PDA

View Full Version : Poop Do you tow the party line?


BigMeatballDave
06-25-2011, 11:25 AM
I do not. And people who do are narrow-minded. You people piss me off.

Remove your head from your ass, you Fucking sheep.

That is all.







:)

LiveSteam
06-25-2011, 12:20 PM
Baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
Baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
Baaaaaaaaa

ClevelandBronco
06-25-2011, 12:28 PM
I do not. And people who do are narrow-minded. You people piss me off.

Remove your head from your ass, you ****ing sheep.

That is all.

When someone advises me to remove my head from my ass, it's usually because he thinks my head belongs in his ass.

Thanks, no. I prefer the smell over here.

Easy 6
06-25-2011, 01:05 PM
Toe

KILLER_CLOWN
06-25-2011, 01:47 PM
Another Sgt Hulka thread, and yes i always toe the party line.

Mr. Kotter
06-25-2011, 11:07 PM
Most folks, here....tend to be ideologues. So, yeah, they definitely tow the party line, and parrot their 'talking points.' It is, what it is.

They ain't bad people, but they do tend to be blind sheeple. Just sayin'. :shrug:

Direckshun
06-26-2011, 12:00 AM
I think I tend to tow the liberal line, in that I happen to hold an overwhelming majority of liberal positions on the issues of the day.

I don't think I tow the Democratic Party line, in that I frequently object to what the Democratic Party does, and how it promotes itself.

Mr. Flopnuts
06-26-2011, 12:04 AM
Waiting for some bullshit. Don't disappoint, Chiefsplanet.

BIG_DADDY
06-26-2011, 12:07 AM
I think I tend to tow the liberal line, in that I happen to hold an overwhelming majority of liberal positions on the issues of the day.

I don't think I tow the Democratic Party line, in that I frequently object to what the Democratic Party does, and how it promotes itself.

So what you're saying basically is you're left of left.

Mr. Kotter
06-26-2011, 12:14 AM
So what you're saying basically is you're left of left.

If he is Keith Olbermann (at the very least, I'll bet he whacks off to Keith's diatribes against W, just sayin')...but, at least based on your more recent postings, you have become right of right, a Limbaugh-Hannity-Beck groupie; or at the very least, a Ron Paul-inheritor of Ron Paul disciple....ideologue.

NTTAWWT, if you don't really wanna contribute in a serious way to solving major issues confronting our country... :shrug:

fan4ever
06-26-2011, 12:18 AM
I think I tend to tow the liberal line, in that I happen to hold an overwhelming majority of liberal positions on the issues of the day.

I don't think I tow the Democratic Party line, in that I frequently object to what the Democratic Party does, and how it promotes itself.

So tell me how many conservatives/republicans you've voted for in your lifetime.

BIG_DADDY
06-26-2011, 12:31 AM
If he is Keith Olbermann (I'll be he whacks off to his diatribes against W, just sayin')...then, at least based on your more recent postings, you have become right of right, a Limbaugh-Hannity-Beck groupie; or at the very least, a Ron Paul-inheritor of Ron Paul disciple....ideologue.

NTTAWWT, if you don't really wanna contribute in a serious way to solving major issues confronting our country... :shrug:

Let's see:

Against war on drugs
Was against going into Iraq
Against Anti-Terrorist bill
Pro Gun - BIG TIME
For lower taxes and a much smaller government
For huge government and social program cutbacks.
Privatize schools
Pro gay rights minus adoptions
For legalizing MJ
Anti-union
Against present government health care reform
Anti BIG PHARM contol of the FDA BIG TIME.

Where have you put me so far?

Silock
06-26-2011, 12:32 AM
I'm fiscally conservative and socially liberal. I don't HAVE a party.

BIG_DADDY
06-26-2011, 12:33 AM
I'm fiscally conservative and socially liberal. I don't HAVE a party.

Feel ya

Direckshun
06-26-2011, 02:05 AM
So what you're saying basically is you're left of left.

If you ever watch the Daily Show or Rachel Maddow's program... that's about where I'm at. It's about the best way I've learned to describe myself to people.

I think that's pretty much in the heart of mainstream liberalism, but labels are labels.

Direckshun
06-26-2011, 02:07 AM
If he is Keith Olbermann (at the very least, I'll bet he whacks off to Keith's diatribes against W, just sayin')...

I think Olbermann often went/goes over the top, and his news program is the closest to Fox News as MSNBC got before Ed showed up.

