# Rumsfeld tells Iraq critics 'just back off'



## BigDyl (Oct 27, 2006)

http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/10/26/rumsfeld.ap/index.html


----------



## Big Smoothy (Oct 27, 2006)

The Iraq campaign has basically stalled out.

Nothing gained, nothing lost.

It's basically only a matter of time (a couple of years at most) before the realization that the Iraq invasion is a failure.

The Americans still significantly lack the troop strength. 

But this is beyond the military aspect, and lies squarely witht the political.

The Nouri Al-Maliki and Sayyid Muqtada Al-Sadr government likely does NOT want to curb the sectarian cleansing and reduce the power of the Shiite militias.

The American goals are not being met, and they are simply treading water.

After the election I am going to make a prediction:

Rumsfeld will resign.


----------



## The Monkey Man (Oct 27, 2006)

yeah!...

Lets hear him talk smack if he were a politician, and not an appointed official


----------



## DOMS (Oct 27, 2006)

Mr_Snafu said:


> The Iraq campaign has basically stalled out.



You're right.  We need to resume bombing.


----------



## ZECH (Oct 27, 2006)

Mr_Snafu said:


> It's basically only a matter of time (a couple of years at most) before the realization that the Iraq invasion is a failure.
> 
> The Americans still significantly lack the troop strength.



Progress is still being made. Most people have no idea what goes on there. They never will. Only anti war activists see it as a failure. It can't be abandoned. It will upset the whole middle east and that will cause world unstability. Liberals just don't get it.
I will agree it would be easier with more troops though. But the liberals will never let that happen. They have to have something to complain about and something to base their upcoming elections on. They have nothing else.
I'm very thankful the republicans are in office. If the democrats had been in, there is no telling what the hell kind of shape we would be in. I guarentee the stock market would have never recovered from 911 and we would be in a deep depression and the world would be in turmoil from rampant terroists attacks that would go on without any consequences.


----------



## BigDyl (Oct 27, 2006)

dg806 said:


> Progress is still being made. Most people have no idea what goes on there. They never will. Only anti war activists see it as a failure. It can't be abandoned. It will upset the whole middle east and that will cause world unstability. Liberals just don't get it.
> I will agree it would be easier with more troops though. *But the liberals will never let that happen. They have to have something to complain about and something to base their upcoming elections on. They have nothing else.*
> I'm very thankful the republicans are in office. If the democrats had been in, there is no telling what the hell kind of shape we would be in. I guarentee the stock market would have never recovered from 911 and we would be in a deep depression and the world would be in turmoil from rampant terroists attacks that would go on without any consequences.


----------



## GFR (Oct 27, 2006)

The Iraq war is a 100% success, all you haters probably think the Viet nam war  was a loss also.


----------



## GFR (Oct 27, 2006)

BigDyl said:


>


Amazing isnt it.


----------



## BigDyl (Oct 27, 2006)

ForemanRules said:


> The Iraq war is a 100% success, all you haters probably think the Viet nam war  was a loss also.



True Story x 10000000000000000000000000000000000000000r9023894049084049812


----------



## viet_jon (Oct 27, 2006)

ForemanRules said:


> The Iraq war is a 100% success, all you haters probably think the Viet nam war  was a loss also.



     


couldn't have said it better myself.


----------



## Decker (Oct 27, 2006)

dg806 said:


> Progress is still being made. Most people have no idea what goes on there. They never will. Only anti war activists see it as a failure. It can't be abandoned. It will upset the whole middle east and that will cause world unstability. Liberals just don't get it.
> I will agree it would be easier with more troops though. But the liberals will never let that happen. They have to have something to complain about and something to base their upcoming elections on. They have nothing else.
> I'm very thankful the republicans are in office. If the democrats had been in, there is no telling what the hell kind of shape we would be in. I guarentee the stock market would have never recovered from 911 and we would be in a deep depression and the world would be in turmoil from rampant terroists attacks that would go on without any consequences.


That???s an interesting take. What sort of progress is being made in Iraq that I???m missing? 

There are plenty of conservatives that see the Iraq invasion as an unmitigated failure???just look to the father of modern conservatism: William F. Buckley, ???Our mission has failed because Iraqi animosities have proved uncontainable by an invading army of 130,000 Americans.???
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/Commentary/com-2_25_06_WB.html

The middle east is already in turmoil b/c of Bush???s illegal invasion of Iraq. And terrorism is up 400% worldwide. A Johns Hopkins study shows that, but for Bush???s illegal invasion, it is likely that 100,000 Iraqis would still be alive. Not dead. No one???s come close to refuting the study???s findings.
http://www.jhsph.edu/publichealthnews/press_releases/2006/burnham_iraq_2006.html


Where is the bright spot there? What am I missing?  Whether the US stays or goes is now immaterial to the chaotic inertia sweeping through Iraq. Why leave our soldiers there for target practice?

Here???s a partial list of things Liberals have to complain about other than the Iraq fiasco: protecting social security, reforming the Medicare scam Bush weaseled through Congress, restoring accountability and honor to the federal government, implementing a full accounting of the mismanagement of spending re Katrina/Iraq, stop the Bush trend of selling our country???s debt to East Asia, repeal irresponsible tax cuts bankrupting the future generations (tax cuts have NEVER paid for themselves), Stopping the ruinous borrowing engaged in by Bush and the Repubs, repeal the anti-environment ???Clear Skies Inititive???and on and on.

DG, the reason you think the democrats are bereft of any ideas is because you simply haven???t looked.

