hey democrats ! is Americas capitalistic system a form of white supremacy ?

[pknopp]

Urban Institute? That explains it. It's propaganda.

Point out any inaccuracies if you can.

Nine Charts about Wealth Inequality in America (Updated)

"The federal government spends over $400 billion to support asset development, but those subsidies primarily benefited higher-income families—exacerbating wealth inequality and racial wealth disparities."

First, I agree that Federal programs do not benefit people. Then why is it when we try and cut those programs that don't help, do left-wingers scream and rage against it?

Second, there is nothing inaccurate about the charts on those pages. I agree with them all.

What we disagree with, is where the blame is.

The blame is on the people who don't get an education or learn a skill, and go make money.
The blame is on the people who refuse to work hard, and earn a living.
The blame in on the people who spend everything they have, and refuse to save for retirement.

It's not racism. If you show up at my bank, with black skin, and deposit $10,000 into a retirement account... the bank isn't going to..... What? What do you think the bank is going to do? You think they are going to say "Oh sorry, we don't take money from people like you"? Really? Show me that.

If you are black, and you open an investment IRA account, the bank is going to be MORE THAN HAPPY to take your cash and earn profit for both of you.

More than happy. Guarantee it.

The reason blacks don't have wealth, is because they don't put the money in the account.

The reason blacks don't earn as much, is because they don't get jobs that pay more.

Go get a job that pays more. Learn to be an electrician, and make $25/hour. Learn to install windows for Andersons. $20/hour to start.

Anyone can succeed in this country. ANYONE. A drunk guy, whittling duck callers, ends up running a multimillion dollar company, Duck Commander. An immigrant from Mexico, without a work permit, started a Drone building company, and is now a multi-millionaire.

Anyone can be successful. Its up to you to do it.

All those factoids on that link you posted, all accurate. But the problem is, you want to pretend it has something to do with racism, or capitalism, or some other -ism you want to blame. All of your conclusions are false. The facts are true. The conclusion is false.

People make choices. Those choices are why some are rich, and some are poor.

People rightfully so do not trust banks to invest their money.

 

[Andylusion]

If Apple does a stock buy back, all that does is raise the value of outstanding shares.

So me, being a common man that earned $30K last year, my stocks increase in value.

And what did you do to earn that value?
Stock buybacks make no contribution to the productive capabilities of the firm. In fact, such distributions to shareholders which often come on top of dividends disrupt growth dynamics that link productivity and pay to productive employees of the firm. IOW, for all your whining about others wanting "free stuff", you're just another parasite sponging off the labor of others.

I worked a job? I got up at 5 AM, and spent 10 hours at work, earning the money I used to purchase those stocks?

Not sure what your point is.

Stock buybacks make no contribution to the productive capabilities of the firm.

No, not in the short term. But in the long term, reducing over all dividend payments, means you can divert money that would have gone to dividends, to other things in the future. In the short term, you are right. But in the long term, with lower dividend payouts to stock holders, you and move that money to other things.

In fact, such distributions to shareholders which often come on top of dividends disrupt growth dynamics that link productivity and pay to productive employees of the firm. IOW, for all your whining about others wanting "free stuff", you're just another parasite sponging off the labor of others.

First... no you are contradicting yourself in a ridiculous fashion.

Do you not see the contradiction in your own position?

Think about it. If you believe that shareholders are parasites.... then you should support stock buy backs. Buying back that stock, will reduce the number of parasites.

I'm getting dividends from owning shares of Apple computer. If they buy back that stock (which I would have to agree to sell).... but if they buy back the stock, then I would no longer be a parasite.

You are being logically contradictory. "Shareholders are parasites, and Apple is terrible for reducing the number of shareholder parasites they have!"..... Contradictory statement.

Second, the claim is false. I am not getting anything "free". I had to work... and work hard... to earn the $10s of thousands of dollars that I used to purchase thousands of dollars in stock that I own.

I am getting NOTHING free. I didn't just stand around with my hands out, demanding society drop investments in my lap, because I'm a spoiled brat left-winger demanding everyone coddle me.