I'd say Olbermann is a less crazy but just as ideological version of Glenn Beck.

Direckshun
06-26-2011, 02:10 AM
So tell me how many conservatives/republicans you've voted for in your lifetime.

I don't share personal information on this website.

Bewbies
06-26-2011, 02:12 AM
I tow the party line, and am totally incapable of thinking anything else than what covert CIA agent Glenn Beck tells me to think or say.

Silock
06-26-2011, 02:20 AM
Feel ya

Sucks, doesn't it?

If I vote for a candidate that is in favor of gay marriage, I'm voting against someone that wants to reign in government spending.

Silock
06-26-2011, 02:21 AM
I don't share personal information on this website.

No one can track you based upon you sharing that information.

Direckshun
06-26-2011, 03:12 AM
No one can track you based upon you sharing that information.

I just prefer not to share personal information on the board. I see no need for it.

johnny961
06-26-2011, 04:17 AM
Some of my views fall in the conservative lot, yet some are more liberal. I really don't consider myself one or the other as I see good points and bad in both ideologies.

Silock
06-26-2011, 04:39 AM
I just prefer not to share personal information on the board. I see no need for it.

That's hardly personal information.

BigMeatballDave
06-26-2011, 05:22 AM
Seriously, is it toe or tow?

On a serious note, partisan politics is one of the lowest forms of scum. Some of you should be ashamed of yourselves because it is a big reason for much of the failure of this shitfest 2-party system.

BigMeatballDave
06-26-2011, 05:24 AM
Let's see:

Against war on drugs
Was against going into Iraq
Against Anti-Terrorist bill
Pro Gun - BIG TIME
For lower taxes and a much smaller government
For huge government and social program cutbacks.
Privatize schools
Pro gay rights minus adoptions
For legalizing MJ
Anti-union
Against present government health care reform
Anti BIG PHARM contol of the FDA BIG TIME.

Where have you put me so far?Bi-polar :)

BigMeatballDave
06-26-2011, 05:28 AM
If you ever watch the Daily Show or Rachel Maddow's program... that's about where I'm at. It's about the best way I've learned to describe myself to people.

I think that's pretty much in the heart of mainstream liberalism, but labels are labels.Your idealism is part of the problem. Fringe politics never work. Wallow in your failure. :)

notorious
06-26-2011, 07:45 AM
I'm fiscally conservative and socially liberal. I don't HAVE a party.

Summed it up for me.

BigMeatballDave
06-26-2011, 07:51 AM
Pro gun- I don't own a gun
Pro life- Although, I admit abortion is a necessary evil.
Pro gay rights/marriage
Pro death penalty
Pro small government
Pro weed

ClevelandBronco
06-26-2011, 09:08 AM
If you ever watch the Daily Show or Rachel Maddow's program... that's about where I'm at.

PERSONAL INFORMATION!

It's about the best way I've learned to describe myself to people.

PERSONAL INFORMATION!

I think that's pretty much in the heart of mainstream liberalism,

PERSONAL INFORMATION!

but labels are labels.

Okay. That's pretty much impersonal.

BucEyedPea
06-26-2011, 09:50 AM
I think I tend to tow the socialist line ( but don't know it's socialist) in that I happen to hold an overwhelming majority of liberal positions on the issues of the day.

I don't think I tow the Democratic Party line, in that I frequently object to what the Democratic Party does, and how it promotes itself.

FYP

BucEyedPea
06-26-2011, 09:54 AM
Pro-Federalism
Therefore Pro-Constitution ( which means I am for small decentralized govt, strong defense)
Fiscally conservative
Social issues are state issues ( since I'm Pro Federalism) and at that level I'd be a moderate. ( Mix)
Anti-socialist whether democratic socialism or modern Progressivism

Mr. Kotter
06-26-2011, 10:39 AM
Let's see:

Against war on drugs
Was against going into Iraq
Against Anti-Terrorist bill
Pro Gun - BIG TIME
For lower taxes and a much smaller government
For huge government and social program cutbacks.
Privatize schools
Pro gay rights minus adoptions
For legalizing MJ
Anti-union
Against present government health care reform
Anti BIG PHARM contol of the FDA BIG TIME.

Where have you put me so far?

Pretty libertarian paradigm, pretty much in line with Paul. Your stand on gay rights, MJ, and drug war put you a bit at odds with the Limbaugh crowd---but you are in line on the bigger/more important issues. NTTAWWT.

