Republican economic wisdom

[garyd]

Why? We had been at war with Iraq since his daddy was in office. Bush didn't start that war he ended it. Unless you think we should have left the Saudis Kuwaiti's et al to face Sadam's six to nine divisions with their 1 to 2. I'll never understand all the pissing and Moaning over Bush ending a war that had been going on for more than a decade and in which the shooting had already restarted while Clinton was president.

 

[elvis]

Why? We had been at war with Iraq since his daddy was in office. Bush didn't start that war he ended it. Unless you think we should have left the Saudis Kuwaiti's et al to face Sadam's six to nine divisions with their 1 to 2. I'll never understand all the pissing and Moaning over Bush ending a war that had been going on for more than a decade and in which the shooting had already restarted while Clinton was president.

500,000 Iraqis starved to death under Clinton's sanctions, most of whom were under the age of five. Then that bitch Albright went on 60 minutes and said it was worth it. The left never screams about that.

 

[DiveCon]

Why? We had been at war with Iraq since his daddy was in office. Bush didn't start that war he ended it. Unless you think we should have left the Saudis Kuwaiti's et al to face Sadam's six to nine divisions with their 1 to 2. I'll never understand all the pissing and Moaning over Bush ending a war that had been going on for more than a decade and in which the shooting had already restarted while Clinton was president.

500,000 Iraqis starved to death under Clinton's sanctions, most of whom were under the age of five. Then that bitch Albright went on 60 minutes and said it was worth it. The left never screams about that.

no kidding
it was time that thing came to an end
it should have been done 10 years earlier

 

[elvis]

Why? We had been at war with Iraq since his daddy was in office. Bush didn't start that war he ended it. Unless you think we should have left the Saudis Kuwaiti's et al to face Sadam's six to nine divisions with their 1 to 2. I'll never understand all the pissing and Moaning over Bush ending a war that had been going on for more than a decade and in which the shooting had already restarted while Clinton was president.

500,000 Iraqis starved to death under Clinton's sanctions, most of whom were under the age of five. Then that bitch Albright went on 60 minutes and said it was worth it. The left never screams about that.

no kidding
it was time that thing came to an end
it should have been done 10 years earlier

by the way, isn't Obama seeking another $800 billion for Iraq?

 

[DiveCon]

500,000 Iraqis starved to death under Clinton's sanctions, most of whom were under the age of five. Then that bitch Albright went on 60 minutes and said it was worth it. The left never screams about that.

no kidding
it was time that thing came to an end
it should have been done 10 years earlier

by the way, isn't Obama seeking another $800 billion for Iraq?

dont know
but he seems to be doing just about the same things as Bush did
so i suppose he is

 

[Ravi]

Good post. Neoconservatives should be tried as Traitors of the United States and sentenced to live in North Korea. They are solely to blame for allowing Obama, Biden, Reid and Pelosi to come to power. God help us all.

lol...against my better judgment, I like you xhead...but your calling people traitors because they think differently than you do makes me want to reconsider.

I don't require you to like me. If you don't want me to call people like Bush and Cheney traitors, I apologize but I can't do that.

Bush and Cheney aren't traitors, either. Greedy, selfish, putting their party's best interest before the country...they may be guilty of all those things but it doesn't mean they are traitors.

 

[xsited1]

lol...against my better judgment, I like you xhead...but your calling people traitors because they think differently than you do makes me want to reconsider.

I don't require you to like me. If you don't want me to call people like Bush and Cheney traitors, I apologize but I can't do that.

Bush and Cheney aren't traitors, either. Greedy, selfish, putting their party's best interest before the country...they may be guilty of all those things but it doesn't mean they are traitors.

They started an unnecessary war that has so far gotten thousands of our soldiers killed and spent trillions of dollars. You can defend them, but I can't.

Honestly, I never thought I would see the day when you would defend Bush and Cheney. Your ad hominem attacks and your defense of traitors makes me really wonder about you Ravi.

 

[Toro]

lol...against my better judgment, I like you xhead...but your calling people traitors because they think differently than you do makes me want to reconsider.

I don't require you to like me. If you don't want me to call people like Bush and Cheney traitors, I apologize but I can't do that.

Bush and Cheney aren't traitors, either. Greedy, selfish, putting their party's best interest before the country...they may be guilty of all those things but it doesn't mean they are traitors.

I think Bush and Cheney did what they thought was best for the country - for the most part. They just did it very poorly.

 

[editec]

Why? We had been at war with Iraq since his daddy was in office. Bush didn't start that war he ended it. Unless you think we should have left the Saudis Kuwaiti's et al to face Sadam's six to nine divisions with their 1 to 2. I'll never understand all the pissing and Moaning over Bush ending a war that had been going on for more than a decade and in which the shooting had already restarted while Clinton was president.