Oh yes, the stock market does just fine when there???s plenty ???o war time governmental spending going on. Just as occurred w/ Iraq invasion no. 1, w/ no. 2 the economy takes off. Quite a price to pay for ???sound fiscal management.???


----------



## MCx2 (Oct 27, 2006)

ForemanRules said:


> The Iraq war is a 100% success, all you haters probably think the Viet nam war was a loss also.


 
Pfft.

USA - 1
Vietnam - 0

We won hands down.


----------



## GFR (Oct 27, 2006)

FatCatMC said:


> Pfft.
> 
> USA - 1
> Vietnam - 0
> ...


The Americans ran like cowards.


----------



## DOMS (Oct 27, 2006)

ForemanRules said:


> The Americans ran like cowards.



The Military Industrial Complex made enough money.


----------



## Jodi (Oct 27, 2006)

dg806 said:


> I'm very thankful the republicans are in office. If the democrats had been in, there is no telling what the hell kind of shape we would be in. I guarentee the stock market would have never recovered from 911 and we would be in a deep depression and the world would be in turmoil from rampant terroists attacks that would go on without any consequences.


  You can guarantee that eh?  That's a pretty cool trick.


----------



## viet_jon (Oct 27, 2006)

FatCatMC said:


> Pfft.
> 
> USA - 1
> Vietnam - 0
> ...



No the US did not win. But that's beyond the point.

Millions of people died, and it accomplished nothing.


----------



## MCx2 (Oct 27, 2006)

ForemanRules said:


> The Americans ran like cowards.


 
Oh, thanks for the update, I'll jot that down.

_The Americans ran like cowards._

Sweet, got it. Thanks Foreman.


----------



## MCx2 (Oct 27, 2006)

viet_jon said:


> No the US did not win. But that's beyond the point.
> 
> Millions of people died, and it accomplished nothing.


 
I think it's been said, sarcasm doesn't translate well in text.


----------



## tucker01 (Oct 27, 2006)

FatCatMC said:


> I think it's been said, sarcasm doesn't translate well in text.



It doesn't   I figured it out.

Oh yeah this is viet jon the next Kenwood


----------



## viet_jon (Oct 27, 2006)

it's not the words, it's the arrangement of words.


----------



## viet_jon (Oct 27, 2006)

IainDaniel said:


> It doesn't   I figured it out.
> 
> *Oh yeah this is viet jon the next Kenwood*



the almighty mod. Words of wisdom.


----------



## tucker01 (Oct 27, 2006)

viet_jon said:


> the almighty mod. Words of wisdom.



Damn straight and don't you forget it


----------



## MCx2 (Oct 27, 2006)

IainDaniel said:


> It doesn't  I figured it out.
> 
> Oh yeah this is viet jon the next Kenwood


 
Ah, now _that_ makes sense.


----------



## BigDyl (Oct 27, 2006)

viet_jon said:


> the almighty mod. Words of wisdom.



I  think that is kenwood


----------



## viet_jon (Oct 27, 2006)

BigDyl said:


> I  think that is kenwood



equating me with kenwood. I'm insulted.


----------



## tucker01 (Oct 27, 2006)

viet_jon said:


> equating me with kenwood. I'm insulted.



Yeah you're right,  you should be insulted.  Kenwood was a much better Troll then you are attempting to be


----------



## viet_jon (Oct 27, 2006)

you guys are right, it does not translate well. 


  this is a good discussion. Let's not let another one done the crapper.


----------



## Focus (Oct 27, 2006)

dg806 said:


> Progress is still being made. Most people have no idea what goes on there. They never will. Only anti war activists see it as a failure. It can't be abandoned. It will upset the whole middle east and that will cause world unstability. Liberals just don't get it.
> I will agree it would be easier with more troops though. But the liberals will never let that happen. They have to have something to complain about and something to base their upcoming elections on. They have nothing else.
> I'm very thankful the republicans are in office. If the democrats had been in, there is no telling what the hell kind of shape we would be in. I guarentee the stock market would have never recovered from 911 and we would be in a deep depression and the world would be in turmoil from rampant terroists attacks that would go on without any consequences.



I completely agree. One of the things I can't stand is when people assume they know what is going on in the world. The public knows maybe 10% of the information... yet they talk like they know how to run a country. They bitch and moan, but they don't suggest solutions. Everyone is entitled to an opinion, but you can't consider them seriously. They are uneducated - out of the loop.


----------



## GFR (Oct 27, 2006)

viet_jon said:


> No the US did not win. But that's beyond the point.
> 
> Millions of people died, and it accomplished nothing.


----------



## viet_jon (Oct 27, 2006)

Focus said:


> *The public knows maybe 10% of the information... *



on the money!!!


----------



## Focus (Oct 27, 2006)

What also I don't get is when people assume that they know what is best for the country.
Politicians have built their LIVES around serving our country. They have no other motive than to improve our country. Civilians can't possibly come to think that they would purposely put our country in harm, with no real reason. Half of the critics are fucking uneducated hippies anyways, who think there is no such thing as terrorism.


----------



## GFR (Oct 27, 2006)

Focus said:


> What also I don't get is when people assume that they know what is best for the country.
> * Politicians have built their LIVES around serving our country. They have no other motive than to improve our country.* Civilians can't possibly come to think that they would purposely put our country in harm, with no real reason. Half of the critics are fucking uneducated hippies anyways, who think there is no such thing as terrorism.





