| Author | Message | ||
     Ft_bstrd |
It is a false premise to propose only two options: All Government No Government The framers agreed that there was a need for some government but wanted to limit the size and powers of government. What we have today, and what Tea Party folks wish to remedy, is a government that has spilled it's banks and has become a hindrance to both prosperity and freedom. | ||
| Drkside79 |
The bitch is both sides have good points. While i agree that people should be allowed to prosper is it fair to let the middle working class suffer to line the pockets of the already rich. I work my ass off to barely break even. Does it piss me off to work while i watch the unemployed have fun. Hell yeah it does but it also pisses me off to watch the rich expand their wealth exponentially while cutting my wadges because they need to "survive" Mind you i haven't gotten a raise in a few years and my boss just bought a new car. So yeah either way i am bent over a barrel and unceremoniously %$^%@* in the @$$ | ||
| Sifo |
It's so easy to become rich I'm surprised everybody doesn't do it! | ||
| Mtjm2 |
Very well put Fatty, and now that the government has gotten so big nobody can find a good spot to stick a knife . | ||
| Whisperstealth |
>>>Dark Watch for the Violence of the left its coming soon. They are building up to it. Before the next election something will happen to postpone the election The left is already claiming we need a NEW Constitution and We should just cancel the next election since BHO is just the best president we could have. Been saying that since before BO got elected. Told my buddy he would win. He didn't believe me. Told him, after he won, the programs Bush DID start, would not be shout down, would grow and be used to screw us. He didn't believe me. And lastly I told him something would happen to postpone the 2012 election. And if it wasn't postponed, he would win again. He's starting to believe me... I'd love to place a bet with someone. Pinks. Wish my Buell would be paid off by Nov. 2012, but it will still have one more year. Anybody wanna bet on something of 1999 KLR value? IT's paid for.  | ||
| Kenm123t |
Dark why are you jealous of your boss's new car. If you want the benefits of being the boss step up and be one. The burdens of being the Boss are becoming more than they are worth. Soon you will not have a boss because you probably wont have a job. Lose the jealousy seize an opportunity make it pay off big for you and your family. As for the left having good points they have a few very few. Remember the beginning of cruelty is kindness. Remember Joseph brought his family into Egypt both sides welcomed each other. In a few generations the Israelites were slaves on the dole Moses had to fight his way out to free them. Those freebies and hand outs do have to be paid for usually by enslaving the recipiants. | ||
| Mtjm2 |
Well here we go again , the FED in all it wisdome , ( NOT ) is gunna pull oil from the reserves . Any one remember odd and even days . OH S!!T , D@M , and all the other words I cant say | ||
| Sifo |
I saw that. This is not what the Strategic Oil Reserve was meant for. Clinton did the same damn thing! | ||
| Johnnymceldoo |
Guys the conversation here is getting a little too deep. Lets all agree to vote for which ever candidate can bring in the most money from banking/pharma etc.. Then we'll let those guys pull the strings. Romney/palin for 2012!!!yea!!! Or even obammerfor 2012!!! | ||
| Cowboy |
I am going crazy wondering when this bunch in D C will ever under stand economics--their will never be a robust economy till we have abundent supply of cheap energy. Till all the stupid regulations are removed we will continue to suffer at the pay window. or welfare line. | ||
| Aesquire |
Kane/Bachmann looks good. That would be against Obama/Huntsman (from Utah that claims to be Republican. ) The NYT likes him... so he's a sure loser. Expect Biden to retire at the perfect moment. If Huntsman gets the nomination..... he could "join in fellowship" with Obama and we's have the first bi-partisan election with only one choice. The last free election would then have been Obama's. Not a prediction...... but a concept. Whisperstealth could win that bet twice! Remember, McCain was the choice of the NYT, and was nominated on the basis of a large media campaign, free, from the lefty media. They loved him. And, in a beauty move by Obama's crew, in NH ( where your party matters not in a primary... unlike NY ) voted for McCain, quite accurately picking him as the best one to lose to Obama, or Clinton. Dirty trick? Sure, but legal, and brilliant. ( not that I liked any of the R's running last time. ) But the end of the American Republic depends on all of us to choose based on facts... NOT the media's opinion. So watch, learn and let the founders intentions guide you. ( read the darn Federalist Papers... I hear Glenn Beck is doing a kindergarden version, like his version of "Common Sense" ) In war news. http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/nucl ear-experts-killed-in-russia-plane-crash-helped-de sign-iran-facility-1.369226 Remember, Iran's illegit Prez not only lies like many politicians.... but his faith gives him frequent jihad points for lying to you, the infidel. http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5 japXUjYbuAL3nvjgKZPaCWnZq3pQ?docId=f88a18c44844413 7a1b8863beea48fe0 The gist is.. "we are peaceful, we won't make a bomb. But we aren't afraid to make & use one, we aren't afraid of you, and NO you can't check out the things you know we lie about" | ||