Okie_Apparition
06-26-2011, 10:51 AM
Any politician that has been in office for over 4 years & hasn't crossed party lines once. Should be removed from office

fan4ever
06-26-2011, 12:05 PM
I don't share personal information on this website.

So I'll take that as a "NO". Shocked, I tell ya, shocked.

Direckshun
06-26-2011, 05:14 PM
That's hardly personal information.

Who I vote for is personal information. I'll volunteer it when I wish or when there's a need for it.

Direckshun
06-26-2011, 05:15 PM
So I'll take that as a "NO". Shocked, I tell ya, shocked.

k

alnorth
06-26-2011, 05:19 PM
why are we posting in what is obviously a troll thread?

BucEyedPea
06-26-2011, 07:42 PM
Any politician that has been in office for over 4 years & hasn't crossed party lines once. Should be removed from office

That's a helluva standard. Crossing over party lines just to say you did it isn't a gaurantee of good policy.

Mr. Kotter
06-26-2011, 08:16 PM
I don't share personal information on this website.

In other words....hell no, I haven't voted for any "Nazis;" but I can't risk admitting that....

Heh... LMAO

patteeu
06-27-2011, 07:07 AM
Seriously, is it toe or tow?

On a serious note, partisan politics is one of the lowest forms of scum. Some of you should be ashamed of yourselves because it is a big reason for much of the failure of this shitfest 2-party system.

It's "toe". I believe it comes from dancing where the line was the mark on stage that helped the dancers get lined up correctly.

BTW, I doubt that many people toe the party line any more than you do.

patteeu
06-27-2011, 07:13 AM
BTW, I doubt that many people toe the party line any more than you do.

Pro gun- I don't own a gun
Pro life- Although, I admit abortion is a necessary evil.
Pro gay rights/marriage
Pro death penalty
Pro small government
Pro weed

For example, I share every one of those positions with you (except that I might be even more ambivalent about abortion and I guess we'd have to talk about what you mean by "gay rights"), but many people around here will think of me as a straight ticket Republican because Republicans tend to be on the right side of the issues that I find the most important (economic and foreign policy issues), so I'm far more likely to support an R than a D.

BucEyedPea
06-27-2011, 07:46 AM
Republican FP is traditionally non-interventionist. Today's FP of the Republicans is left ( as in progressive carrying out UN Resolutions or NATO actions which is under the UN) because it requires BIG govt.

patteeu
06-27-2011, 01:50 PM
Republican FP is traditionally non-interventionist. Today's FP of the Republicans is left ( as in progressive carrying out UN Resolutions or NATO actions which is under the UN) because it requires BIG govt.

No one cares what being Republican meant in a time before any of us were born.

Non-interventionism is fine as long as it doesn't tend toward isolationism like Ron Paul's FP would. 80 years ago, an isolationist form of non-interventionism would have been alright because we weren't as dependent on the rest of the world as we are today. Getting out of the middle east and letting Iran or China or some other not-necessarily-benevolent power fill the vacuum would leave us even more dependent than we already are on the whims of foreign powers.

The level of non-interventionism that makes sense today is to avoid getting into fights that don't involve us and don't have huge consequences for our interests. Like civil war in Rwanda or Kosovo.

Individualism is great for economics, but every man for himself sucks for national defense. Call it "big government" if you want, but a strong national defense is the primary reason for having a united country in the first place.

BigMeatballDave
06-27-2011, 06:51 PM
why are we posting in what is obviously a troll thread?HEY! I DON'T PISS ON YOUR ROYALS GAME THREADS!

BigMeatballDave
06-27-2011, 06:54 PM
BTW, I doubt that many people toe the party line any more than you do.LMAO

That's funny. Im the most moderate person here.

Jaric
06-27-2011, 06:58 PM
No one cares what being Republican meant in a time before any of us were born.

Non-interventionism is fine as long as it doesn't tend toward isolationism like Ron Paul's FP would. 80 years ago, an isolationist form of non-interventionism would have been alright because we weren't as dependent on the rest of the world as we are today. Getting out of the middle east and letting Iran or China or some other not-necessarily-benevolent power fill the vacuum would leave us even more dependent than we already are on the whims of foreign powers.

The level of non-interventionism that makes sense today is to avoid getting into fights that don't involve us and don't have huge consequences for our interests. Like civil war in Rwanda or Kosovo.

