job of the one making an insinuation to defend their position.
Yes, they were.
Ok? We had no reason to invade Iraq regardless of "who didn't get the job done." The American people were lied to so that the Bush administration could continue it's un-winnable war on terrorism.
War does not have to be declared for it to be a legal or justified action... the resolution(s) to use force in many instances after WWII are not illegal, although by a technical standpoint they are not "wars"
So you're saying our Constitution is incorrect, and that the President can actually attack and invade whoever he wants?
1. Gay marriage and abortion come to mind as liberal social policies that libertarians support, that is if they are true to their edict by keeping the government out of personal decisions.It's the job of the one making an insinuation to defend their position.
Yes, they were.
Ok? We had no reason to invade Iraq regardless of "who didn't get the job done." The American people were lied to so that the Bush administration could continue it's un-winnable war on terrorism.
1. Gay marriage and abortion come to mind as liberal social policies that libertarians support, that is if they are true to their edict by keeping the government out of personal decisions.
2. If that's your position instead of saying "Bush lied" you should first list Truman (Korea), Kennedy (Viet Nam) and Clinton (Kosovo) as liars. But of course that would go against you actual agenda, which is to support Democrats.
3. The war on terrorism can be won easily by killing terrorists, becoming energy independent and keeping our borders secure.
1. Absolutely. What right does the government have to sanction someone's personal relationships? Abortion is trickier, but yes it should be up to a woman, her family, and her doctor to decide what's best.
2. My actual agenda is not to support Democrats, or Republicans for that matter, but the Constitution. And as I stated in my previous post, all those wars were pointless and un-Constitutional.
3. You can't kill all the terrorists in the world, it's not possible and we'll end up bankrupting our nation if we continue this policy. Osama bin-Laden wanted us to come over there and attack, because it's made it easier for him to rally supporters to his cause. I'll agree with you on energy independence. The best way to keep our borders secure would be to bring our troops home so that they can actually defend them.
1. So therefore libertarians have liberal social policies, like I stated earlier.
2. Well again, claiming that Bush lied while ignoring the three Democrat Presidents who did the same thing shows a bias towards Democrats.
3. You don't have to kill all of them, just most of them. The remainder won't have the support of their countrymen. And when they're threatening our allies, like Saddam did, that's when you do it.
1. I would consider them more common sense social policies to be honest, or maybe Constitutional social policies.
2. I don't think I can make it any clearer than I already have. I do not support their wars anymore than I support Bush's wars. Especially Vietnam, where we were not attacked in the Gulf of Tonkin as was reported.
3. You can't kill an ideal, and I repeat that we will bankrupt our country by trying. You need a defined enemy in a war, "terrorism" is not a defined enemy. It's an excuse used to keep our nation in a perpetual state of war. I once again refer you to Thomas Jefferson's views on "entangling alliances."
1. Just be honest and admit that you support the same social policies that liberals do.
2. Again, claiming Bush lied is not clear at all.
3. We killed fascism, which was an ideal. We can do the same with terrorism.