| Aesquire |
Trojan. Free from what exactly? First, thank you for a clear and easy question. Free from the murderous dictators that were mass murdering their own people. Saddam was pretty conventional, as psycho's go. Like to feed people into a woodchipper feet first to enjoy the screams, took his kids to a prison as children to have them shoot prisoners to get used to murder for good old dad.... I have iraqi acquaintances that were tortured by Saddam's police. They were real happy we kicked him out. The taliban ( do you know what that means? ) ran Afghanistan as a crime lord would. Very rich, no restraint, no services, absolute power. See Chris Hitchens article on the Russian built swimming pool. Really. Read it. Remember the other part of my statement. keeping free is their job You can free a nation. You can't give them the mindset. Iraq might make it. Obama declared it a win for him. 80% of the issues in Iraq are Iran. Afghanistan is going to suck no matter what we do. The prime problem is the lack of will to control the borders and allowing terrorists to use them as shelter. Prime. | ||
| Whisperstealth |
Aesquire, I give. I tried google and yahoo, and could not find the chris hitchens article. I found a bunch of links to his ground zero mosque article, and links to others and to references, but not to the article itself. Can you help me out? | ||
| Mr_grumpy |
Strokizator, I doubt it. He's a sportsman, & firing off a political slanging match on here is like shooting fish in a barrel. I could probably start one by complaining about my shoe size not being available or some such. Hootowl, do you mean the TEA party people or the Anarchists? TEA party folks aren't anarchists (those guys are lefties). Strictly speaking anarchists are neither left nor right or even in the middle, they're anarchists. anarchism noun Definition the political belief that there should be little or no formal or official organization to society but that people should work freely together (Definition of anarchism noun from the Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary) | ||
| Trojan |
Free from the murderous dictators that were mass murdering their own people. You forget that WE installed Sadam Hussein into power in Iraq and supplied him with weapons (including WMD) for many years while he conveniently faught a war against Iran. It was only later that we decided we didn't like him. We also supported, trained and supplied the Taliban when they faught the Russians, so again we need to be a bit careful when we start to criticise these people. Iraq was NEVER a safe harbour for Al Qaieda or the Taliban and was in fact one of the more moderate (religiously speaking) middle eastern states. Any war we waged on Iraq had less to do with Human rights than profit unfortunately. It certainly had nothing to do with WMD. I also think that there was an element of 'unfinished family business' on George Bush's mind. Afghanistan was certainly a refuge for Al Qaieda but so was Pakistan, Sudan, Saudi Arabia, Somalia and Indonesia. Why have we not attacked them yet? Why do we condone Sri Lanka for their appalling human rights record during and after their civil war? Why haven't we atacked Burma for their record? We (the west) tend to pick our targets very selectively and then get the media to criminalise them and turn them into enemies for our own reasons, rather than what they have actually done. If we attacked every country with a poor human rights record we would be in a world war by now unfortunately, so that excuse really doesn't wash. I have every sympathy and support for the guys on the front line in Iraq and Afghanistan (and all of our armed forces), but the bottom line is that both campiagns were ill conceived and badly executed by the people at the top, with no long term strategic goal. | ||
| Xdigitalx |
If only Al Gore won.  | ||
| Aesquire |
Then we'd be riding bicycles, and the Earth would be frozen. Trojan. A bunch of half truths and propaganda there... Begin with outright lie. Saddam installed himself. It's on tape. Lovely scene where he has people taken out and shot by other people who did so or dies. Taliban came into existence After the US supported Afghans being killed by the Russians. We do bear some blame. Mostly in not supporting a free afghanistan after the Soviets left. See "Charlie Wilson's War". Especially the last few minutes. And I'll criticize the Taliban all I want. Murderous racist xenophobic despoilers of other people and faiths. They can bite me. Respect someone worthy. iraq was a safe harbor. We thought so then, ( hillary did too, with access to the same intel Bush has, so did Bill, and John Kerry, etc. ) we knew so after we defeated him. Saddam supported terrorists. Any war