You keep calling him bi-partisan, you clearly do not understand what that words means, bi means two, partisan, means party or faction. bi-partisan means a bill is legislated througjh cooperation between two parties. This is in no way shape or form how the govt has been run for the last 6 years, because the republicans have both, house, senate and executive branch, they do not need democratic support for much of anything.
You only use the word to describe George's less than perfect fiscal conservative record as proof of bipartisan ship when their is nothing of the kind. Learn what words mean before using them over and over and over.
As for saying when a true fiscal conservative takes over they will slash every program in site. I more than welcome that, because it will destroy your party. Not every republican is well to do, those that are not dont realize how much they count on the Government to assist them.
When Senior citizens health costs go up and money they would spend on food, instead goes to medical cost and seniors start eating dog food again. When tens of senior citizens lose the ability to live by themselvs and are thrust upon families they may be unable to cope with them. Well there goes the AARP and the soon to be 80million senior citizens from your voting ranks. You dont think that would be on the news, story after story, day after day after day of the suffering and plight of the elderly?
Or college students, having to drop out of school because they cant afford to go to school, in a day and age when america needs skilled workers desperatly, we'll be cutting ourselves in the knee. This will effect the econmy. So yeah, another good idea. You also fail to understand that a vast segment of the working force are foreign born immigrants. Its been reported as many as 40% of all doctors are foreign born. So not only do you cripple the american educational system, but the only source of new professionals arent even allowed in the country.
How about the millions of disabled americans that rely on social assistance to keep a roof over their heads and foods in their bellys, many of them will have nowhere to go.
And all this is just the very tip of the iceberg that americans social policies support. So yes, bring it on, Your party will be destroyed for another 30 years because people will remember, you took jimmys 75cent schiool lunch that now costs $3.00 and jimmy goes hungry now. So id take 4 years of that, to make the republican party a politcal pariah for the next 30. Its a great deal.
Nothing would make me happier than seeing a entitleman cutting president take the stage.
Originally posted by modjoe86 The body count today is a testament to just how well our soldiers are doing in Iraq.
Last I checked, you are implying that 2500 deaths is a good thing.
2.You mention Iraqi's that support us, what about the majority that cheer us as we march by, then spit at our backs when we don't do what they want?Based on? What percentage does this?
This statement is based on the testimonial of 4 seperate servicemen who served in Iraq. They basically made it clear that most Iraqi's hate us.
And, they produced those turnout numbers under the threat of suicide bombers, gun-men, etc.
So threat of death justifies voter turnouts? Ok.
Yes, because your arguement just now was the epitome of civility, openmindedness, and lack of bias
I agree. Thanks.
Yeah, reading isn't your strong point apparenty.
1. deaths of servicemen: My statement is concerning how well our servicemen are doing, not that the deaths of servicemen are good things, as you attempted to claim I said. So, last time you checked, you were wrong.
2. Sorry, everyone has anectodal evidence to shore up their beliefs. I was hoping you had made that statement based on something more scientific and verifiable.
3. Voter turnout: Newsflash, the turnout wasn't created by the threat of violence (US saying vote or we'll shoot). The turnout was carried out under the threat of ISLAMIC FASCIST bombing, shooting etc. people to NOT vote. They chose to vote in droves while facing the beforementioned dangers. So, I have no idea what the heck you're talking about.
You keep calling him bi-partisan, you clearly do not understand what that words means, bi means two, partisan, means party or faction. bi-partisan means a bill is legislated througjh cooperation between two parties. This is in no way shape or form how the govt has been run for the last 6 years, because the republicans have both, house, senate and executive branch, they do not need democratic support for much of anything.
Ok, can you stop spouting dictionary definitions? You know darn well that politicans use the term bi-partisan (and partisan) as a label for people. And not, just to describe the enviroment surounding a bill. You can't possibly have paid attention to political debate without hearing things like "he's a bi-partisan guy." That's why I've mentioned several times "In reality." I do clearly understand the dictionary definition of the word. I've never even debated that. Yet, one more time you attempt to bring it up. I've only debated how it's used in REALITY. As I pointed out from the very start of the posts!
You only use the word to describe George's less than perfect fiscal conservative record as proof of bipartisan ship when their is nothing of the kind. Learn what words mean before using them over and over and over.
Are you just pretending? Did you not read what I wrote? Read above. My whole point is that he's never going to be seen as a bi-partisan type of president by the Democrats. Ever. It doesn't matter how fiscally liberal he and the republican congress have been in funding THEIR pet programs. They're still going to be called a bunch of partisans. Learn to read. And learn that "Bi-partisan" isn't used by politicans in it's sctrict definition. Because they don't, not in reality....