Now that kenwood is gone I dub you idiot #1.


----------



## MCx2 (Oct 27, 2006)

Focus said:


> What also I don't get is when people assume that they know what is best for the country.
> Politicians have built their LIVES around serving our country. *They have no other motive than to improve our country.* Civilians can't possibly come to think that they would purposely put our country in harm, with no real reason. Half of the critics are fucking uneducated hippies anyways, who think there is no such thing as terrorism.


 
I'd like to see the facts backing that little statement.


----------



## Focus (Oct 27, 2006)

ForemanRules said:


> Now that kenwood is gone I dub you idiot #1.



Your one of those pussy ass liberal know it alls. I saw what you wrote on Witmaster's picture. You have no sense of solution, you only bitch. Anybody on this board would attest to that, in terms of politics, lifting, diet, and life.

If you don't like our country this much, get the fuck out.


----------



## Focus (Oct 27, 2006)

FatCatMC said:


> I'd like to see the facts backing that little statement.



That's the problem with you guys. You think you know the political agenda. You have no idea what is going on. The constant anti-Bush shit IS understandable, I completely understand it, but it is far from the real truth.
Yes, politicians have a sense of personal success in the government, but how could you even PONDER the fact that politicians would put our COUNTRY at risk for their own safety!?!?


----------



## GFR (Oct 27, 2006)

Focus said:


> Your one of those pussy ass liberal know it alls. I saw what you wrote on Witmaster's picture. You have no sense of solution, you only bitch. Anybody on this board would attest to that, in terms of politics, lifting, diet, and life.
> 
> If you don't like our country this much, get the fuck out.


You are the dumbest and biggest slave I have ever encountered. You do love Big Brother.


----------



## tucker01 (Oct 27, 2006)

Focus said:


> Your one of those pussy ass liberal know it alls. I saw what you wrote on Witmaster's picture. You have no sense of solution, you only bitch. Anybody on this board would attest to that, in terms of politics, lifting, diet, and life.
> 
> * If you don't like our country this much, get the fuck out.*



HAHAHA.  I love that argument.

So we should just blindly accept the Government and agree with ever position they take.  Sig Heil, Heil Hilter.


----------



## Decker (Oct 27, 2006)

Focus said:


> I completely agree. One of the things I can't stand is when people assume they know what is going on in the world. The public knows maybe 10% of the information... yet they talk like they know how to run a country. They bitch and moan, but they don't suggest solutions. Everyone is entitled to an opinion, but you can't consider them seriously. They are uneducated - out of the loop.


How do you know that people are wrong? Why is your information superior to their information? 

I'm not being facetious. If I'm wrong about Iraq, then give me some facts as to why I am wrong. I mean I've provided you w/ the JH study on deaths in Iraq and the 'expert' opinion of WF Buckley. What do you have for me besides your conclusions?

Take a look around as far as alternative solutions to Bush's "stay the course" option. Bush, solely, created the mess in Iraq now it's up to responsible people to clean up his mess.

By the way, doesn't "cut and run" sound like something you do at the bean tray at an all you can eat buffet?


----------



## DOMS (Oct 27, 2006)

viet_jon said:


> No the US did not win. But that's beyond the point.
> 
> Millions of people died, and it accomplished nothing.



One thing is for certain, the Vietnamese didn't win either.  Between the US and the aftermath of the wars, upwards of 6 million Vietnamese died compared to the 50,000 or so Americans.


----------



## MCx2 (Oct 27, 2006)

Focus said:


> *That's the problem with you guys. You think you know the political agenda. You have no idea what is going on.* The constant anti-Bush shit IS understandable, I completely understand it, but it is far from the real truth.
> Yes, politicians have a sense of personal success in the government, but how could you even PONDER the fact that politicians would put our COUNTRY at risk for their own safety!?!?


 
And you do!?!? Are you kidding me? 

Kettle meet pot, pot this is kettle.


----------



## Focus (Oct 27, 2006)

Put yourself in the shoes of a politician. Imagine your mental state as a politician. It takes a lot to get there, this isn't some club shit you just sign up for. You really want to make a difference in the government, and you better be damn certain you know what you are talking about.
How can you critic them? They know an incredible amount more than people like you, foreman, and I. We have NO say in what they do. Reading the newspaper is not the key to learning what is going on.


----------



## DOMS (Oct 27, 2006)

IainDaniel said:


> HAHAHA.  I love that argument.
> 
> So we should just blindly accept the Government and agree with ever position they take.  Sig Heil, Heil Hilter.


Yeah, its the whiney-ass liberals that started that mantra.


----------



## GFR (Oct 27, 2006)

My God you had terrible parents


----------



## Focus (Oct 27, 2006)

FatCatMC said:


> And you do!?!? Are you kidding me?
> 
> Kettle meet pot, pot this is kettle.



No of course not, I wasn't able to explain myself in time before you asked..


----------



## tucker01 (Oct 27, 2006)

I dunno I must be a moron to think that most politician want to be in that position for the sweet Pension, and the fact that there resume will look pretty sweet and can land them some pretty freaking amazing CEO jobs, making a shit load of money compared to what they made in office.


----------



## Focus (Oct 27, 2006)

ForemanRules said:


> My God you had terrible parents



You have no idea who my parents are fool.


----------



## MCx2 (Oct 27, 2006)

Focus said:


> Put yourself in the shoes of a politician. Imagine your mental state as a politician. It takes a lot to get there, this isn't some club shit you just sign up for. You really want to make a difference in the government, and you better be damn certain you know what you are talking about.
> How can you critic them? *They know an incredible amount more than people like you, foreman, and I.* We have NO say in what they do. Reading the newspaper is not the key to learning what is going on.