I earned that money. And I worked very hard to do it. I could have purchased a new car, instead of driving an 03 Grand Marquis. I sacrificed what I wanted (a new car) to have what I need (a retirement account). I could have had a new car, and no retirement, and been wondering around like a mindless left-winger, asking why I'm so poor.

So no, that's wrong.

 

[Andylusion]

Urban Institute? That explains it. It's propaganda.

Point out any inaccuracies if you can.

Nine Charts about Wealth Inequality in America (Updated)

"The federal government spends over $400 billion to support asset development, but those subsidies primarily benefited higher-income families—exacerbating wealth inequality and racial wealth disparities."

First, I agree that Federal programs do not benefit people. Then why is it when we try and cut those programs that don't help, do left-wingers scream and rage against it?

Second, there is nothing inaccurate about the charts on those pages. I agree with them all.

What we disagree with, is where the blame is.

The blame is on the people who don't get an education or learn a skill, and go make money.
The blame is on the people who refuse to work hard, and earn a living.
The blame in on the people who spend everything they have, and refuse to save for retirement.

It's not racism. If you show up at my bank, with black skin, and deposit $10,000 into a retirement account... the bank isn't going to..... What? What do you think the bank is going to do? You think they are going to say "Oh sorry, we don't take money from people like you"? Really? Show me that.

If you are black, and you open an investment IRA account, the bank is going to be MORE THAN HAPPY to take your cash and earn profit for both of you.

More than happy. Guarantee it.

The reason blacks don't have wealth, is because they don't put the money in the account.

The reason blacks don't earn as much, is because they don't get jobs that pay more.

Go get a job that pays more. Learn to be an electrician, and make $25/hour. Learn to install windows for Andersons. $20/hour to start.

Anyone can succeed in this country. ANYONE. A drunk guy, whittling duck callers, ends up running a multimillion dollar company, Duck Commander. An immigrant from Mexico, without a work permit, started a Drone building company, and is now a multi-millionaire.

Anyone can be successful. Its up to you to do it.

All those factoids on that link you posted, all accurate. But the problem is, you want to pretend it has something to do with racism, or capitalism, or some other -ism you want to blame. All of your conclusions are false. The facts are true. The conclusion is false.

People make choices. Those choices are why some are rich, and some are poor.

People rightfully so do not trust banks to invest their money.

I picked the easiest example. But there are numerous ways to wisely invest. I personally have an account with Capital Group, and I have a financial advisor from Legend Financial.

Sounds complicated, but it's actually very easy.

Another fairly decent group is Fidelity, and you can open an account with them.

But by far the easiest is just open an IRA with your bank.

As far as "trusting the banks".... heck no. I don't trust the bank at all.

*I* pick the investment.

Not the bank. You get the listing of the investments, and you look at them. I'll give you one example.

EuroPacific Growth Fund - A | American Funds

EuroPacific Growth Fund (Class A | Fund 16 | AEPGX) seeks to provide long-term growth of capital.

www.capitalgroup.com

You look at the fund. How long has the fund existed? Inception date is 1984. Good. You don't want a fund that hasn't been around for less than 10 years. Let people who have money to lose, play with newbie funds that just started.

Then you look at the returns.

The 1 year, and 3 year returns suck, because this year is crap due to Corona. But what is the long term returns? Looks like almost 6% for 10 years, and 10% since inception.

That's pretty good. 10% is not bad.

Then you look at how they compare to the market.

The black line is the market. This is how much your investment would be worth if you bought in with $10K 10 years ago. Today it would be worth $35K or more (if not for the Corona dive).

That's way better than the market.

Last think you would look at, is what exactly are they investing in.

Not hard. Looks like they are in InfoTech, Health Care, Financials, and Consumer. Pretty well diversified. ASML is the worlds largest supplier of semiconductors. Daiichi Sankyo is a Pharma company in Japan. Alibaba Group is a tech company in China.