As for saying when a true fiscal conservative takes over they will slash every program in site. I more than welcome that, because it will destroy your party. Not every republican is well to do, those that are not dont realize how much they count on the Government to assist them.
When Senior citizens health costs go up and money they would spend on food, instead goes to medical cost and seniors start eating dog food again. When tens of senior citizens lose the ability to live by themselvs and are thrust upon families they may be unable to cope with them. Well there goes the AARP and the soon to be 80million senior citizens from your voting ranks. You dont think that would be on the news, story after story, day after day after day of the suffering and plight of the elderly?
So, you're for legislating charity? Cool, you should hang out with the christian right. They like to legislate morals, also. You're not for legislasting my morality? Then don't force me, by threat of violence, to participate in your personal 'call to be charitable.'
Or college students, having to drop out of school because they cant afford to go to school, in a day and age when america needs skilled workers desperatly, we'll be cutting ourselves in the knee. This will effect the econmy. So yeah, another good idea. You also fail to understand that a vast segment of the working force are foreign born immigrants. Its been reported as many as 40% of all doctors are foreign born. So not only do you cripple the american educational system, but the only source of new professionals arent even allowed in the country.
I worked my way through college as a dirt poor kid. And again....Good for you if you want to be charitable and give to some college fund. But, now you're talking about legislating your own sense of moral obligation onto others. Using law to back it up. That's commendable, but I sure hope you can't blame others for trying to enforce their morals through legislation. And where in the world did I say I was against legal immigration? I'm not sure why you brought up the whole source of new proffesionals thing.
How about the millions of disabled americans that rely on social assistance to keep a roof over their heads and foods in their bellys, many of them will have nowhere to go.
Cool, go volunteer you time and money to orginizations that help them. Dont try to use the government to enforce your moral obligation. I wonder if legislating morality is only bad when it doesn't support one's own political agenda? Such as legislating the definition of marriage....
And all this is just the very tip of the iceberg that americans social policies support. So yes, bring it on, Your party will be destroyed for another 30 years because people will remember, you took jimmys 75cent schiool lunch that now costs $3.00 and jimmy goes hungry now. So id take 4 years of that, to make the republican party a politcal pariah for the next 30. Its a great deal.
Jimmy never had his own 75 cents for me to take. You used the government to rob me of it and then you gave him my 75 cents.
Nothing would make me happier than seeing a entitleman cutting president take the stage.
Me too. I'd rather stop voting for moderate republicans like Bush.
"im paying for poor people to eat, and i hate it, all my money should be mine mine mine"
My abilities to argue with that is simply nonexistant. Like I said, I wish we do have the president you want, your party will destroy itself all on its own.
Originally posted by Scorpes I'm done with this, when someone says basically "im paying for poor people to eat, and i hate it, all my money should be mine mine mine" My abilities to argue with that is simply nonexistant. Like I said, I wish we do have the president you want, your party will destroy itself itself all on its own.
Except I haven't said that. I believe it is a moral obligation for man to help his needy neighbor. A moral duty, in fact. However, I also believe the government can not and should not be used to impose that moral belief onto someone else. It's a private moral question that should be left up to the individual to interact (or not) with private charitable orginizations. However, if imposing morals is ok with you, then Pat Robertson is your kind of guy. Oh, you may disagree which morals should be imposed, but in the end you support imposing morals onto people.
Originally posted by lardmouth Originally posted by Scorpes I'm done with this, when someone says basically "im paying for poor people to eat, and i hate it, all my money should be mine mine mine" My abilities to argue with that is simply nonexistant. Like I said, I wish we do have the president you want, your party will destroy itself itself all on its own.
Except I haven't said that. I believe it is a moral obligation for man to help his needy neighbor. A moral duty, in fact. However, I also believe the government can not and should not be used to impose that moral belief onto someone else. It's a private moral question that should be left up to the individual to interact (or not) with private charitable orginizations. However, if imposing morals is ok with you, then Pat Robertson is your kind of guy. Oh, you may disagree which morals should be imposed, but in the end you support imposing morals onto people.
And thats where your wrong again, its not my morals that are at play here, im a pragmatist. I dont think you understand how deeply ingrained the American economy depends on these so called entitlement programs.
The leading factor in the american economy now is the housing market, with many first time buyers, relying on government assistance to purchasing new homes. Like Fannie Mae, Fannie, Mac, HuD, federal, and state agencies that helps people into homes.
How about farm subsidies, so we'd have another episode like in the 80's when millions of hard working americans suddenly found out their crops werent worth anything and were having their farms confiscated and literally becoming homeless.
The whole midwest would be devastated, and also btw, the midwest is republican, id like to see you keep those votes then when their guy they voted for just helped them become homeless and rely on the kindness of friends, strangers and welfare. Oh wait, welfare is gone too, oh and all their friends and relatives are homeless and poor too.