 
And that's the major problem with the voting public. They actually believe this statement...


----------



## viet_jon (Oct 27, 2006)

DOMS said:


> One thing is for certain, the Vietnamese didn't win either.  Between the US and the aftermath of the wars, upwards of 6 million Vietnamese died compared to the 50,000 or so Americans.



Ho Chi Minh
???You can kill ten of my men for every one I kill of yours, but even at those odds, you will *lose *and I will *win*.???

but again, winning or losing is beyond the point of this discussion.

the real point is, 6 million people died, and what did that accomplish. Jack Squat.

Same shit going on in Iraq right now.


----------



## Focus (Oct 27, 2006)

ForemanRules said:


> You are the dumbest and biggest slave I have ever encountered. You do love Big Brother.



what makes you think you know what is best for this country?


----------



## Focus (Oct 27, 2006)

FatCatMC said:


> I'd like to see the facts backing that little statement.



what!?!?! i missed this.... so you think its farfetched that i came up with that!? thats like going for the quaterback position, but playing for the other team. why sign up if you dont care


----------



## GFR (Oct 27, 2006)

Focus said:


> what makes you think you know what is best for this country?



I know that your blind obedience to your leaders is not good for  America.


----------



## Focus (Oct 27, 2006)

IainDaniel said:


> I dunno I must be a moron to think that most politician want to be in that position for the sweet Pension, and the fact that there resume will look pretty sweet and can land them some pretty freaking amazing CEO jobs, making a shit load of money compared to what they made in office.



That's why YOU are not a politician. You don't care enough in politics. It's not a cake walk to get into it. If a candidate was running on greed, he would not last long. That is a terrible analysis of an average politician.


----------



## MCx2 (Oct 27, 2006)

Focus said:


> what!?!?! i missed this.... so you think its farfetched that i came up with that!? thats like going for the quaterback position, but playing for the other team. why sign up if you dont care


 
Why sign up??



IainDaniel said:


> I dunno I must be a moron to think that most politician want to be in that position for the sweet Pension, and the fact that there resume will look pretty sweet and can land them some pretty freaking amazing CEO jobs, making a shit load of money compared to what they made in office.


 
Couldn't have said it better myself..


----------



## Focus (Oct 27, 2006)

ForemanRules said:


> I know that your blind obedience to your leaders is not good for  America.



In your case, you would not have leaders would you. You'd PUBLIC POLL wars? Is that how you would function as a leader here?


----------



## DOMS (Oct 27, 2006)

viet_jon said:


> Ho Chi Minh
> ???You can kill ten of my men for every one I kill of yours, but even at those odds, you will lose and I will win.???



Actually, we killed way more than 10 to 1.  It was more like a 100 to 1, if not more.  

In order for someone to lose, they must be denied their objective.  The US never had one in Vietnam.  We simply went over their to wage war and generally kill people.  Mission accomplished.


----------



## GFR (Oct 27, 2006)

viet_jon said:


> Ho Chi Minh
> ???You can kill ten of my men for every one I kill of yours, but even at those odds, you will lose and I will win.???
> 
> but again, that's beyond the point of this discussion.
> ...


You have to realize most humans are barbarians and if 500,000 of there people are  killed in a un-needed war it is a good thing as long as millions of the enemy  die also. It is monkey logic and it will never end.


----------



## viet_jon (Oct 27, 2006)

Focus said:


> That's why YOU are not a politician. You don't care enough in politics. It's not a cake walk to get into it.* If a candidate was running on greed, he would not last long. **That is a terrible analysis of an average politician.*


----------



## Jodi (Oct 27, 2006)

Focus said:


> what makes you think you know what is best for this country?


And what makes you think you know?   

Politicians are the lowest of the low.  They are beyond the bottom feeders of this land.  They disgust me.


----------



## GFR (Oct 27, 2006)

Focus said:


> In your case, you would not have leaders would you. You'd PUBLIC POLL wars? Is that how you would function as a leader here?


You are brain dead aren't you.


----------



## Focus (Oct 27, 2006)

Jodi said:


> And what makes you think you know?
> 
> Politicians are the lowest of the low.  They are beyond the bottom feeders of this land.  They disgust me.



I said it before. I do not know. I know just as much as you guys. I am a civilian of the United States. You are assuming that we know as much as them? How can that be possible? Someone has to take charge of a country!


----------



## Focus (Oct 27, 2006)

ForemanRules said:


> You are brain dead aren't you.



No sir, and far from it. I was hoping for your response, as to what your solution would be. But you truely are just a complainer. No fix, no ideas, just a pessimistic person... in terms of political understanding.


----------



## DOMS (Oct 27, 2006)

Focus, you're trying to defend a politician.  You're not going to win that argument. 

Arguing about a single action of a politician is fine.  Arguing that one politician is better than another is fine.  Arguing that one group is better than another is fine.  But arguing that politicians are good people is losing battle.  

The system is setup so that only the most unsavory people make it to those positions.  There's no defense of that.


----------



## GFR (Oct 27, 2006)

Focus said:


> No sir, and far from it. I was hoping for your response, as to what your solution would be. But you truely are just a complainer. No fix, no ideas, just a pessimistic person... in terms of political understanding.


My solution is simple, parents have to make sure their kids are not simple minded like you. They must teach their kids to think for themselves and to question the world and it's leaders.