I have roughly 1/3 of my portfolio in this fund. This fund has given me (not including this year) a 10% return on investment. This year is looking bad for stocks, but after this blows over, those stocks will bounce back. They always do.

Now if you don't like those... find another fund.

No, don't let the banks choose what you invest into. YOU choose what you invest into. The bank provides the IRA account. You pick the investments.

 

[Cecilie1200]

no

then you need to take a close look at the people you support .

REALLY?? I’m amazed that anyone who supports Donald J. Trump thinks that intone could be worse for the country.

I'm continually amazed that you think you have something to say about what's "best for the country" when the country in question isn't yours.

 

[pknopp]

no

then you need to take a close look at the people you support .

REALLY?? I’m amazed that anyone who supports Donald J. Trump thinks that intone could be worse for the country.

I'm continually amazed that you think you have something to say about what's "best for the country" when the country in question isn't yours.

As a country we seem to think we should be able to tell other countries what is best for them even up to making lies to invade them.

 

[georgephillip]

I worked a job? I got up at 5 AM, and spent 10 hours at work, earning the money I used to purchase those stocks?

Not sure what your point is.

"If you receive dividends from your stocks, you did nothing to earn those rewards, and they came at the expense of productive labor:

The Divine Right of Capital by Marjorie Kelly: A Summary

"Today, our worldview has a bias – that stockholders are to be paid as much as possible, while employees are to be paid as little as possible. 'Income for one group is declared good, and income for another group is declared bad.'

"Nowhere is this more clear than in our financial statements. Here’s the basic formula you’ll find on financial statements:

"Capital Income + Retained earnings = Revenue – (Employee income + Cost of materials)

"Kelly uses some simple algebra to show that this formula could just as easily be re-written as:

"Employee income + Retained earnings = Revenue – (Capital income + Cost of materials)"

 

[bripat9643]

no

then you need to take a close look at the people you support .

REALLY?? I’m amazed that anyone who supports Donald J. Trump thinks that intone could be worse for the country.

I'm continually amazed that you think you have something to say about what's "best for the country" when the country in question isn't yours.

As a country we seem to think we should be able to tell other countries what is best for them even up to making lies to invade them.

That much is true. So what? How does that make dragonlady's advice correct?

 

[pknopp]

no

then you need to take a close look at the people you support .

REALLY?? I’m amazed that anyone who supports Donald J. Trump thinks that intone could be worse for the country.

I'm continually amazed that you think you have something to say about what's "best for the country" when the country in question isn't yours.

As a country we seem to think we should be able to tell other countries what is best for them even up to making lies to invade them.

That much is true. So what? How does that make dragonlady's advice correct?

I was commenting mostly on others having an opinion on what another country is doing, not on whether the comment was correct.

Personally I stay out of the elections of other countries. It's none of my business. Who we elect probably does have more interest in other countries though as we so often butt our noses in where it doesn't belong.

 

[georgephillip]

No, not in the short term. But in the long term, reducing over all dividend payments, means you can divert money that would have gone to dividends, to other things in the future. In the short term, you are right. But in the long term, with lower dividend payouts to stock holders, you and move that money to other things.

What's the difference to shareholder returns between buybacks and dividends?

Dividend vs. Buyback: What's the Difference?

"Companies reward their shareholders in two main ways—by paying dividends or by buying back shares of stock. An increasing number of blue chips, or well-established companies, are doing both.

"Paying dividends and stock buybacks make a potent combination that can significantly boost shareholder returns. But which is the better—stock buybacks or dividends?

"The main difference between dividends and buybacks is that a dividend payment represents a definite return in the current timeframe that will be taxed, whereas a buyback represents an uncertain future return on which tax is deferred until the shares are sold."

Both rewards come at the expense of productive labor which in many cases today toils in sweat shops with little regard for human rights.

 

[Andylusion]

I worked a job? I got up at 5 AM, and spent 10 hours at work, earning the money I used to purchase those stocks?

Not sure what your point is.