we waged on Iraq had less to do with Human rights than profit unfortunately. It certainly had nothing to do with WMD. I also think that there was an element of 'unfinished family business' on George Bush's mind. In order. Where's the profit? Actually more with realpolitic and freedom than WMD's.. but the press won't tell you that, they like action movies. Could be a bit of "don't kill daddy", So what? If bad guys tried to kill your family? Like Saddam was a saint... Why have we not attacked them yet? IMHO idiotic bad judgment. Why haven't we atacked Burma... Do you WANT us to attack Burma? Or Pakistan? Seriously? Or is this just a bullcrap typical leftist word play to dis Bush? http://www.slate.com/id/2162157/ If we attacked every country with a poor human rights record.... If we killed everyone who disagree'd with me, the earth would be at peace. Pretty empty, but peace. What an asinine comment. Do you even read your propaganda crap? Ill conceived? In part I agree. There were considerations that you either deliberately ignore, or are ignorant of. Do you care, or just want to bash Bush? WHAT WOULD YOU DO if you were in charge, today, with 4 wars going and a jihad trying to rule the world? You bitch, ( and often lie, though you may just be ignorant ) about past actions ( and only of ONE party, which tells me you are dishonest. ) not suggest good future courses. I dare you to think for yourself and help solve the problem. | ||
| Trojan |
You bitch, ( and often lie, though you may just be ignorant ) about past actions ( and only of ONE party, which tells me you are dishonest. ) not suggest good future courses. I dare you to think for yourself and help solve the problem. That comment just shows your ignorance and lack of respect for the opinion of others. I have never resorted to calling you names (although tempted at times). Saddam supported terrorists There has never been any evidence of this. In fact there was plenty of evidence to the contrary, but Bush and his puppy dog Blair had already fabricated their reasons for invasion despite overwhelming evidence against such action. Now that Saddam is dead we can of course make up what we want about him. I'm not saying he was a good man and he certainly wasn't top of the UN Human rights league, but there are plenty of other 'leaders' just as bad as him that we don't even bother with (and still sell arms to on a massive daily basis!). Do you really think that the regimes in Saudi Arabia, Syria, iran or Yemen are much better than Saddam was? Taliban came into existence After the US supported Afghans being killed by the Russians. That is a very slanted right wing view of what actually happened. The US (and the UK) support of the Taliban/mujahadin had little or nothing to do with Afghans being killed and a whole lot more to do with political influence in the area and military support of anyone (regardless of their ethics or goals) who would fight the soviets on our behalf. Contrary to what you may beleive, I am certainly neither a leftist or socialist, but I am certainly not blinded by extreme right wing media BS whilst choosing to ignore facts like you seem to be. It is pointless trying to argue with the flat earth society so I shan't bother any longer...goodbye  | ||
| Sifo |
You bitch, ( and often lie, though you may just be ignorant ) about past actions ( and only of ONE party, which tells me you are dishonest. ) not suggest good future courses. I dare you to think for yourself and help solve the problem. That comment just shows your ignorance and lack of respect for the opinion of others. I have never resorted to calling you names (although tempted at times). He didn't call you anything. Read it again. Saddam supported terrorists There has never been any evidence of this. This is well established fact. http://www.husseinandterror.com/ Taliban came into existence After the US supported Afghans being killed by the Russians. That is a very slanted right wing view of what actually happened. That is actually exactly factually correct without any spin on motive. | ||
| Hootowl |
"There has never been any evidence of this." That would be one example of where you are lying, or are simply ignorant. Saddam paid cash money to the families of suicide bombers in recognition/compensation for their loved ones "martyring" themselves for Allah. Pretty sure the civilized world considers suicide bombing a bus full of civilians an act of terrorism. Grumpy, the anarchists who riot at WTC conventions are all lefties. They may not be anarchists in the true sense of the word, but that's what they call themselves. I don't see any conservatives acting this way. | ||
| Hootowl |
The Taliban invaded Afghanistan. They are a stateless foreign power. We did not aid the Taliban in their fight against the Soviets, they never fought the Soviets as they did not come to power until after the Soviet Union fell. The Afghans put up a fight (see Northern Alliance, the same folks that helped us remove the Taliban from power) but could only hold the northern part of the country. And yes, we're a foreign invading power too, but our intentions are to restore Afghan rule. Quite a bit different, wouldn't you say? | ||