----------



## viet_jon (Oct 27, 2006)

DOMS said:


> Actually, we* killed way more than 10 to 1.*  It was more like a 100 to 1, if not more.  What does this proove? That the war was justified? It certainly doesn't proove that the US won the war, as you later stated "to lose, they must be denied their objective"
> 
> In order for someone to lose, they must be denied their objective.  The US never had one in Vietnam.  We simply went over their to wage war and generally kill people.  Mission accomplished.
> Objective was to stop communism from spreading. Vietnam is now a full-fledged comunnist country. *Objective failed.* Now you may bring up the arguement, is communism a good thing? That's another discussion in itself.



.


----------



## Focus (Oct 27, 2006)

DOMS said:


> Focus, you're trying to defend a politician.  You're not going to win that argument.
> 
> Arguing about a single action of a politician is fine.  Arguing that one politician is better than another is fine.  Arguing that one group is better than another is fine.  But arguing that politicians are good people is losing battle.
> 
> The system is setup so that only the most unsavory people make it to those positions.  There's no defense of that.



I know I'm not going to really convince anyone here, but that doesn't mean I'm going to keel over and puss up. I'm proud of our country, and proud of our leaders. If the most unsavory people make it to the top, we would not be the top nation in the world. Someone has to lead the country!


----------



## Focus (Oct 27, 2006)

ForemanRules said:


> My solution is simple, parents have to make sure their kids are not simple minded like you. They must teach their kids to think for themselves and to question the world and it's leaders.



Trust me, my parents have never pushed anything on me for politics. I'm from Massachusetts, which is dominately liberal. People here are still pissed that Kerry lost. I'm the kind of guy that thinks they are BOTH capable of leading our country. Although the public scews it, they both can do great things to improve our country. People tend to label one as the enemy, like the country will fall apart if the "enemy" gets elected.


----------



## viet_jon (Oct 27, 2006)

ForemanRules said:


> You have to realize most humans are barbarians and if 500,000 of there people are  killed in a* un-needed war* it is a good thing as long as millions of the enemy  die also. It is monkey logic and it will never end.



I could care less debating over who won the war. Because really, does it even matter? Millions of people die for nothing, and that's BS. War accomplishes nothing.


----------



## DOMS (Oct 27, 2006)

viet_jon said:


> What does this proove? That the war was justified? It certainly doesn't proove that the US won the war, as you later stated "to lose, they must be denied their objective"



The objective was tow-fold:

1) For the US companies that make weapons of war to make more money.  Achieved.
2) To stop the spread of the USSR.




viet_jon said:


> Objective was to stop communism from spreading. Vietnam is now a full-fledged comunnist country. *Objective failed.* Now you may bring up the arguement, is communism a good thing? That's another discussion in itself.



Hahahaha.  Vietnam was nothing more than a pawn (at most) in a cold war between the US and the USSR.  The goal wasn't to stop the spread of communism, it was to stop the spread of the USSR.  And, in case you don't know, they USSR is defunct.

I mean, you don't think that Vietnam really mattered to the US, do you?


----------



## GFR (Oct 27, 2006)

Focus said:


> Trust me, my parents have never pushed anything on me for politics. I'm from Massachusetts, which is dominately* liberal*. People here are still pissed that Kerry lost. I'm the kind of guy that thinks they are BOTH capable of leading our country. Although the public scews it, they both can do great things to improve our country. People tend to label one as the enemy, like the country will fall apart if the "enemy" gets elected.


If you use and think words like " Liberal" or "Conservative" you are lost. Those are things they want you to think and talk about.


----------



## DOMS (Oct 27, 2006)

Focus said:


> I know I'm not going to really convince anyone here, but that doesn't mean I'm going to keel over and puss up. I'm proud of our country, and proud of our leaders. If the most unsavory people make it to the top, we would not be the top nation in the world. Someone has to lead the country!



Being the top nation doesn't mean that our politicians don't suck.  After all, the politicians didn't build this country.


----------



## GFR (Oct 27, 2006)

viet_jon said:


> I could care less debating over who won the war. Because really, does it even matter? Millions of people die for nothing, and that's BS. War accomplishes nothing.



The US is just like any other Country that is/was in power. All they care about  is forcing what they believe on the rest of the world and also making money off  it. Human life is of no matter to them .


----------



## viet_jon (Oct 27, 2006)

ForemanRules said:


> The US is just like any other Country that is/was in power. All they care about  is forcing what they believe on the rest of the world and also making money off  it. Human life is of no matter to them .




Good STuff!!

Money, Pride, and Belief. It's what wars all about. Innocent human lives means nothing.


----------



## viet_jon (Oct 27, 2006)

DOMS said:


> The objective was tow-fold:
> 
> 1) For the US companies that make weapons of war to make more money.  Achieved. Congratulations!!!
> 2) To stop the spread of the USSR.
> ...




typical American, So much pride, it's disgusting. Where did I say that Vietnam mattered to the US? Nothing matters but money pride and belief.

Think whatever your government wants you to think. If your guys objective was to stop the USSR, why not go directly there? but instead go to a country where communism is spreading to?

The war is all about money. The US is the superpower, and to you guys it's a threat to stay on top if all the East including Japan, China, Vietnam etc. we're to be communist like USSR.


----------



## viet_jon (Oct 27, 2006)

but ya, say whatever you want. Whatever makes you feel good. Being proud is a real nice feeling ain't it? The fact that the US did not outright dominate a war hurts your pride.