"If you receive dividends from your stocks, you did nothing to earn those rewards, and they came at the expense of productive labor:

The Divine Right of Capital by Marjorie Kelly: A Summary

"Today, our worldview has a bias – that stockholders are to be paid as much as possible, while employees are to be paid as little as possible. 'Income for one group is declared good, and income for another group is declared bad.'

"Nowhere is this more clear than in our financial statements. Here’s the basic formula you’ll find on financial statements:

"Capital Income + Retained earnings = Revenue – (Employee income + Cost of materials)

"Kelly uses some simple algebra to show that this formula could just as easily be re-written as:

"Employee income + Retained earnings = Revenue – (Capital income + Cost of materials)"

If you receive dividends from your stocks, you did nothing to earn those rewards, and they came at the expense of productive labor

Not true. That stock ownership, represents and investment into the company, without which there would be no employees earning wages.

that stockholders are to be paid as much as possible

Also no true.

Yields have been lower in the last 30 years, than at any point from the start of the stock market, to the 1980s.

Income for one group is declared good, and income for another group is declared bad

Depends on the perspective doesn't it? If you owned a store, and you spent say $2.5 Million to make that store, and you gave all your revenue to the employees, so that you barely earned $50 Thousands a year....

Would you be ok with that? Spending $2.5 Million to earn $50,000? Well guess what sparky... the average McDonald's costs $2.5 Million to build and startup.

You would never spend $2.5 Million to earn a middle class income. You would not.

Same is true of everyone in every business. As owner who spent that $2.5 Million, you want a large cut of the revenue, whether you work at that store or not, because otherwise you would have kept that $2.5 Million, and retired to a beach somewhere.

Now if that's how you would handle it.... and you are lying if you suggest otherwise.... then the same is true of the investors who purchased shares in Apple computer, who are part owners.

 

[Andylusion]

No, not in the short term. But in the long term, reducing over all dividend payments, means you can divert money that would have gone to dividends, to other things in the future. In the short term, you are right. But in the long term, with lower dividend payouts to stock holders, you and move that money to other things.

What's the difference to shareholder returns between buybacks and dividends?

Dividend vs. Buyback: What's the Difference?

"Companies reward their shareholders in two main ways—by paying dividends or by buying back shares of stock. An increasing number of blue chips, or well-established companies, are doing both.

"Paying dividends and stock buybacks make a potent combination that can significantly boost shareholder returns. But which is the better—stock buybacks or dividends?

"The main difference between dividends and buybacks is that a dividend payment represents a definite return in the current timeframe that will be taxed, whereas a buyback represents an uncertain future return on which tax is deferred until the shares are sold."

Both rewards come at the expense of productive labor which in many cases today toils in sweat shops with little regard for human rights.

Again, you don't want share holders? Then you should support buy backs.

You can't sit there and say "Shareholders are bad, but Apple should not get rid of them!".

Besides that.... Whether Apple computer does a buy back, or does not do a buy back, isn't going to change one single person's income.

In fact, if Apple computer was as private company, and there were no public shareholders.... it still would not increase one single person's income.

In fact, there would be far fewer employees that have income, because the investments that created Apple computer, would not have happened.

Regardless.... no matter which way you look at at...
no shareholders...
shareholders and no buy backs...
shareholders and buy backs.....

No matter which of those you pick.... none of them are going to result in employees magically getting paid more for no reason.

So this is a dumb argument, as well as contradictory on your part.

 

[Andylusion]

no

then you need to take a close look at the people you support .

REALLY?? I’m amazed that anyone who supports Donald J. Trump thinks that intone could be worse for the country.

I'm continually amazed that you think you have something to say about what's "best for the country" when the country in question isn't yours.

As a country we seem to think we should be able to tell other countries what is best for them even up to making lies to invade them.

We don't make up lies to invade them.

I don't think we tell other countries what to do. We might give them advice on what we think is best for them, but that's no different than any of them.

You do realize the other countries give Americans advice on how our government should work, and what we should.... CONSTANTLY...? All the time. Go read some of the articles on the BBC. They are constantly saying we should have gun control, we should have this, we should have government funded health care so no one can find a dentist like them.