| Hootowl |
I think you must be thinking of the Mujahedeen, which we did aid. And which became, under the leadership of OBL, Al-Qaeda. | ||
| Blake |
Never any proof that SH supported terrorists?  Saddam Hussein himself was a mass murdering, genocidal terrorist. He gassed his own people. He cooperated with al qaeda and staged terror attacks and granted safe harbor to one of al qaeda's top affiliates who later became the leader of al qaeda in Iraq. WTF do you call launching scud missile attacks against Israeli civilians, all while Israel remained a non-combatant in the war? I guess Hitler was no terrorist either with his "V1 terror weapons"? You've been misled terribly. Whatever/whoever led you down the path of such lies and propaganda, please stop paying them any heed. They are liars and have horribly deceived you. Saddam Hussein himself was a mass murdering, genocidal terrorist. | ||
| Aesquire |
Blake, I was waiting for the "never had WMDs" line, because I found some horrid shots of Kurds from Iraq that Saddam had gassed. Can't find any of the Iranians, ( If I spoke Farsi, I probably could ) or picks of the children driven across the Minefields by the Ayatolla's orders. Now While Trojan seems to be a parrot of the propaganda spouted by jihadi/commies/and Bush's political enemies, he has a point in that the cause of the Iraq Front, the rational behind it, can in fact be argued with. ( though he does so poorly. If he's not a believer in the lefty cause, he does uncomprehendingly seem to believe them ) Reasons for Afghanistan. Stop AQ. Stop the Taliban from using Afghanistan as a base for other terrorists. Free the afghan people from the mad mullahs. Try for a "democracy" in a part of the world where it's as alien as martians or respect for women. Except for the last ( a real long shot anyway ) Done, done, and done. reasons for Iraq. Stop Saddam from aiding terrorists. Prevent Saddam from giving terrorists the WMD's that the UN verified he indeed had. Free the Iraqi people from Saddam and his rape loving kids. Try and establish a democracy in a region where...... Again. That last, an issue. Otherwise, done, done, and done. We may indeed have been better off to just let those 50 million plus people suffer. Cheaper in the short run, and the whole "establish democracy" but may just be a dumb idea. They certainly didn't do it the way I would have. Having OUR first Amendment in any Constitution anyone we free adopt is the first point. NO Theocracies allowed. We screwed up there. Big time. Now the WAY this war against Jihad has been run is a joke and a half. Lots to criticize there. Finally, I keep getting an absolute unwillingness to discuss options and ideas on how to actually deal with the War that actually is. I keep getting propaganda, some from sources now dead and in ruined bunkers. I keep expecting someone to tell me WW2 was our fault because Stalin was worse than Hitler. ( true ) I wish rational though was a bit more in fashion. That comment just shows your ignorance and lack of respect for the opinion of others. I have never resorted to calling you names (although tempted at times). You are complaining about stuff and spouting falsehoods while doing so. I assume you are not a lier. I assume you actually believe some of this crap you have been fed that is outright lies. I have called you ignorant. I'd apologize... but you keep repeating proven untruths. That's ignorant. Or dishonest. Your debate style seems dishonest to me. I'm willing to be convinced. have facts. I won't call you a lefty lier....if you don't spout lefty lies. I know all about the CPUSA. Read their site often. Also the sites sponsored by G Soros. ( the guy who gets really rich destroying countries currency ) Keep your friends close..... | ||
| Aesquire |
Whisperstealth, I'm having a hard time finding it myself. Quite vivid, Christopher Hitchens is a vivid writer, even though I nearly completely disagree with his politics. Tells it like he see's it though. I remember him on the Dennis Miller show... comes out with whiskey in one hand and cig in the other. Shakes Dennis's hand, sits down, Sips, Puff, "George Bush is an Idiot", sip, puff, "Bill Clinton's a rapist", sip, puff, said something really unkind about Mother Theresa. Fun guy, nice turn of phrase. Trotskyite, but fair. Here's a different mention. http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/columnists/dy lan-jones/dylan-jones-kabulrsquos-tourist-attracti ons-include-the-swimming-pool-where-the-taliban-us ed-to-execute-infidels-2026040.html http://www.flickr.com/photos/emrys76/5180221594/ http://www.lonelyplanet.com/afghanistan/kabul/sigh ts/hill/bibi-mahru-hill So I think Hitchen's description was pretty accurate. The Taliban made people jump off the diving board... | ||
| Aesquire |
Interesting interview. Peter Hitchens is I believe Christophers brother. He thinks the Iraq war was wrong for many reasons. 6:30 to 10:00, roughly, or 8:30 to 10:00 for the short form. Don't quite agree, but he could be right..... http://www.urbanskishow.com/b/Interview:-Peter-Hit chens/332227148286333138.html Or for a better summation of Psa's... | ||