Or Unemployment benefits when so many Americans, are living paycheck to paycheck, suddenly losing all income is absolutely catastrophic, so now whole familes will be thrown out on the streets. And dont say that wont happen, it happens now and we DO have safet nets, I shudder to think of what it would be like without them.
Do you know that the vast majority of Americans have had or will have federal aid at some point in their lives? Be it welfare for a time being when a single mother who has no skills just had her husband "the sole provider" leave them. or medicare for a child with a deadly or crippling disease. Do you honestly think that charitable donations would make up the difference? The country would be full of crying parents and hungry children. Im sure you'll keep their vote too.
But most importantly,this is not about morals, this is about being pragmatic, Raising people OUT of poverty is the greatest barometer of when a nation is successfull or not. Name one leading nation that has a high poverty rate? Helpings others, helps you tenfold, its one of the simplest forms of economics, raise people up and the standard of living goes up for EVERYONE.
Keep people down and it cripples the economy, because people are sick, malnuritioned, poor to no job skills, litle to no education, that means guess what, ding ding ding, they arent consumers. Your better than this, put some more thought into it other than "forced charity" you should fight in the war voluntarily but they also have the draft, why, because sometimes the government needs to do whats best for everyone and not just you.
So in short, you believe in legislating morality. Your morality. Your whole arguement revolves around how people should be forced to "donate" to the poor. For the sake of arguement, what if poverty becomes more widespread and harsher without the safety net? Why should I be forced to take care of them through my money, that I EARNED. Because you have a moral soft spot for figthing poverty?
Originally posted by lardmouth So in short, you believe in legislating morality. Your morality. Your whole arguement revolves around how people should be forced to "donate" to the poor. For the sake of arguement, what if poverty becomes more widespread and harsher without the safety net? Why should I be forced to take care of them through my money, that I EARNED. Because you have a moral soft spot for figthing poverty?
You really dont understand, raising poverty levels helps you, because their are more CONSUMERS. Consumers drive western economies, that means their is more money for you, better jobs for you and better future and standard of life for you.
I'm emphasizing the YOU since it seems thats all your argument comes down to, whats best for you and only you. I explained it, you dont get it, and im sick of arguing with a wall. I''m done with this.
No sir, I see you wallowing in contradictions. You believe is ok to legislate your morality, but others are wrong for wanting to try to legislate theirs.
Originally posted by lardmouth Originally posted by modjoe86 The body count today is a testament to just how well our soldiers are doing in Iraq.
Last I checked, you are implying that 2500 deaths is a good thing.
2.You mention Iraqi's that support us, what about the majority that cheer us as we march by, then spit at our backs when we don't do what they want?Based on? What percentage does this?
This statement is based on the testimonial of 4 seperate servicemen who served in Iraq. They basically made it clear that most Iraqi's hate us.
And, they produced those turnout numbers under the threat of suicide bombers, gun-men, etc.
So threat of death justifies voter turnouts? Ok.
Yes, because your arguement just now was the epitome of civility, openmindedness, and lack of bias
I agree. Thanks.
Yeah, reading isn't your strong point apparenty.
1. deaths of servicemen: My statement is concerning how well our servicemen are doing, not that the deaths of servicemen are good things, as you attempted to claim I said. So, last time you checked, you were wrong.
2. Sorry, everyone has anectodal evidence to shore up their beliefs. I was hoping you had made that statement based on something more scientific and verifiable.
3. Voter turnout: Newsflash, the turnout wasn't created by the threat of violence (US saying vote or we'll shoot). The turnout was carried out under the threat of ISLAMIC FASCIST bombing, shooting etc. people to NOT vote. They chose to vote in droves while facing the beforementioned dangers. So, I have no idea what the heck you're talking about.
1. Your wording is bad. You say 2500 DEATHS is a testament to how WELL our servicemen are doing. 2. I trust face-to-face talking with soldiers that are over there more than I trust news reports. 3. I didn't misread that statement. I'm saying that voter turnouts could be attributed to alot more than this booming enthusiasm to hit the polls. Regardless, who cares? That government is a bigger puppet than our own.
Originally posted by lardmouth "What the people who opposed this war are doing when they show the body count, when they harp on the failure after failure that we have over there, and when they point out the things that go wrong like innocents dying is saying I TOLD YOU SO!!!!" .1 I don't understand the point of showing the body count to those who supported the war. You honestly think supporters of the war didn't believe american service men would die? I read the news by the way, I know the bodycount. And, it's not because I got it from some anti-Iraqi war individual. By the way, match up that body count to other modern wars with a similar time frame. Thank god today's generation didn't have to fight WW2. It would have hit 2500 americans dead and we'd haul out the white flag. The body count today is a testament to just how well our soldiers are doing in Iraq.