Individualism is great for economics, but every man for himself sucks for national defense. Call it "big government" if you want, but a strong national defense is the primary reason for having a united country in the first place.
You realize these wars to avoid becoming dependent to a foreign country is one of the main reasons we're broke right now and owe god knows how many billion/trillion dollars to foreign governments right?

Direckshun
06-27-2011, 08:32 PM
In other words...

Thanks, pete.

Silock
06-27-2011, 11:13 PM
Who I vote for is personal information. I'll volunteer it when I wish or when there's a need for it.

The question wasn't "who." It was "how many."

Guru
06-28-2011, 12:00 AM
I've voted for democrats before even though I lean conservative.

BigMeatballDave
06-28-2011, 01:37 AM
I've voted for democrats before even though I lean conservative.I voted Bush twice, then Obama.

Im 0 for 3 :)

KILLER_CLOWN
06-28-2011, 01:40 AM
I voted Bush twice, then Obama.

Im 0 for 3 :)

Well at least you manned up about it, now let's get Ron Paul elected! ;)

1 for 4 ain't bad.

BigMeatballDave
06-28-2011, 02:10 AM
I voted Bush twice, then Obama.

Im 0 for 3 :)PERSONAL INFORMATION!

SUCK IT, DIRECKSHUN!

Amnorix
06-28-2011, 08:06 AM
I'm fiscally conservative and socially liberal. I don't HAVE a party.


Yeah, I agree with that. I tend to vote Democrat because I haven't noted much fiscal conservatism from them, so at least I'll get one of my two by going Democrat, but it's not exactly satisfying.

Amnorix
06-28-2011, 08:14 AM
Pro-Federalism
Therefore Pro-a view of the Constitution that would really only have been supported by those who voted AGAINST the Constitution at the Constitutional Convention (i.e. Patrick Henry) ( which means I am for small decentralized govt, strong defense in the mold of Switzerland, i.e. ordinary citizens with muskets, more or less, but that was good enough to scare the Nazis into not invading)
Fiscally insane
Social issues are state issues ( since I'm Pro Federalism) and at that level I'd be a moderate. ( Mix)
Anti-socialist whether democratic socialism or modern Progressivism (which means I'm actually against all social programs, but I don't understand that)

FYP

Hydrae
06-28-2011, 08:23 AM
Seriously, is it toe or tow?

On a serious note, partisan politics is one of the lowest forms of scum. Some of you should be ashamed of yourselves because it is a big reason for much of the failure of this shitfest 2-party system.

You are putting your toe up to the line, not pulling a line somewhere.

blaise
06-28-2011, 08:49 AM
I guess I pretty much do. Except for a few issues.

BucEyedPea
06-28-2011, 09:19 AM
You realize these wars to avoid becoming dependent to a foreign country is one of the main reasons we're broke right now and owe god knows how many billion/trillion dollars to foreign governments right?

"Interests" to pat, instead of actually defending the country means oil and/or other mercantile interests. Free-marketer? Nope. Mercantilist who are empire builders for their mercenary interests using the lives of young Americans.

patteeu
06-28-2011, 09:40 AM
You realize these wars to avoid becoming dependent to a foreign country is one of the main reasons we're broke right now and owe god knows how many billion/trillion dollars to foreign governments right?

No, as a matter of fact, I don't agree with that.

patteeu
06-28-2011, 09:46 AM
"Interests" to pat, instead of actually defending the country means oil and/or other mercantile interests. Free-marketer? Nope. Mercantilist who are empire builders for their mercenary interests using the lives of young Americans.

What would be left to defend if we suddenly lost access to oil? We're not all subsistence farmers anymore.

Jaric
06-28-2011, 10:21 AM
No, as a matter of fact, I don't agree with that.

I know you don't. But that doesn't make the statement any less true.

We've spent billions (possibly trillions) fighting wars we don't need to fight. We are trillions of dollars in debt. The fact that we also spend billions/trillions on social entitlement programs we can't afford does not negate the fact that we spend billions/trillions of dollars on wars we can't afford. That doesn't even include the loss of life/resources as a result of these quagmires.

I will give you props though for admitting those wars are all about oil, and not the bullshit the Bush Administration fed us when we started the wars. Even if we're going to disagree on the subject, I appreciate the honesty.

MOhillbilly
06-28-2011, 10:31 AM
i would appreciate alittle lube if both sides continue to fuck us this hard.