*but for the fourth time,* *that's beyond my point.*

my whole point in all this is about innocent people dead and what war accomplishes. Not who won the war, why war stars, or how rich your country will be. Now, if you think it's justifiable that millions die, so you can enforce your beliefs on other nations and stay on top as the Super-Power, then I have nothing more to say.


----------



## DOMS (Oct 27, 2006)

viet_jon said:


> Think whatever your government wants you to think. If your guys objective was to stop the USSR, *why not go directly there?* but instead go to a country where communism is spreading to?



And *I'm* not the one doing any thinking?  Really, think about what you said.  Go ahead, try it.

...

Did you figure it out yet?  No?  Okay, I'll help you out.  I'll simply reword your question into something a bit more fact-filled.

Why not have the two most powerful armies, armed with enough nuclear weapons to kill mankind a hundred times over, fight it out to the bitter end?

Do you get it yet?





viet_jon said:


> The war is all about money. The US is the superpower, and to you guys it's a threat to stay on top if all the East including Japan, China, Vietnam etc. we're to be communist like USSR.



It's not just about money, it's also about safety.


----------



## viet_jon (Oct 27, 2006)

DOMS said:


> And *I'm* not the one doing any thinking?  Really, think about what you said.  Go ahead, try it.
> Did you figure it out yet?  No?  Okay, I'll help you out.  I'll simply reword your question into something a bit more fact-filled.
> Why not have the two most powerful armies, armed with enough nuclear weapons to kill mankind a hundred times over, fight it out to the bitter end?
> 
> ...



Now if you still want to debate, go back and read post #74. That is the basis of this discussion.


----------



## tucker01 (Oct 27, 2006)

Why start a war?

Too help feed the economy.  Pretty simple.


----------



## BigDyl (Oct 27, 2006)

Jodi said:


> And what makes you think you know?
> 
> Politicians are the lowest of the low.  They are beyond the bottom feeders of this land.  They disgust me.



True Story, if politicians posted on this board Jodi would give them an infraction and I would roffle.


----------



## DOMS (Oct 27, 2006)

viet_jon said:


> Nice Try. Trying to make me look stupid so I can question myself, and give up the arguement because you have no other points to bring up? Try that on Kenwood.



So, again just to be clear, you think that two _nuclear _powers should duke it out?  _Really?_




viet_jon said:


> Safety? The worlds strongest military power is worried about safety? to a small extent I can agree with you, but that is not the main motive of that war.



As we all know: you should only worry about safety when it's gone.


----------



## viet_jon (Oct 27, 2006)

IainDaniel said:


> Why start a war?
> 
> Too help feed the economy.  Pretty simple.



EXACTLY


----------



## viet_jon (Oct 27, 2006)

DOMS said:


> So, again just to be clear, you think that two _nuclear _powers should duke it out?  _Really?_
> 
> 
> As we all know: you should only worry about safety when it's gone.



Your still talking about points irrelevant to the basis of this discussion.

I think you have nothing more to add.

End of discussion.


----------



## DOMS (Oct 27, 2006)

viet_jon said:


> Your still talking about points irrelevant to the basis of this discussion.
> 
> I think you have nothing more to add.
> 
> End of discussion.



Who cares if it's relevant to the current discussion?  It was interesting.  Besides, you're Vietnamese, aren't you supposed to post 10 times for every post I make?


----------



## GFR (Oct 27, 2006)

DOMS said:


> *Who cares if it's relevant to the current discussion*?  It was interesting.  Besides, you're Vietnamese, aren't you supposed to post 10 times for every post I make?


You have learned  much my son.


----------



## BigDyl (Oct 27, 2006)

Young grasshopper, snatch this floppy disk from my hand.


----------



## viet_jon (Oct 27, 2006)

DOMS said:


> Who cares if it's relevant to the current discussion?  It was interesting.  Besides, you're Vietnamese, aren't you supposed to post 10 times for every post I make?



If your so interested then my answer is

There shouldn't be war period.



And yes, we all know that's a common thing among Vietnamese.


----------



## DOMS (Oct 27, 2006)

ForemanRules said:


> You have learned  much my son.



Thank, my master.  May I touch your grasshopper now?


----------



## GFR (Oct 27, 2006)

DOMS said:


> Thank, my master.  May I touch your grasshopper now?


Yes, BigDyl is yours.


----------



## MCx2 (Oct 27, 2006)

*"Perfect Government"*

Even if it's easy to be free
What's your definition of freedom?
And who the fuck are you, anyway?
Who the fuck are they?
Who the fuck am I to say?
What the fuck is really going on?

How did the cat get so fat?
Why does the family die?
Do you care why?

Cause there hasn't been a sign
Of anything gettin' better in the ghetto
People's fed up
But when they get up

You point your fuckin' finger
You racist, you bigot
But that's not the problem
Now is it?

It's all about the money
Political power is taken
Protecting the rich, denying the poor
Yeah, they love to watch the war from the White House
And I wonder...

How can they sleep at night?
How can they sleep at night?
How did the cat get so fat?


----------



## ZECH (Oct 27, 2006)

Decker said:


> That???s an interesting take. What sort of progress is being made in Iraq that I???m missing?
> 
> There are plenty of conservatives that see the Iraq invasion as an unmitigated failure???just look to the father of modern conservatism: William F. Buckley, ???Our mission has failed because Iraqi animosities have proved uncontainable by an invading army of 130,000 Americans.???
> http://www.realclearpolitics.com/Commentary/com-2_25_06_WB.html
> ...