Then you need to go back and listen to some of the speeches that Rumsfeld and Bush gave to us before the war started. Their speeches that promised that this was going to be a quick and easy war. That we would be in and out of there. That the oil we get from Iraq would help pay for this war so we don't end up paying for another countries liberation to be hated later on. And that the people over there would welcome us with trust and open arms. That's what we're talking about. I still vividly remember those speeches. And they're easily found on the Internet if you care to take the time to look for dissenting views instead of living in a shell.
.2 Where in the world do you get the impression that people who supported this war thought innocents wouldn't die? That is just absolutely silly. Of course, innocents will unfortunately die. It's happened in every war. WW2 again, the amount of german, japanese, etc. innocents that died in that war absolutely trumps the amount of innoncents that died due to the Iraq war. But for some reason the lily white europeans' freedom, liberty, etc. was worth the deaths of vastly more innocents. But, for some reason, the dark skinned muslim Iraqi's freedom is worth less. Huh? Do you support the Iraqi soldiers and police who put everything, and I mean everything on the line ( their and their families lives) to protect a unity goverment based on democratic elections? Is it wrong that we're there to train those very same people?
Of course I support the troops that are over there. Don't pull that crap on me. That's another thing that makes me angry is when people try to say you can't support the troops if you don't support the war. I was in the military. I would go wherever my President told me to go because I was trained to follow orders. And when I got there I would do the best I can to succeed. But that doesn't mean that I have to blindly agree with the reasoning for sending me off to fight. I don't think we should be over there in the first place. And now that we're over there I'm going to take every opportunity to say I told you so. I"m going to point out everytime I can that there was no reason for us to go over there, we told you that it was a stupid war to start that had no good outcome for us, and we told you the Iraqi people would eventually turn on us. You can listen to talk radio show hosts say how great we are for trying to keep innocent civilian deaths to a minimum, and they're right, we are. But what really matters when all is said and done is what the people over there think of us when we leave. This was a battle for the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people, remember? Well, we ain't winning them over now are we?
We need to just leave that part of the world alone. Let them settle their own age old dilemmas and take care of ourselves.
3. Failure after failure?!!!! What?! Unity government, based on represenatives elected by the people...check (a voter turnout that should shame us "democratic" nations, btw). Cabinet positions being filled through debate instead of coup..check. A growing, and more and more experienced national army and police force...check. More and more territory turned over to before mentioned army and police force.....check. Al Qaida members killed and/or detained in Iraq....BIG CHECK.
Whatever! They're on the virge of civil war. The tribes that live in that area are not going to get along. This goes back centuries. And we think we're going to go over there and unify a part of the world over something that most Americans don't even understand? Get real. There are more and more generals coming out everyday saying this was a mistake. Bush's poll numbers are slipping for a reason. It's because people are getting fed up with hearing one thing and then seeing something else. This war was a mistake. Plain and simple. We never should have gone over there, and as soon as we're gone Iraq is going to meltdown, no matter what we do. We are so naive to have ever thought we could. We were thinking there was going to be a democracy setup over there. Yet what's included in their "constitution"? They put that Islamic law is the law of the land. Yeah, now let's try to turn theocracy into a euphamism for democracy.
4. Investigations into american atrocities and those that cover it up....check. That's right, Iraqi's are about to see american soldiers, who disgraced their comrades, held accountable. That's going to be something. Soldiers held accountable....something they NEVER saw under Saddam.
And they never would have had to see the attrocities or the accountability if we never would have gone there in the first place. Don't kid yourself. They are not going to look at us as the good guys when we're gone. You can believe they will but I'll be sitting right here ready to say 'we told you so' again.
What exactly do you think you've "Told me so" on? ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^
Originally posted by gnomexxx Originally posted by lardmouth
"What the people who opposed this war are doing when they show the body count, when they harp on the failure after failure that we have over there, and when they point out the things that go wrong like innocents dying is saying I TOLD YOU SO!!!!" .1 I don't understand the point of showing the body count to those who supported the war. You honestly think supporters of the war didn't believe american service men would die? I read the news by the way, I know the bodycount. And, it's not because I got it from some anti-Iraqi war individual. By the way, match up that body count to other modern wars with a similar time frame. Thank god today's generation didn't have to fight WW2. It would have hit 2500 americans dead and we'd haul out the white flag. The body count today is a testament to just how well our soldiers are doing in Iraq.