ChiTown
06-28-2011, 10:43 AM
i would appreciate alittle lube if both sides continue to **** us this hard.

This

King_Chief_Fan
06-28-2011, 10:53 AM
I do not. And people who do are narrow-minded. You people piss me off.

Remove your head from your ass, you ****ing sheep.

That is all.







:)

like your opinion matters:doh!:

blaise
06-28-2011, 11:02 AM
The way it's gotten I think people and politicians almost like it better when they're not in power. It's easier to say the other person sucks and everything is going to shit than it is to actually fix it.

Dave Lane
06-28-2011, 11:09 AM
Troy this one is for you. Your ode to the republican party...

Maybe not but there are plenty here that this fits perfectly. ROFL :thumb:

<iframe width="425" height="349" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/wEV58ztuihs" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Let's see:

Against war on drugs
Was against going into Iraq
Against Anti-Terrorist bill
Pro Gun - BIG TIME
For lower taxes and a much smaller government
For huge government and social program cutbacks.
Privatize schools
Pro gay rights minus adoptions
For legalizing MJ
Anti-union
Against present government health care reform
Anti BIG PHARM contol of the FDA BIG TIME.

Where have you put me so far?

patteeu
06-29-2011, 01:20 PM
I know you don't. But that doesn't make the statement any less true.

Of course not. It was already untrue before I commented on it. Or alternatively, it was only true to the extent that you have a very broad understanding of the phrase "one of the main reasons".

Here are three reasons why I consider it to be untrue:

1. Over the last 50 years or so, defense spending as a fraction of national output has been declining while other discretionary spending has remained relatively level and entitlement spending has dramatically risen.

http://smallcapworld.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/federal-spending_12-850.jpg

http://www.heritage.org/budgetchartbook/charts/2011/defense-entitlement-spending-850.jpg

Interest on the debt has, of course, also risen over that period. The MAIN cause of the debt is irresponsible domestic spending. People who cite defense spending as a main cause of the debt tend to be people who take national defense for granted despite the fact that it's the MAIN reason for having a federal government in the first place.

2. Over the period from FY03 to FY10, the public debt has risen by $5.483 trillion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_public_debt). The spending authorized for the Iraq and Afghan wars (http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL33110.pdf) (pdf) over that same period has been $1.081 trillion. So even if you consider those wars to be entirely frivolous, they've accounted for less than 20% of the debt over that time period. If you grant that they are important national defense expenditures, or at least more important than some forms of federal spending (like porkulus support for democrat constituencies, for example), the share of their contribution to the debt grows even smaller.

3. Over the period from FY08 to FY10 (the current administration), spending on the Iraq and Afghan wars has declined from $185.7 billion in FY08 to $165.3 billion in FY10 (with a total of $506.1 billion being spent over the 3 year period). Meanwhile, the debt has grown by $3.988 trillion over that same period. During the age of Obama, spending on the two wars, even if entirely frivolous (which it isn't), has amounted to only 12.6% of the increase in debt. [The same sources are used here as were used in 2 above]

Conclusion: The wars are decidedly not MAIN causes of our debt problem and they are even more certainly not even in the same ballpark as entitlements when it comes to being a long range threat to our country's financial health.

patteeu
06-29-2011, 01:25 PM
We've spent billions (possibly trillions) fighting wars we don't need to fight. We are trillions of dollars in debt. The fact that we also spend billions/trillions on social entitlement programs we can't afford does not negate the fact that we spend billions/trillions of dollars on wars we can't afford. That doesn't even include the loss of life/resources as a result of these quagmires.

As I described in my last post, it's misleading to the point of error to equate the money we've spent on those wars to that which we spend on entitlements like this by describing both at "billions/trillions" as if they were in the same ballpark.

The loss of life is horrible, but by any measure of war it has been light.

I will give you props though for admitting those wars are all about oil, and not the bullshit the Bush Administration fed us when we started the wars. Even if we're going to disagree on the subject, I appreciate the honesty.

I wouldn't go so far as to say that these wars are all about oil, but it's true that we wouldn't be interested in that region if it weren't for the oil. I don't consider the rationales described by the Bush administration to be bullshit at all. They are consistent with our efforts to prevent disruptions to the oil supply and important trade routes through the region.

BucEyedPea
06-29-2011, 02:09 PM
I don't trust any defense graph by NC Heritage—a group that advocated govt involvment in HC even in the late 1980's. Too much defense spending on the ME wars has been off budget expenditures.