A failure? Not from what I see and hear. Me or you either one can quote anything and make either side look good. I don't believe much in studies.
Schools are being built, the power grid is better than ever..........we could do like Saddam and just go in and kill everyone we don't agree with, but that would not accomplish much would it? And we have every ability to do that and more if we wished. The country is in civil war because we care and want to help them out. What happens if we leave. Do the democrats have an exit strategy? Not that I know of. 
Terroism up 400%..........what do you think it would be if Bush hadn't stood up in Afghanistan and Iraq? Far worse than that. We (the USA) must do what no other country in the world will do/or can do. Fair? Maybe not, but necessary.

As far as Social security.......well that is another debate for sure, but I think it slowly needs to be faded out.

Katrina? We've had this debate too. I still don't believe it's the federal governments fault. It starts at the local and state level and we know both of those are totally incompetent and useless.

Tax cuts..............aahhhhhh, see where the stock market is going??? Personal wages are up..........spending is up. But the dems want only tax increases! I pay more than enough now.


----------



## BigDyl (Oct 27, 2006)

dg806 said:


> Terroism up 400%..........what do you think it would be if Bush hadn't stood up in Afghanistan and Iraq? Far worse than that.



It would be up about -400%


----------



## GFR (Oct 27, 2006)

dg806 said:


> Terroism up 400%..........what do you think it would be if Bush hadn't stood up in Afghanistan and Iraq? Far worse than that.


 It would be 1/32 of that, Bush and his agression only makes it worse.


----------



## gococksDJS (Oct 27, 2006)

BigDyl said:


> It would be up about -400%



So down +400%?


----------



## BigDyl (Oct 27, 2006)

gococksDJS said:


> So down +400%?



Yes, and Rumsfeld would change his comments to 'just jack off'.


----------



## gococksDJS (Oct 27, 2006)

BigDyl said:


> Yes, and Rumsfeld would change his comments to 'just jack off'.



Wouldn't he say "I can't get it up" since the percentage would be so low?


----------



## BigDyl (Oct 27, 2006)

gococksDJS said:


> Wouldn't he say "I can't get it up" since the percentage would be so low?



No because he would already have that saying reserved for Bush's approval ratings.


----------



## GFR (Oct 27, 2006)

gococksDJS said:


> So down +400%?


My erections are down 400% since you started posting again.


----------



## gococksDJS (Oct 27, 2006)

ForemanRules said:


> My erections are down 400% since you started posting again.



Fine, you want your popsicle sticks back?


----------



## GFR (Oct 27, 2006)

gococksDJS said:


> Fine, you want your popsicle sticks back?


No, you can keep them in your ass.


----------



## gococksDJS (Oct 27, 2006)

ForemanRules said:


> No, you can keep them in your ass.



AKA: The black hole!!!


----------



## GFR (Oct 27, 2006)

gococksDJS said:


> AKA: The black hole!!!


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eY_pvmkXVeg


----------



## gococksDJS (Oct 27, 2006)

ForemanRules said:


> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eY_pvmkXVeg



Sorry, I'm not into your propaganda "Commie Boy" so I wont click that. In Soviet Russia, link clicks you!


----------



## Big Smoothy (Oct 27, 2006)

dg806 said:


> Progress is still being made. Most people have no idea what goes on there. They never will. Only anti war activists see it as a failure. It can't be abandoned. It will upset the whole middle east and that will cause world unstability. Liberals just don't get it.
> I will agree it would be easier with more troops though. But the liberals will never let that happen. They have to have something to complain about and something to base their upcoming elections on. They have nothing else.
> I'm very thankful the republicans are in office. If the democrats had been in, there is no telling what the hell kind of shape we would be in. I guarentee the stock market would have never recovered from 911 and we would be in a deep depression and the world would be in turmoil from rampant terroists attacks that would go on without any consequences.



The Iraq war is not about Conservative or Liberal.

It's about the results.

If the U.S. stays, Iraq will be unstable.

If the U.S. leaves Iraq will be unstable.

Iraq is NOT about 9/11.


The American attack on Iraq is largely about:

1. PNAC (google it)

2. The Carter Doctrine (1980)


----------



## GFR (Oct 27, 2006)

gococksDJS said:


> Sorry, I'm not into your propaganda "Commie Boy" so I wont click that. In Soviet Russia, link clicks you!


You might get a +2 from you know who for making fun of me.


----------



## CowPimp (Oct 27, 2006)

Focus said:


> How can you critic them? They know an incredible amount more than people like you, foreman, and I. We have NO say in what they do. Reading the newspaper is not the key to learning what is going on.



Um, we have no say in what they do?  I thought this was a democracy, or a representative democracy, and the government was supposed to institute the will of the people.  If we don't, then we damn well should.  I think I should have some say in the way I am forced to live my life.

If we are all just a bunch of ignoramuses incapable of making decisions regarding the running of this country, which is the picture you are painting, then maybe we shouldn't be allowed to vote either.  Voting is based on what people think is best for them and their country.  We, apparently, are incapable of making that kind of decision.