500,000 Iraqis starved to death under Clinton's sanctions, most of whom were under the age of five. Then that bitch Albright went on 60 minutes and said it was worth it. The left never screams about that.

On the contrary. the so called left WAS screming about that, too.

That is one of the reasons that the leftists hated Clinton, FYI.

The problem is, I think that people like you, Elvis, don't really understand who the "left" is.

You think that the DNC is leftist. You apprently think the Dems are leftists.

Nobody actually in the left agrees with you, and FWIW, neither does the DNC or the Dems.

To YOU they ALL look like leftists.

To people like me, they don't.

These relative terms (like left and right) make for great flames, but they do nothing for advancing the conversation since the words themselves have no actually content behind them.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

View attachment 6954

ROFLMNAO... Best hussein poster ever!

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Look... the War in Iraq was critical to the US Global War on Terror.

Hussein... (The Former President of Iraq, not the current President of the US) was an overt proponent of international Islamic Terrorism... He had used such to advance attacks by proxy against the US through attacks upon US interests and allies FOR DECADES... and his continued billigerence post 9-11 was nothing less than a hinderance to the US GWOT.

Those who feel that the US Senate Report on 9-11 conclusively determined that Iraq was innocent of culpability in 9-11, come to this conclusion through a exceedingly low threshold... the nature of the proxy warriors is secrecy and the Senate Report did everything possible to set aside that certainty and leaned hard upon 'there is no conclusive evidence'...

No Shit...

Crying that 'the war in Iraq was fought for no reason' is absurd, it doesn't serve your interests and it undercuts our nation's means (when governed by Americans) to defend our interests from assholes who feel like they're entitled to use proxy fighters to attack us and avoid accountability for such idiocy; plus it feeds anti-American (leftist) myth which will always undermine the interests of Americans.

The simple fact is there were innumerable excellent reasons to liberate Iraq... and not one of them had a damn thing to do with oil or propping up Corporate interests.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

On the contrary. the so called left WAS screming about that, too.

That is one of the reasons that the leftists hated Clinton, FYI.

The problem is, I think that people like you, Elvis, don't really understand who the "left" is.

You think that the DNC is leftist. You apprently think the Dems are leftists.

Nobody actually in the left agrees with you, and FWIW, neither does the DNC or the Dems.

To YOU they ALL look like leftists.

To people like me, they don't.

These relative terms (like left and right) make for great flames, but they do nothing for advancing the conversation since the words themselves have no actually content behind them.

ROFLMNAO... so what we have here is a BEAUTIFUL example of a Leftist exposing themselves...

Editec LOVES to pretend that her ideology is indefinable, that her mind is wide open and not subject to being labled...

But this post finds her defending the left, which is where she's usually found, so that's hardly a newsflash... BUT in her defense of the left she is advancing that patented obfuscation which hopes to redefine 'the left' in such a way that it CANNOT BE DEFINED.

It's not enough for someone to advance left-think in order to qualify as a 'leftist'... NO NO! It's not enough that they adhere to ideas which require that the collective possesses 'Rights' which supercede the Rights of the Individual... NUH uh...

According to this member, Leftism is presented in as vague terms as can be expressed and still give the listener some means to know what the hell it is she's talking about... and this for no other reason than to redfine leftism in such a way that NO ONE can be said to fall within it...

If you've been paying attention; there is at present a considerable effort within the media to redefine 'socialism' and 'leftist'... Such arguments are typically found coming on the heels of a projection by the host which asks: "Many Conservatives are saying that "X" is "Socialist" (or Leftist), is "X" Socialist and if not, why?" At which time the idiot respondant runs on pulling the same pedantic crap we see here and which Agwhat'shername chronically used to discredit herself... Redefining what "Socialist" or Leftist means, so that when a person looks at what they're advancing, they can't be identified as a Leftist.

So what we have here is yet ANOTHER attempt of the left to Redefine the terms which identify them... as they've done with all of the terms which still define them perfectly... Progressive, Fascist, Socialist, Communist, Liberal and Leftist...

They're all the same, with the distinction being the ideological equivilent of Dodge, Chrysler and Plymouth...

There easy to spot and there's nothing mysterious about what makes them, who they are.

Add this to the litanny of posts which identifies this idiot, EDITEC, as nothing short of an ideological leftist.

 

[del]

On the contrary. the so called left WAS screming about that, too.

That is one of the reasons that the leftists hated Clinton, FYI.

The problem is, I think that people like you, Elvis, don't really understand who the "left" is.