Then you need to go back and listen to some of the speeches that Rumsfeld and Bush gave to us before the war started. Their speeches that promised that this was going to be a quick and easy war. That we would be in and out of there. That the oil we get from Iraq would help pay for this war so we don't end up paying for another countries liberation to be hated later on. And that the people over there would welcome us with trust and open arms. That's what we're talking about. I still vividly remember those speeches. And they're easily found on the Internet if you care to take the time to look for dissenting views instead of living in a shell.
.2 Where in the world do you get the impression that people who supported this war thought innocents wouldn't die? That is just absolutely silly. Of course, innocents will unfortunately die. It's happened in every war. WW2 again, the amount of german, japanese, etc. innocents that died in that war absolutely trumps the amount of innoncents that died due to the Iraq war. But for some reason the lily white europeans' freedom, liberty, etc. was worth the deaths of vastly more innocents. But, for some reason, the dark skinned muslim Iraqi's freedom is worth less. Huh? Do you support the Iraqi soldiers and police who put everything, and I mean everything on the line ( their and their families lives) to protect a unity goverment based on democratic elections? Is it wrong that we're there to train those very same people?
Of course I support the troops that are over there. Don't pull that crap on me. That's another thing that makes me angry is when people try to say you can't support the troops if you don't support the war. I was in the military. I would go wherever my President told me to go because I was trained to follow orders. And when I got there I would do the best I can to succeed. But that doesn't mean that I have to blindly agree with the reasoning for sending me off to fight. I don't think we should be over there in the first place. And now that we're over there I'm going to take every opportunity to say I told you so. I"m going to point out everytime I can that there was no reason for us to go over there, we told you that it was a stupid war to start that had no good outcome for us, and we told you the Iraqi people would eventually turn on us. You can listen to talk radio show hosts say how great we are for trying to keep innocent civilian deaths to a minimum, and they're right, we are. But what really matters when all is said and done is what the people over there think of us when we leave. This was a battle for the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people, remember? Well, we ain't winning them over now are we?
We need to just leave that part of the world alone. Let them settle their own age old dilemmas and take care of ourselves.
3. Failure after failure?!!!! What?! Unity government, based on represenatives elected by the people...check (a voter turnout that should shame us "democratic" nations, btw). Cabinet positions being filled through debate instead of coup..check. A growing, and more and more experienced national army and police force...check. More and more territory turned over to before mentioned army and police force.....check. Al Qaida members killed and/or detained in Iraq....BIG CHECK.
Whatever! They're on the virge of civil war. The tribes that live in that area are not going to get along. This goes back centuries. And we think we're going to go over there and unify a part of the world over something that most Americans don't even understand? Get real. There are more and more generals coming out everyday saying this was a mistake. Bush's poll numbers are slipping for a reason. It's because people are getting fed up with hearing one thing and then seeing something else. This war was a mistake. Plain and simple. We never should have gone over there, and as soon as we're gone Iraq is going to meltdown, no matter what we do. We are so naive to have ever thought we could. We were thinking there was going to be a democracy setup over there. Yet what's included in their "constitution"? They put that Islamic law is the law of the land. Yeah, now let's try to turn theocracy into a euphamism for democracy.
4. Investigations into american atrocities and those that cover it up....check. That's right, Iraqi's are about to see american soldiers, who disgraced their comrades, held accountable. That's going to be something. Soldiers held accountable....something they NEVER saw under Saddam.
And they never would have had to see the attrocities or the accountability if we never would have gone there in the first place. Don't kid yourself. They are not going to look at us as the good guys when we're gone. You can believe they will but I'll be sitting right here ready to say 'we told you so' again.
What exactly do you think you've "Told me so" on? ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^
Gnomexxx, you're completely right about the stupidity and naivity of Americans.
I'll give you an example. A couple of weeks ago a talk show host here was wondering if folks knew what the differences were between the Sunni's and the Shiite's and what they were fighting about. So he started asking the next few people that called in. You should have heard some of the answers. It was pathetic.
We sit over here with our population having little or no knowledge about the people who live over there, yet people are so confident to stand up and act like they KNOW we are making a difference. They somehow KNOW that we are changing their minds.
Yet, I have many muslim acquaintences at school here in the states who are mad at America for going over there. If they're here in the states and mad, imagine how the muslims living over there feel about us.
I just had to share that radio show I heard though. I thought it was hilarious to hear the gung ho Bushies tripping over themselves. They couldn't even give the history of the division between the Sunni's and Shiite's but they were experts in the middle east.
Sigh, I repeat, noone has told me a damn thing I hadn't expected from this war. I supported the war before, now, and in the future (because we aren't pulling out till our Commanders and the Iraq leaders feel they can handle it.) Don't bring up Bush to me, or Rummie. I'm talking about me, the individual. I had absolutely no illusions that this was going get nasty. If you're trying to paint me as a lock, stock, and barrel Bush fan, you should read my other posts. He's no leader. Not imo, anyways. I don't look at him as a demon. But, I also don't care for him as the Commander in Cheif. And, I dang sure don't support your conclusions about Iraq's future.