RedNeckRaider
06-29-2011, 03:05 PM
Troy this one is for you. Your ode to the republican party...

Maybe not but there are plenty here that this fits perfectly. ROFL :thumb:

<iframe width="425" height="349" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/wEV58ztuihs" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Nothing to do with the topic but rep for one of my favorite songs~

patteeu
06-29-2011, 03:41 PM
I don't trust any defense graph by NC Heritage—a group that advocated govt involvment in HC even in the late 1980's. Too much defense spending on the ME wars has been off budget expenditures.

The information in my 2nd and 3rd points come from appropriations rather than the budget so there's not an issue of off-budget versus on-budget in those.

BTW, it's hilarious that you look down your nose at Heritage given the sources you consider "impeccable".

Jaric
06-29-2011, 07:05 PM
As I described in my last post, it's misleading to the point of error to equate the money we've spent on those wars to that which we spend on entitlements like this by describing both at "billions/trillions" as if they were in the same ballpark.

The loss of life is horrible, but by any measure of war it has been light.
So let me get this straight. We spent about a trillion dollars on the wars. I stated we spent "billions/trillions" and you say that is misleading? I'd say it dead on balls accurate. Because we have spent billions/trillions on the war. The fact that we've spent more billions/trillions on social entitlement programs is irrelevant as far as this point is concerned.

I'm sorry Pat, but you're trying to pull some kind of slight of hand distraction where you want me to ignore the wasted spending on wars because we wasted more money elsewhere. That's nonsense.

I wouldn't go so far as to say that these wars are all about oil, but it's true that we wouldn't be interested in that region if it weren't for the oil. I don't consider the rationales described by the Bush administration to be bullshit at all. They are consistent with our efforts to prevent disruptions to the oil supply and important trade routes through the region.Yeah, I don't remember any of that being in the speech Bush gave to the nation when he announced we would be invading. He did alot of talking about weapons of mass destruction, terrorists, and 9/11, Not so much about trade routes and oil pipelines.

If you'd like to refute that, here is a link to a transcript of the speech he gave.

http://www.accuracy.org/1029-detailed-analysis-of-october-7-2002-speech-by-bush-on-iraq/

EDIT: They've also taken the liberty of explaining in a side note why most of his arguments were, as I stated, bullshit.

patteeu
06-29-2011, 11:53 PM
So let me get this straight. We spent about a trillion dollars on the wars. I stated we spent "billions/trillions" and you say that is misleading? I'd say it dead on balls accurate. Because we have spent billions/trillions on the war. The fact that we've spent more billions/trillions on social entitlement programs is irrelevant as far as this point is concerned.

I'm sorry Pat, but you're trying to pull some kind of slight of hand distraction where you want me to ignore the wasted spending on wars because we wasted more money elsewhere. That's nonsense.

Being "dead on balls accurate" with such an imprecise statement isn't really very impressive. I've already shown the difference in scale between what you call a "main cause" and that which is being caused.

The biggest difference between us on this point is that you consider the war spending "wasted" and I don't. It's easy to sit in your comfy home acting like al Qaeda (and other islamist threats to our interests) would have gone away on it's own if we'd have only just apologized or pulled out of islamic lands or whatever it is you think we should have done instead of using military force, but you have no way of proving that theory. I can at least point to the fact that there are no longer terrorist training camps operating unmolested in Afghanistan (or Iraq for that matter), bin Laden and much of his cadre are dead, Saddam is gone, and an experiment in popular government, a middle eastern version of western liberalism, is taking place in Iraq.

Yeah, I don't remember any of that being in the speech Bush gave to the nation when he announced we would be invading. He did alot of talking about weapons of mass destruction, terrorists, and 9/11, Not so much about trade routes and oil pipelines.

If you'd like to refute that, here is a link to a transcript of the speech he gave.

http://www.accuracy.org/1029-detailed-analysis-of-october-7-2002-speech-by-bush-on-iraq/

EDIT: They've also taken the liberty of explaining in a side note why most of his arguments were, as I stated, bullshit.

I'm not sure why you're calling on me to refute something when you haven't really made much of a point to begin with. The fact that oil is important and is one of the main reasons we care about the middle east in the first place goes without saying. I didn't agree with you that the Iraq war was "all about oil" and I don't see any reason why Bush should have described it as being about oil. If you want to pick out a specific claim and argue about whether or not it's bullshit, I'd be glad to do it. We can agree that we subsequently found out that Saddam didn't have an active nuclear weapons program.