You think that the DNC is leftist. You apprently think the Dems are leftists.

Nobody actually in the left agrees with you, and FWIW, neither does the DNC or the Dems.

To YOU they ALL look like leftists.

To people like me, they don't.

These relative terms (like left and right) make for great flames, but they do nothing for advancing the conversation since the words themselves have no actually content behind them.

ROFLMNAO... so what we have here is a BEAUTIFUL example of a Leftist exposing themselves...

Editec LOVES to pretend that her ideology is indefinable, that her mind is wide open and not subject to being labled...

But this post finds her defending the left, which is where she's usually found, so that's hardly a newsflash... BUT in her defense of the left she is advancing that patented obfuscation which hopes to redefine 'the left' in such a way that it CANNOT BE DEFINED.

It's not enough for someone to advance left-think in order to qualify as a 'leftist'... NO NO! It's not enough that they adhere to ideas which require that the collective possesses 'Rights' which supercede the Rights of the Individual... NUH uh...

According to this member, Leftism is presented in as vague terms as can be expressed and still give the listener some means to know what the hell it is she's talking about... and this for no other reason than to redfine leftism in such a way that NO ONE can be said to fall within it...

If you've been paying attention; there is at present a considerable effort within the media to redefine 'socialism' and 'leftist'... Such arguments are typically found coming on the heels of a projection by the host which asks: "Many Conservatives are saying that "X" is "Socialist" (or Leftist), is "X" Socialist and if not, why?" At which time the idiot respondant runs on pulling the same pedantic crap we see here and which Agwhat'shername chronically used to discredit herself... Redefining what "Socialist" or Leftist means, so that when a person looks at what they're advancing, they can't be identified as a Leftist.

So what we have here is yet ANOTHER attempt of the left to Redefine the terms which identify them... as they've done with all of the terms which still define them perfectly... Progressive, Fascist, Socialist, Communist, Liberal and Leftist...

They're all the same, with the distinction being the ideological equivilent of Dodge, Chrysler and Plymouth...

There easy to spot and there's nothing mysterious about what makes them, who they are.

Add this to the litanny of posts which identifies this idiot, EDITEC, as nothing short of an ideological leftist.

i don't mind you're not being particularly bright, you can only play the hand you're dealt, but i do wish you could find a less prolix means of showcasing it.

thanks

 

[garyd]

Again Bush didn't start the damn war in Iraq Saddam Hussein did when he launched an attack on Kuwait.

There was never a peace treaty signed. There was a cease fire which by the time GWB came to office had been essentially a dead letter for two years, due to the bobmbing in the no fly zones and Saddam's targeting of US and British aircraft in those same no fly zones while enforcing UN edicts.

 

[Andrew2382]

its almost as dumb as saying bush didn't inherit a recession from clinton...or clinton gave busha surplus

actually, what's absurd is saying Bush did inherit a recession:

The Clinton/Gore Administration: Largest Surplus in History on Track

President Clinton announces another record budget surplus - September 27, 2000

The right wing has spent eight years trying to revise history. They seem to have a really ugly habit of doing that.

The Myth of the Clinton Surplus

Article taken from numbers from the US treasury and links for sources

 

[garyd]

Nice find Andrew. It also reminded me that another trick the gov used at that time was to show this various trust funds as income while ignoring the unfunded liabilities that went with them. If the rest of us tried to keep our books the way the government does we'd be in jail for fraud so fast it would make our heads spin.

If Obama really wants transparency in government a good first step would be to require that the government operate under the same accounting principles as everyone else.

 

[elvis]

Why? We had been at war with Iraq since his daddy was in office. Bush didn't start that war he ended it. Unless you think we should have left the Saudis Kuwaiti's et al to face Sadam's six to nine divisions with their 1 to 2. I'll never understand all the pissing and Moaning over Bush ending a war that had been going on for more than a decade and in which the shooting had already restarted while Clinton was president.

500,000 Iraqis starved to death under Clinton's sanctions, most of whom were under the age of five. Then that bitch Albright went on 60 minutes and said it was worth it. The left never screams about that.

On the contrary. the so called left WAS screming about that, too.

That is one of the reasons that the leftists hated Clinton, FYI.

The problem is, I think that people like you, Elvis, don't really understand who the "left" is.

You think that the DNC is leftist. You apprently think the Dems are leftists.

Nobody actually in the left agrees with you, and FWIW, neither does the DNC or the Dems.

To YOU they ALL look like leftists.

To people like me, they don't.

These relative terms (like left and right) make for great flames, but they do nothing for advancing the conversation since the words themselves have no actually content behind them.