Originally posted by lardmouth Sigh, I repeat, noone has told me a damn thing I hadn't expected from this war. I supported the war before, now, and in the future (because we aren't pulling out till our Commanders and the Iraq leaders feel they can handle it.) Don't bring up Bush to me, or Rummie. I'm talking about me, the individual. I had absolutely no illusions that this was going get nasty. If you're trying to paint me as a lock, stock, and barrel Bush fan, you should read my other posts. He's no leader. Not imo, anyways. I don't look at him as a demon. But, I also don't care for him as the Commander in Cheif. And, I dang sure don't support your conclusions about Iraq's future.
Then you're not looking at centuries of history.
Nothing is going to change in that part of the world anytime soon. They have deep divisions between themselves that don't even concern us. Divisions that go back to the death of Muhammad and who rightfully took control after that. Religious divisions that go back so far and are so bitter that it's in their blood to fight each other.
We think we had a big fallout during the protestant/catholic fights. That's nothing compared to what they are going through.
Our troops being over there is not going to change their culture. One of the big reasons they can't unify their country right now is because neither side trusts the other to have any governmental power. That's just the way it is over there.
So, I don't see how you can say you supported the war from the beginning (I extrapolated that from your "supported the war before" statement, if I'm wrong, I aplogoize). We had no reason to go over there. The only people that can straighten out their differences are them. And it's not happening anytime soon.
Originally posted by lardmouth I'm aware of the heretic charges slung between Sunni and Shia. And yes, you read me correctly I supported the war. And still do.
Look, don't get me wrong. I'm not trying to dog you to death on this. I promise.
I'm just genuinely curious. Why were you for the war at the beginning instead of just leaving that part of the world to be? Why not let them figure things out on their own? I'm not even sure if they ever will figure things out in that part of the world.
To our standards, they are insane over there. They call us secular infidels and we call them religious nuts. There's never going to be any in between for our culture and theirs. The best thing to do is just keep away from each other until they get sick of living in a run down piece of crap country and decide to join the modern world.
We should have taken all the money we are spending over there, beefed up our borders, and made sure who was coming in and out. For all the money we've been spending over there we could have done a SUPERB job at that. Then we would have had national security and they could have had all their sand and self combusting people to themselves.
Originally posted by reavo Originally posted by lardmouth I'm aware of the heretic charges slung between Sunni and Shia. And yes, you read me correctly I supported the war. And still do.
Look, don't get me wrong. I'm not trying to dog you to death on this. I promise.
I'm just genuinely curious. Why were you for the war at the beginning instead of just leaving that part of the world to be? Why not let them figure things out on their own? I'm not even sure if they ever will figure things out in that part of the world.
To our standards, they are insane over there. They call us secular infidels and we call them religious nuts. There's never going to be any in between for our culture and theirs. The best thing to do is just keep away from each other until they get sick of living in a run down piece of crap country and decide to join the modern world.
We should have taken all the money we are spending over there, beefed up our borders, and made sure who was coming in and out. For all the money we've been spending over there we could have done a SUPERB job at that. Then we would have had national security and they could have had all their sand and self combusting people to themselves.
Soon, I discovered that this rock thing was true Jerry Lee Lewis was the devil And Jesus was an architect, previous to his career as a prophet All of a sudden I found myself in love with the world So there was only one thing that I could do It was dinga ding dang my dang a long ling long.
Comments
You keep calling him bi-partisan, you clearly do not understand what that words means, bi means two, partisan, means party or faction. bi-partisan means a bill is legislated througjh cooperation between two parties. This is in no way shape or form how the govt has been run for the last 6 years, because the republicans have both, house, senate and executive branch, they do not need democratic support for much of anything.
You only use the word to describe George's less than perfect fiscal conservative record as proof of bipartisan ship when their is nothing of the kind. Learn what words mean before using them over and over and over.
As for saying when a true fiscal conservative takes over they will slash every program in site. I more than welcome that, because it will destroy your party. Not every republican is well to do, those that are not dont realize how much they count on the Government to assist them.
When Senior citizens health costs go up and money they would spend on food, instead goes to medical cost and seniors start eating dog food again. When tens of senior citizens lose the ability to live by themselvs and are thrust upon families they may be unable to cope with them. Well there goes the AARP and the soon to be 80million senior citizens from your voting ranks. You dont think that would be on the news, story after story, day after day after day of the suffering and plight of the elderly?