| Blake |
Matt is no liar. He's just been terribly misled. It's tough too avoid when submerged in flood of propaganda. | ||
| Aesquire |
Thank you Blake, I'd really rather believe that. he seems bright, and sometimes even willing to examine facts. I'm willing to admit when I'm wrong...usually. Core beliefs are, and should be, core beliefs. You should revisit them from time to time to see if you are still on track. Many people have thought the ideas behind the Iraqi front were flawed. ( no not the bit where George wanted revenge for Saddam's attempt on Daddy ) The Peter Hitchens interview was interesting to me, in that Peter, ( a leftist ) was unhappy with the change in foreign relations that Bush initiated. More than one person has complained that we are ill suited as a people to Empire. We're just not that good at it. My complaint with ( starting a war with )Libya is that this is Empire, not for the purpose of exploitation of resources, ( see Hobbs ) but for a "humanitarian" reason. Susan Rice, & Hillary Clinton pressed for intervention based on a principal of justification by social justice. I have grave misgivings about that. It looms far too close to the mantra of the lefty fake peacenik who asks, rhetorically, "why make war on (blank), when there are abuses in (blank)?." ( lately, Iraq, and perhaps the Sudan ) It's never that they WANT to go to war to save the poor shmucks in (blank), just use the question as a device to criticize. Unfairly, as it's a bogus argument tactic. But Rice actually WANTS to go to war to save oppressed people, based on a ( IMHO ) uber lefty/perspective and the logic involved seems inevitably aimed at harming Israel. http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopic s/people/r/susan_e_rice/index.html?inline=nyt-per http://news.change.org/stories/susan-rice-investig ate-war-crimes http://www.antiwar.com/blog/2011/04/30/susan-rices -viagra-hoax-the-new-incubator-babies/ This is a different thinking than the neo-cons had in invading Iraq. The idea of starting a republic in the heart of dictatorlands to try and effect change is bold, might not work, but has high rewards if it does. ( Peter Hitchens thinks it's not a good idea, and screws things up worse ) Susan Rice's ideas on how you justify war on the basis of humanitarian expediency dovetails with Obama's reasoning for "why Libya, and not Syria?" Libya should have been easy, fast, and popular. Syria would be very hard, long and far harder to sell. ( since I think Libya is a campaign stunt..... ) Obama himself said that the choice was based on multiple criteria, that IMHO breaks down to "I think I can get away with it". ( which sucks, but is wiser than I often give him credit ) I don't want that criteria published, either. Obama may be dead wrong, but you don't give a list like that to the planet so bad guys can make sure they can get away with mass murder. Like Asad. My complaint with ( the way the war is run in ) Libya is that we don't seem to give a darn who wins. That's a sure fire gaaarunteee way to lose. And for Buellinmke, your fellow teabaggers are proud to be called teabaggers Well I'm not a Tea party guy. I assume that IF what you say is true, it's like American Blacks can use a certain word that begins with "n", but unless you're one of them, you'd better not. Still, funny video, thank you. (Message edited by aesquire on June 25, 2011) | ||
| Trojan |
Matt is no liar. He's just been terribly misled. It's tough too avoid when submerged in flood of propaganda. I think you'll find that most of the 'propaganda' comes from various groups (each with their own agenda of course)intent on trying to scare the population into thinking that we are at imminent danger of invasion from some islamist group or another. If you were to travel widely outside the US to Europe and the Middle East and actually speak to 'normal' muslims and see for yourself what is going on you'd actually see that what we have been fed for years by successive governments and media is the true propaganda and a lot of lies and misinformation. The war against Iraq was ill advised and probably illegal, and had nothing to do with terrorism or WMD unfortunately. Those responsible for sending our troops there should be tried for war crimes not put on pedestals as heroes. | ||
| Kenm123t |
Trojan Have you forgot why we went to Iraq in the first place? As for normal muslims about 300 million of the billion plus muslim population is jihadi minded? The last NORMAL as you frame it Cleric was killed for his moderate views in 1979. As for Europe being so much wiser than the US that is really funny. Serbia Soviet Georgia Poland Germanys little trips down the road of ethnic cleaning. The EU is burning down around Germany and Switzerland. Since the french revolution Europe has been the source of most of the worlds problems. The US has been forced to intervene in Ever wonder why there was a wall in Berlin or why it was a long road trip there? Chamberlains attitude was very similar to yours it nearly destroyed your country. Your head in the sand about what is really going on probably will kill it this time around we are going to be too busy saving ourselves |