Ok. The dems never scream about it. Is that better? I haven't read ANY posts on here from democrats in regards to Iraq where Clinton gets ANY blame.

 

[Andrew2382]

Nice find Andrew. It also reminded me that another trick the gov used at that time was to show this various trust funds as income while ignoring the unfunded liabilities that went with them. If the rest of us tried to keep our books the way the government does we'd be in jail for fraud so fast it would make our heads spin.

If Obama really wants transparency in government a good first step would be to require that the government operate under the same accounting principles as everyone else.

Thats mentioned in the Article..

I am sure most libs will dismiss it without reading it

Trust Funds = Intragovernmental Debt

Social Security isn't the only trust fund in the federal budget. There are a number of others including the civil service retirement fund, federal supplementary medical insurance trust fund, unemployment trust fund, military retirement trust fund, etc. All of these trust funds, like Social Security, invest their surpluses in U.S. government bonds and increase intragovernmental debt. And like Social Security, their surpluses really shouldn't count toward a "surplus" because the excess money they contribute to federal coffers actually has to be borrowed by the government from the trust funds.

When the government declared a $236 billion surplus in fiscal year 2000, it literally borrowed $248 billion from trust funds and considered that borrowed money "income" which it counted towards a "surplus."

 

[007]

you just proved him right
LOL
since the previous 2 quarters were not in a ressession

It's obvious you can't read. Fuck, you can't even spell recession and you try to tell me you know economics better then me. Get a dictionary first.

We've had a recession for a YEAR. That's more then two quarters.

Aaaahh.... mister 'get a dictionary'.... it's *better THAN*... not *better THEN*. Maybe you ought to try and sound intelligent yourself before you go thinking you've got room to preach to someone else about it. This has only been pointed out to you a dozen times already, and you appear incapable of learning it.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

On the contrary. the so called left WAS screming about that, too.

That is one of the reasons that the leftists hated Clinton, FYI.

The problem is, I think that people like you, Elvis, don't really understand who the "left" is.

You think that the DNC is leftist. You apprently think the Dems are leftists.

Nobody actually in the left agrees with you, and FWIW, neither does the DNC or the Dems.

To YOU they ALL look like leftists.

To people like me, they don't.

These relative terms (like left and right) make for great flames, but they do nothing for advancing the conversation since the words themselves have no actually content behind them.

ROFLMNAO... so what we have here is a BEAUTIFUL example of a Leftist exposing themselves...

Editec LOVES to pretend that her ideology is indefinable, that her mind is wide open and not subject to being labled...

But this post finds her defending the left, which is where she's usually found, so that's hardly a newsflash... BUT in her defense of the left she is advancing that patented obfuscation which hopes to redefine 'the left' in such a way that it CANNOT BE DEFINED.

It's not enough for someone to advance left-think in order to qualify as a 'leftist'... NO NO! It's not enough that they adhere to ideas which require that the collective possesses 'Rights' which supercede the Rights of the Individual... NUH uh...

According to this member, Leftism is presented in as vague terms as can be expressed and still give the listener some means to know what the hell it is she's talking about... and this for no other reason than to redfine leftism in such a way that NO ONE can be said to fall within it...

If you've been paying attention; there is at present a considerable effort within the media to redefine 'socialism' and 'leftist'... Such arguments are typically found coming on the heels of a projection by the host which asks: "Many Conservatives are saying that "X" is "Socialist" (or Leftist), is "X" Socialist and if not, why?" At which time the idiot respondant runs on pulling the same pedantic crap we see here and which Agwhat'shername chronically used to discredit herself... Redefining what "Socialist" or Leftist means, so that when a person looks at what they're advancing, they can't be identified as a Leftist.

So what we have here is yet ANOTHER attempt by the left to Redefine the terms which identify them... as they've done with all of the terms which still define them perfectly... Progressive, Fascist, Socialist, Communist, Liberal and Leftist...

They're all the same, with the distinction being the ideological equivilent of Dodge, Chrysler and Plymouth...

There easy to spot and there's nothing mysterious about what makes them, who they are.

Add this to the litanny of posts which identifies this idiot, EDITEC, as nothing short of an ideological leftist.

i don't mind you're not being particularly bright, you can only play the hand you're dealt, but i do wish you could find a less prolix means of showcasing it.

thanks

ROFL... Ain't it cool how hard the centrists work to avoid being held accountable?

Notice how this Centrists (A leftists who lacks the courage to commit) wants DESPERATELY to discredit the position, but is incapable of engaging that position, for obvious reasons; so instead she initiates a fly-by spewing of the impotent variety to distract from it...

But hey... that's an idiot for ya!

Nice 'try' del... ya did the very BEST ya could, God bless ya...