Or college students, having to drop out of school because they cant afford to go to school, in a day and age when america needs skilled workers desperatly, we'll be cutting ourselves in the knee. This will effect the econmy. So yeah, another good idea. You also fail to understand that a vast segment of the working force are foreign born immigrants. Its been reported as many as 40% of all doctors are foreign born. So not only do you cripple the american educational system, but the only source of new professionals arent even allowed in the country.
How about the millions of disabled americans that rely on social assistance to keep a roof over their heads and foods in their bellys, many of them will have nowhere to go.
And all this is just the very tip of the iceberg that americans social policies support. So yes, bring it on, Your party will be destroyed for another 30 years because people will remember, you took jimmys 75cent schiool lunch that now costs $3.00 and jimmy goes hungry now. So id take 4 years of that, to make the republican party a politcal pariah for the next 30. Its a great deal.
Nothing would make me happier than seeing a entitleman cutting president take the stage.
Yeah, reading isn't your strong point apparenty.
1. deaths of servicemen: My statement is concerning how well our servicemen are doing, not that the deaths of servicemen are good things, as you attempted to claim I said. So, last time you checked, you were wrong.
2. Sorry, everyone has anectodal evidence to shore up their beliefs. I was hoping you had made that statement based on something more scientific and verifiable.
3. Voter turnout: Newsflash, the turnout wasn't created by the threat of violence (US saying vote or we'll shoot). The turnout was carried out under the threat of ISLAMIC FASCIST bombing, shooting etc. people to NOT vote. They chose to vote in droves while facing the beforementioned dangers. So, I have no idea what the heck you're talking about.
I'm done with this, when someone says basically
"im paying for poor people to eat, and i hate it, all my money should be mine mine mine"
My abilities to argue with that is simply nonexistant. Like I said, I wish we do have the president you want, your party will destroy itself all on its own.
double
And thats where your wrong again, its not my morals that are at play here, im a pragmatist. I dont think you understand how deeply ingrained the American economy depends on these so called entitlement programs.
The leading factor in the american economy now is the housing market, with many first time buyers, relying on government assistance to purchasing new homes. Like Fannie Mae, Fannie, Mac, HuD, federal, and state agencies that helps people into homes.
How about farm subsidies, so we'd have another episode like in the 80's when millions of hard working americans suddenly found out their crops werent worth anything and were having their farms confiscated and literally becoming homeless.
The whole midwest would be devastated, and also btw, the midwest is republican, id like to see you keep those votes then when their guy they voted for just helped them become homeless and rely on the kindness of friends, strangers and welfare. Oh wait, welfare is gone too, oh and all their friends and relatives are homeless and poor too.
Or Unemployment benefits when so many Americans, are living paycheck to paycheck, suddenly losing all income is absolutely catastrophic, so now whole familes will be thrown out on the streets. And dont say that wont happen, it happens now and we DO have safet nets, I shudder to think of what it would be like without them.
Do you know that the vast majority of Americans have had or will have federal aid at some point in their lives? Be it welfare for a time being when a single mother who has no skills just had her husband "the sole provider" leave them. or medicare for a child with a deadly or crippling disease. Do you honestly think that charitable donations would make up the difference? The country would be full of crying parents and hungry children. Im sure you'll keep their vote too.
But most importantly,this is not about morals, this is about being pragmatic, Raising people OUT of poverty is the greatest barometer of when a nation is successfull or not. Name one leading nation that has a high poverty rate? Helpings others, helps you tenfold, its one of the simplest forms of economics, raise people up and the standard of living goes up for EVERYONE.
Keep people down and it cripples the economy, because people are sick, malnuritioned, poor to no job skills, litle to no education, that means guess what, ding ding ding, they arent consumers. Your better than this, put some more thought into it other than "forced charity" you should fight in the war voluntarily but they also have the draft, why, because sometimes the government needs to do whats best for everyone and not just you.
So in short, you believe in legislating morality. Your morality. Your whole arguement revolves around how people should be forced to "donate" to the poor. For the sake of arguement, what if poverty becomes more widespread and harsher without the safety net? Why should I be forced to take care of them through my money, that I EARNED. Because you have a moral soft spot for figthing poverty?
Yeah, reading isn't your strong point apparenty.
1. deaths of servicemen: My statement is concerning how well our servicemen are doing, not that the deaths of servicemen are good things, as you attempted to claim I said. So, last time you checked, you were wrong.
2. Sorry, everyone has anectodal evidence to shore up their beliefs. I was hoping you had made that statement based on something more scientific and verifiable.
3. Voter turnout: Newsflash, the turnout wasn't created by the threat of violence (US saying vote or we'll shoot). The turnout was carried out under the threat of ISLAMIC FASCIST bombing, shooting etc. people to NOT vote. They chose to vote in droves while facing the beforementioned dangers. So, I have no idea what the heck you're talking about.