All the time, they comment on what they think we should do.

Why is it when we comment, that's bad, and but when they comment, you don't complain?

 

[pknopp]

no

then you need to take a close look at the people you support .

REALLY?? I’m amazed that anyone who supports Donald J. Trump thinks that intone could be worse for the country.

I'm continually amazed that you think you have something to say about what's "best for the country" when the country in question isn't yours.

As a country we seem to think we should be able to tell other countries what is best for them even up to making lies to invade them.

We don't make up lies to invade them.

I don't think we tell other countries what to do. We might give them advice on what we think is best for them, but that's no different than any of them.

You do realize the other countries give Americans advice on how our government should work, and what we should.... CONSTANTLY...? All the time. Go read some of the articles on the BBC. They are constantly saying we should have gun control, we should have this, we should have government funded health care so no one can find a dentist like them.

All the time, they comment on what they think we should do.

Why is it when we comment, that's bad, and but when they comment, you don't complain?

Comment is one thing. Violence like we constantly undertake is another.

 

[Andylusion]

no

then you need to take a close look at the people you support .

REALLY?? I’m amazed that anyone who supports Donald J. Trump thinks that intone could be worse for the country.

I'm continually amazed that you think you have something to say about what's "best for the country" when the country in question isn't yours.

As a country we seem to think we should be able to tell other countries what is best for them even up to making lies to invade them.

We don't make up lies to invade them.

I don't think we tell other countries what to do. We might give them advice on what we think is best for them, but that's no different than any of them.

You do realize the other countries give Americans advice on how our government should work, and what we should.... CONSTANTLY...? All the time. Go read some of the articles on the BBC. They are constantly saying we should have gun control, we should have this, we should have government funded health care so no one can find a dentist like them.

All the time, they comment on what they think we should do.

Why is it when we comment, that's bad, and but when they comment, you don't complain?

Comment is one thing. Violence like we constantly undertake is another.

So... give me an example? With the invasion of Iraq, Saddam had violated the ceasefire agreement for over a decade, and the Rockefeller investigation proved conclusively that Bush did not lie about anything.

So where would you like to point to, in the last.... 50 years... where we just randomly without cause attacked and killed people.

 

[pknopp]

no

then you need to take a close look at the people you support .

REALLY?? I’m amazed that anyone who supports Donald J. Trump thinks that intone could be worse for the country.

I'm continually amazed that you think you have something to say about what's "best for the country" when the country in question isn't yours.

As a country we seem to think we should be able to tell other countries what is best for them even up to making lies to invade them.

We don't make up lies to invade them.

I don't think we tell other countries what to do. We might give them advice on what we think is best for them, but that's no different than any of them.

You do realize the other countries give Americans advice on how our government should work, and what we should.... CONSTANTLY...? All the time. Go read some of the articles on the BBC. They are constantly saying we should have gun control, we should have this, we should have government funded health care so no one can find a dentist like them.

All the time, they comment on what they think we should do.

Why is it when we comment, that's bad, and but when they comment, you don't complain?

Comment is one thing. Violence like we constantly undertake is another.

So... give me an example? With the invasion of Iraq, Saddam had violated the ceasefire agreement for over a decade, and the Rockefeller investigation proved conclusively that Bush did not lie about anything.

So where would you like to point to, in the last.... 50 years... where we just randomly without cause attacked and killed people.

Bush Lied. Saddam had no weapons. Obama lied to invade Syria also.

 

[Andylusion]

no

then you need to take a close look at the people you support .

REALLY?? I’m amazed that anyone who supports Donald J. Trump thinks that intone could be worse for the country.

I'm continually amazed that you think you have something to say about what's "best for the country" when the country in question isn't yours.

As a country we seem to think we should be able to tell other countries what is best for them even up to making lies to invade them.

We don't make up lies to invade them.

I don't think we tell other countries what to do. We might give them advice on what we think is best for them, but that's no different than any of them.