Jaric
06-30-2011, 08:00 AM
Pat, are you familiar with Gibbon's Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire?

BucEyedPea
06-30-2011, 11:31 AM
So let me get this straight. We spent about a trillion dollars on the wars. I stated we spent "billions/trillions" and you say that is misleading? I'd say it dead on balls accurate. Because we have spent billions/trillions on the war. The fact that we've spent more billions/trillions on social entitlement programs is irrelevant as far as this point is concerned.
I thought Paul said Iraq and Afghanistan is over 4 Trillion on a YouTube interview from CNN. I'll go check it.

5:12 on this video- and Obama is on it live saying the debt doesn't matter if she just pay the interest.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=tKXDTnvQNrM#at=327

BucEyedPea
06-30-2011, 11:38 AM
...those get counted differently just like the CPI standards get changed around.

Iraq War Deaths Exceed Vietnam War Numbers

The government, under the Bush administration, did something dishonest that resulted in a lie that's persisted since the war began -- and continues to this very day. They decided to report the war deaths in Iraq only if the soldier died with his boots on the ground in a combat situation.

More than 1,820 tons of radioactive nuclear waste (i.e. depleted uranium) were exploded in Iraq alone in the form of armor piercing rounds and bunker busters. This represents the worlds worst man made ecological disaster ever...


Birth defects among Iraqi newborns are up a whopping 600% from before the war. The defects are typical of the kind produced by exposure to radioactive poisons. And these injuries are happening to the civilian population of Iraq -- the people we were supposedly "liberating."


The stastics for non-lethal injuries are likewise staggering:

Total "Undiagnosed Illness" (UDX) claims: 14,874
Total number of disability claims filed: 1,620,906
* Disability Claims amongst Deployed: 407,911
* Disability Claims amongst Non-Deployed: 1,212,995

Percentage of combat troops that filed Disability Claims 36%

http://www.viewzone.com/wardeaths.html

patteeu
06-30-2011, 01:22 PM
Pat, are you familiar with Gibbon's Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire?

I'm familiar with it in the sense that I know it's a book written in the 18th century about the history of the Roman Empire by an English historian of that era. I haven't read it if that's what you're asking.

patteeu
06-30-2011, 01:25 PM
I thought Paul said Iraq and Afghanistan is over 4 Trillion on a YouTube interview from CNN. I'll go check it.

He might just be making stuff up again, but I'll give him the benefit of the doubt and assume he's inflating the numbers with creative accounting (e.g. adding in the speculative costs of long term health care, etc.).

patteeu
06-30-2011, 01:30 PM
...those get counted differently just like the CPI standards get changed around.

Iraq War Deaths Exceed Vietnam War Numbers

You're a sad joke at this point.

US Military fatalities in Iraq = 4,469 (iCasualties.org (http://icasualties.org/))

US Military fatalities in Vietnam = 58,212 (wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_War_casualties))

The Iraq war would have to go on for over a century at this rate to surpass Vietnam.

Rausch
06-30-2011, 02:19 PM
The Iraq war would have to go on for over a century at this rate to surpass Vietnam.

So we're getting better at failing, over a longer period of time, with less casualties?...

patteeu
06-30-2011, 02:35 PM
So we're getting better at failing, over a longer period of time, with less casualties?...

Failing?

Rausch
06-30-2011, 02:47 PM
Failing?

We have not eradicated the Taliban, insured stability, or managed to prepare the government to sustain itself after we withdraw.

And in no way is this meant as an insult to our armed forces. It's, to me, a multi-administration failure just as the 'Nam was...

patteeu
06-30-2011, 02:54 PM
We have not eradicated the Taliban, insured stability, or managed to prepare the government to sustain itself after we withdraw.

And in no way is this meant as an insult to our armed forces. It's, to me, a multi-administration failure just as the 'Nam was...

You're talking about Afghanistan. We were talking about Iraq. Iraq has been a success. Afghanistan is still in doubt, but I think you're overlooking some of the things that are on the success side of the balance sheet there like the severe diminishment of al Qaeda. The government there is still a mess though.

Rausch
06-30-2011, 02:59 PM
You're talking about Afghanistan. We were talking about Iraq. Iraq has been a success.

You are smoking crack.