1. Your wording is bad. You say 2500 DEATHS is a testament to how WELL our servicemen are doing.
2. I trust face-to-face talking with soldiers that are over there more than I trust news reports.
3. I didn't misread that statement. I'm saying that voter turnouts could be attributed to alot more than this booming enthusiasm to hit the polls. Regardless, who cares? That government is a bigger puppet than our own.
https://easynulled.com/
Free porn videos, xxx porn videos
Onlyfans nudes
Onlyfans leaked
===============================
Gnomexxx, you're completely right about the stupidity and naivity of Americans.
I'll give you an example. A couple of weeks ago a talk show host here was wondering if folks knew what the differences were between the Sunni's and the Shiite's and what they were fighting about. So he started asking the next few people that called in. You should have heard some of the answers. It was pathetic.
We sit over here with our population having little or no knowledge about the people who live over there, yet people are so confident to stand up and act like they KNOW we are making a difference. They somehow KNOW that we are changing their minds.
Yet, I have many muslim acquaintences at school here in the states who are mad at America for going over there. If they're here in the states and mad, imagine how the muslims living over there feel about us.
I just had to share that radio show I heard though. I thought it was hilarious to hear the gung ho Bushies tripping over themselves. They couldn't even give the history of the division between the Sunni's and Shiite's but they were experts in the middle east.
Sigh, I repeat, noone has told me a damn thing I hadn't expected from this war. I supported the war before, now, and in the future (because we aren't pulling out till our Commanders and the Iraq leaders feel they can handle it.) Don't bring up Bush to me, or Rummie. I'm talking about me, the individual. I had absolutely no illusions that this was going get nasty. If you're trying to paint me as a lock, stock, and barrel Bush fan, you should read my other posts. He's no leader. Not imo, anyways. I don't look at him as a demon. But, I also don't care for him as the Commander in Cheif. And, I dang sure don't support your conclusions about Iraq's future.
Nothing is going to change in that part of the world anytime soon. They have deep divisions between themselves that don't even concern us. Divisions that go back to the death of Muhammad and who rightfully took control after that. Religious divisions that go back so far and are so bitter that it's in their blood to fight each other.
We think we had a big fallout during the protestant/catholic fights. That's nothing compared to what they are going through.
Our troops being over there is not going to change their culture. One of the big reasons they can't unify their country right now is because neither side trusts the other to have any governmental power. That's just the way it is over there.
So, I don't see how you can say you supported the war from the beginning (I extrapolated that from your "supported the war before" statement, if I'm wrong, I aplogoize). We had no reason to go over there. The only people that can straighten out their differences are them. And it's not happening anytime soon.
I'm aware of the heretic charges slung between Sunni and Shia. And yes, you read me correctly I supported the war. And still do.
I'm just genuinely curious. Why were you for the war at the beginning instead of just leaving that part of the world to be? Why not let them figure things out on their own? I'm not even sure if they ever will figure things out in that part of the world.
To our standards, they are insane over there. They call us secular infidels and we call them religious nuts. There's never going to be any in between for our culture and theirs. The best thing to do is just keep away from each other until they get sick of living in a run down piece of crap country and decide to join the modern world.
We should have taken all the money we are spending over there, beefed up our borders, and made sure who was coming in and out. For all the money we've been spending over there we could have done a SUPERB job at that. Then we would have had national security and they could have had all their sand and self combusting people to themselves.
I'm just genuinely curious. Why were you for the war at the beginning instead of just leaving that part of the world to be? Why not let them figure things out on their own? I'm not even sure if they ever will figure things out in that part of the world.
To our standards, they are insane over there. They call us secular infidels and we call them religious nuts. There's never going to be any in between for our culture and theirs. The best thing to do is just keep away from each other until they get sick of living in a run down piece of crap country and decide to join the modern world.
We should have taken all the money we are spending over there, beefed up our borders, and made sure who was coming in and out. For all the money we've been spending over there we could have done a SUPERB job at that. Then we would have had national security and they could have had all their sand and self combusting people to themselves.
QFT
https://easynulled.com/
Free porn videos, xxx porn videos
Onlyfans nudes
Onlyfans leaked
SWG RIP
moctodumegws
Can't WAIT!
How many alternative fuels do you think have been suppressed with 200b+?
Dun dun dunnnn!!!
Jesus Built My Hotrod.
Jesus Built My Hotrod.
Holy crap, I have that CD. LOL!!!
Soon, I discovered that this rock thing was true
Jerry Lee Lewis was the devil
And Jesus was an architect, previous to his career as a prophet
All of a sudden
I found myself in love with the world
So there was only one thing that I could do
It was dinga ding dang my dang a long ling long.
-----------------------
</OBAMA>