You do realize the other countries give Americans advice on how our government should work, and what we should.... CONSTANTLY...? All the time. Go read some of the articles on the BBC. They are constantly saying we should have gun control, we should have this, we should have government funded health care so no one can find a dentist like them.

All the time, they comment on what they think we should do.

Why is it when we comment, that's bad, and but when they comment, you don't complain?

Comment is one thing. Violence like we constantly undertake is another.

So... give me an example? With the invasion of Iraq, Saddam had violated the ceasefire agreement for over a decade, and the Rockefeller investigation proved conclusively that Bush did not lie about anything.

So where would you like to point to, in the last.... 50 years... where we just randomly without cause attacked and killed people.

Bush Lied. Saddam had no weapons. Obama lied to invade Syria also.

No, but you lied. Again, Rockefeller did a congressional investigations of every single statement made by Bush leading into the war with Iraq. Every single statement was accurate to the information we had at the time.

What Saddam did, or did not have, is irrelevant. Completely and totally irrelevant.

In order to claim Bush lied, you have to prove he had information that Saddam did not have any of the things Bush said.

We looked at the information, and everything Bush said was accurate to the information he had at that time.

You are the liar between, between you now, and Bush then. You are the liar.

 

[pknopp]

no

then you need to take a close look at the people you support .

REALLY?? I’m amazed that anyone who supports Donald J. Trump thinks that intone could be worse for the country.

I'm continually amazed that you think you have something to say about what's "best for the country" when the country in question isn't yours.

As a country we seem to think we should be able to tell other countries what is best for them even up to making lies to invade them.

We don't make up lies to invade them.

I don't think we tell other countries what to do. We might give them advice on what we think is best for them, but that's no different than any of them.

You do realize the other countries give Americans advice on how our government should work, and what we should.... CONSTANTLY...? All the time. Go read some of the articles on the BBC. They are constantly saying we should have gun control, we should have this, we should have government funded health care so no one can find a dentist like them.

All the time, they comment on what they think we should do.

Why is it when we comment, that's bad, and but when they comment, you don't complain?

Comment is one thing. Violence like we constantly undertake is another.

So... give me an example? With the invasion of Iraq, Saddam had violated the ceasefire agreement for over a decade, and the Rockefeller investigation proved conclusively that Bush did not lie about anything.

So where would you like to point to, in the last.... 50 years... where we just randomly without cause attacked and killed people.

Bush Lied. Saddam had no weapons. Obama lied to invade Syria also.

No, but you lied. Again, Rockefeller did a congressional investigations of every single statement made by Bush leading into the war with Iraq. Every single statement was accurate to the information we had at the time.

Bush (and the rest) knew Saddam had no weapons even "at the time".

What Saddam did, or did not have, is irrelevant. Completely and totally irrelevant.

In order to claim Bush lied, you have to prove he had information that Saddam did not have any of the things Bush said.

We looked at the information, and everything Bush said was accurate to the information he had at that time.

You are the liar between, between you now, and Bush then. You are the liar.

Inspection after inspection after inspection showed there were no weapons.

Despite there being no weapons and Saddam gone for years we are still there which shows it wasn't about either.

 

[Norman]

The staggering achievements of America is certainly a function of whiteness and our great American people.

Let the people never be replaced by unAmericans.

 

[Andylusion]

no

then you need to take a close look at the people you support .

REALLY?? I’m amazed that anyone who supports Donald J. Trump thinks that intone could be worse for the country.

I'm continually amazed that you think you have something to say about what's "best for the country" when the country in question isn't yours.

As a country we seem to think we should be able to tell other countries what is best for them even up to making lies to invade them.

We don't make up lies to invade them.

I don't think we tell other countries what to do. We might give them advice on what we think is best for them, but that's no different than any of them.

You do realize the other countries give Americans advice on how our government should work, and what we should.... CONSTANTLY...? All the time. Go read some of the articles on the BBC. They are constantly saying we should have gun control, we should have this, we should have government funded health care so no one can find a dentist like them.

All the time, they comment on what they think we should do.

Why is it when we comment, that's bad, and but when they comment, you don't complain?