We got hoodwinked into doing Iran's dirty work for them. We erased their biggest enemy in the region, paid for it, and then allowed them to funnel everything they wanted to everyone that needed it.

Arab spring my azz...

Afghanistan is still in doubt, but I think you're overlooking some of the things that are on the success side of the balance sheet there like the severe diminishment of al Qaeda. The government there is still a mess though.

I completely understand the need to establish a forward base in the ME. I get that. We have those in Japan and Germany as well.

But not until we made serious adjustments to their way of thinking...

patteeu
06-30-2011, 03:02 PM
You are smoking crack.

We got hoodwinked into doing Iran's dirty work for them. We erased their biggest enemy in the region, paid for it, and then allowed them to funnel everything they wanted to everyone that needed it.

Arab spring my azz...

LOL, OK whatever. It's looking pretty good so far, to me.

Jaric
06-30-2011, 03:12 PM
I'm familiar with it in the sense that I know it's a book written in the 18th century about the history of the Roman Empire by an English historian of that era. I haven't read it if that's what you're asking.

It's worth checking out if you're interested in that sort of thing. The cliff notes version though is that the Roman Empire fell, in a large part due to attempts at nation building in the middle east. Yes, the Barbarians actually sacking Rome was the final straw, but the diversion of resources and manpower into the middle east essentially crippled the Roman Empire.

Something worth considering. History does have a way of repeating itself.

I think we've both said our peace on the subject at hand, and I propose we agree to disagree. Work for you?

Rausch
06-30-2011, 03:14 PM
LOL, OK whatever. It's looking pretty good so far, to me.

In the early days before we invaded Iraq we got a great deal of our intel from Iranian clerics and Iraqi muslims who'd defected to Iran.

Most of that was bad, which we now know. After the fact.

Our whole plan during the last 20 years of the cold war, and it worked, was to out-spend the commies and force them to fold eventually through proxy wars because we knew they couldn't sustain a war machine under their economic model.

And they did fold.

It may be ironic, or just coincidence, but that's looking like a pretty effective strategy vs. us at this point...

patteeu
06-30-2011, 03:28 PM
It's worth checking out if you're interested in that sort of thing. The cliff notes version though is that the Roman Empire fell, in a large part due to attempts at nation building in the middle east. Yes, the Barbarians actually sacking Rome was the final straw, but the diversion of resources and manpower into the middle east essentially crippled the Roman Empire.

Something worth considering. History does have a way of repeating itself.

I think we've both said our peace on the subject at hand, and I propose we agree to disagree. Work for you?

Yes

Jaric
06-30-2011, 03:34 PM
Yes

:thumb:

Rausch
06-30-2011, 03:34 PM
LOL, OK whatever. It's looking pretty good so far, to me.

...
http://26.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lfsuncUklI1qc6bx5o1_500.gif

"Keep it up then… Right up."

MahiMike
06-30-2011, 06:03 PM
I do not. And people who do are narrow-minded. You people piss me off.

Remove your head from your ass, you ****ing sheep.

That is all.

:)

HERE! HERE! I totally agree. Anyone that votes strictly for their party is a moron. And since I'm guessing 70% of the voters do this, you see the joke we call politics in America play out.

I say they pass a law to remove the D's and R's from the names of the candidates. Maybe then, folks would actually read what the candidates are about instead of just looking for the letters on the ballot.

MahiMike
06-30-2011, 06:12 PM
You're a sad joke at this point.

US Military fatalities in Iraq = 4,469 (iCasualties.org (http://icasualties.org/))

US Military fatalities in Vietnam = 58,212 (wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_War_casualties))

The Iraq war would have to go on for over a century at this rate to surpass Vietnam.

How come nobody talks about the Iraqi civilian casualties? They're well over 100,000. If we never attack, they'd be doing fine.

Jaric
06-30-2011, 06:45 PM
How come nobody talks about the Iraqi civilian casualties? They're well over 100,000. If we never attack, they'd be doing fine.
Because no one in America gives a shit.

Well, most people don't anyway.

patteeu
07-01-2011, 08:22 AM
How come nobody talks about the Iraqi civilian casualties? They're well over 100,000. If we never attack, they'd be doing fine.

I can only speak for myself, but I don't talk about them because I don't care. The US has been more effective at limiting civilian casualties than any country that's ever gone to war. Too much so, IMO. You do realize that many of those "civilians" were enemy combatants or killed by enemy combatants, don't you?