Comment is one thing. Violence like we constantly undertake is another.

So... give me an example? With the invasion of Iraq, Saddam had violated the ceasefire agreement for over a decade, and the Rockefeller investigation proved conclusively that Bush did not lie about anything.

So where would you like to point to, in the last.... 50 years... where we just randomly without cause attacked and killed people.

Bush Lied. Saddam had no weapons. Obama lied to invade Syria also.

No, but you lied. Again, Rockefeller did a congressional investigations of every single statement made by Bush leading into the war with Iraq. Every single statement was accurate to the information we had at the time.

Bush (and the rest) knew Saddam had no weapons even "at the time".

What Saddam did, or did not have, is irrelevant. Completely and totally irrelevant.

In order to claim Bush lied, you have to prove he had information that Saddam did not have any of the things Bush said.

We looked at the information, and everything Bush said was accurate to the information he had at that time.

You are the liar between, between you now, and Bush then. You are the liar.

Inspection after inspection after inspection showed there were no weapons.

Despite there being no weapons and Saddam gone for years we are still there which shows it wasn't about either.

Then prove it.

Put your money where your mouth is, and prove conclusively that Bush knew Saddam didn't have weapons prior to the invasion.

And with that in mind, the Democrats ran a congressional investigation, that concluded that everything Bush said, was backed by the information he had at the time.

By all means, round up all the Democrats and throw all of them in prison for lying in a congressional investigation.

Or.... you are full of crap, and need to shut up, because you are lying trash.
Put up, or shut up. Prove it, or can your crap.

 

[pknopp]

no

then you need to take a close look at the people you support .

REALLY?? I’m amazed that anyone who supports Donald J. Trump thinks that intone could be worse for the country.

I'm continually amazed that you think you have something to say about what's "best for the country" when the country in question isn't yours.

As a country we seem to think we should be able to tell other countries what is best for them even up to making lies to invade them.

We don't make up lies to invade them.

I don't think we tell other countries what to do. We might give them advice on what we think is best for them, but that's no different than any of them.

You do realize the other countries give Americans advice on how our government should work, and what we should.... CONSTANTLY...? All the time. Go read some of the articles on the BBC. They are constantly saying we should have gun control, we should have this, we should have government funded health care so no one can find a dentist like them.

All the time, they comment on what they think we should do.

Why is it when we comment, that's bad, and but when they comment, you don't complain?

Comment is one thing. Violence like we constantly undertake is another.

So... give me an example? With the invasion of Iraq, Saddam had violated the ceasefire agreement for over a decade, and the Rockefeller investigation proved conclusively that Bush did not lie about anything.

So where would you like to point to, in the last.... 50 years... where we just randomly without cause attacked and killed people.

Bush Lied. Saddam had no weapons. Obama lied to invade Syria also.

No, but you lied. Again, Rockefeller did a congressional investigations of every single statement made by Bush leading into the war with Iraq. Every single statement was accurate to the information we had at the time.

Bush (and the rest) knew Saddam had no weapons even "at the time".

What Saddam did, or did not have, is irrelevant. Completely and totally irrelevant.

In order to claim Bush lied, you have to prove he had information that Saddam did not have any of the things Bush said.

We looked at the information, and everything Bush said was accurate to the information he had at that time.

You are the liar between, between you now, and Bush then. You are the liar.

Inspection after inspection after inspection showed there were no weapons.

Despite there being no weapons and Saddam gone for years we are still there which shows it wasn't about either.

Then prove it.

Put your money where your mouth is, and prove conclusively that Bush knew Saddam didn't have weapons prior to the invasion.

And with that in mind, the Democrats ran a congressional investigation, that concluded that everything Bush said, was backed by the information he had at the time.

By all means, round up all the Democrats and throw all of them in prison for lying in a congressional investigation.

Or.... you are full of crap, and need to shut up, because you are lying trash.
Put up, or shut up. Prove it, or can your crap.

20 years and we are still there. Saddam has been gone for years and there were no weapons. You can pretend that is what it was about if you wish.