----------



## bio-chem (Oct 27, 2006)

CowPimp said:


> Um, we have no say in what they do?  I thought this was a democracy, or a representative democracy, and the government was supposed to institute the will of the people.  If we don't, then we damn well should.  I think I should have some say in the way I am forced to live my life.
> 
> If we are all just a bunch of ignoramuses incapable of making decisions regarding the running of this country, which is the picture you are painting, then maybe we shouldn't be allowed to vote either.  Voting is based on what people think is best for them and their country.  We, apparently, are incapable of making that kind of decision.



we did re-elect the guy who put our forces in Iraq in the first place. so didnt that show what say we had? and we dont live in a democracy. to say so is a joke. we dont live in anything resembling a democracy. we live in a republic. we live in a country where we dont make the laws, we elect the men who make the laws. and if we dont like it, we can tell them we want them to change, or wait till they are up for re-election then vote for the other guy.


----------



## BigDyl (Oct 27, 2006)

bio-chem said:


> we did re-elect the guy who put our forces in Iraq in the first place. so didnt that show what say we had? and we dont live in a democracy. to say so is a joke. we dont live in anything resembling a democracy. we live in a republic. we live in a country where we dont make the laws, we elect the men who make the laws. and if we dont like it, we can tell them we want them to change, or wait till they are up for re-election then vote for the other guy.



<insert gococks comment about the popular vote not mattering here>


----------



## bio-chem (Oct 27, 2006)

BigDyl said:


> <insert gococks comment about the popular vote not mattering here>



he did win the popular vote


----------



## BigDyl (Oct 27, 2006)

bio-chem said:


> he did win the popular vote



The first time he did....


----------



## gococksDJS (Oct 27, 2006)

bio-chem said:


> he did win the popular vote



Bush lost the popular vote in 2001, but my original point in another thread was that the popular vote doesn't matter because it doesn't elect a president. The electoral college is all that matters. The only thing popular vote does is let bumper sticker companies sell those stupid "Don't blame me, I voted for Kerry" stickers.


----------



## Big Smoothy (Oct 28, 2006)

ForemanRules said:


> The Americans ran like cowards.



As a person who lives in Vietnam I will say that the Americans did not understand the country.  They didn't learn the Vietnamese language at all.  

The Vietnam conflict was a very complicated matter that involved several countries, many hundreds of years of history, domestic idelology, and foreign interests.

And like Iraq, it wasn't military. It was political.


Some things can be achieved by the military.  But most things can only be achieved by the political "will."


----------



## CowPimp (Oct 28, 2006)

bio-chem said:


> we did re-elect the guy who put our forces in Iraq in the first place. so didnt that show what say we had? and we dont live in a democracy. to say so is a joke. we dont live in anything resembling a democracy. we live in a republic. we live in a country where we dont make the laws, we elect the men who make the laws. and if we dont like it, we can tell them we want them to change, or wait till they are up for re-election then vote for the other guy.



My point was to say that asserting we have no reason to make suggestions or complain or ludicrous.  Of course we can.  The government is supposed to be there to serve the people.  I'm talking in hypotheticals here; I realize that many of those in government offices do whatever they have to for maintenance of their power and to keep their campaign financiers happy.


----------



## Focus (Oct 28, 2006)

CowPimp said:


> Um, we have no say in what they do?  I thought this was a democracy, or a representative democracy, and the government was supposed to institute the will of the people.  If we don't, then we damn well should.  I think I should have some say in the way I am forced to live my life.
> 
> If we are all just a bunch of ignoramuses incapable of making decisions regarding the running of this country, which is the picture you are painting, then maybe we shouldn't be allowed to vote either.  Voting is based on what people think is best for them and their country.  We, apparently, are incapable of making that kind of decision.





I've never argued that the citizens of the U.S. don't have a say. There would not be a popular vote if that were the case, so I have no idea where your coming from.
Ignoramuses running the country, that's a good way of putting it for some. The people I have been arguing with in this thead are the stereotypical complainers. Bush this, Bush that. What I've been trying to argue is that we do not have access to the details to make final judgement on the entire scene. People call Iraq a failure, but that is only from the American citizen standpoint. No, I don't like Bush, and frankly I think he's pretty incompetant for a leader, but to blame Bush for Iraq is absurd. I hear things like it's all about revenge from his father's wage of war that was left incomplete. All I argue on this topic is that complaining gets nowhere, especially when it is uneducated. At least propose a solution, if the people crying wolf are at it again.

Like how people judge our politicians. People automatically assume they are idiots, and that leaves me speechless. That they somehow know MORE about the war than the politicians. Bush is not the smartest guy, but he's a damn good leader.


----------



## CowPimp (Oct 28, 2006)

Focus said:


> I've never argued that the citizens of the U.S. don't have a say. There would not be a popular vote if that were the case, so I have no idea where your coming from.



What do you mean?  This was a direct quote from you if you: "We have NO say in what they do."  I was responding to that.




> Ignoramuses running the country, that's a good way of putting it for some. The people I have been arguing with in this thead are the stereotypical complainers. Bush this, Bush that. What I've been trying to argue is that we do not have access to the details to make final judgement on the entire scene. People call Iraq a failure, but that is only from the American citizen standpoint. No, I don't like Bush, and frankly I think he's pretty incompetant for a leader, but to blame Bush for Iraq is absurd. I hear things like it's all about revenge from his father's wage of war that was left incomplete. All I argue on this topic is that complaining gets nowhere, especially when it is uneducated. At least propose a solution, if the people crying wolf are at it again.
> 
> Like how people judge our politicians. People automatically assume they are idiots, and that leaves me speechless. That they somehow know MORE about the war than the politicians. Bush is not the smartest guy, but he's a damn good leader.



First of all, people have a right to complain.  I'm sorry if you're tired of hearing the complaints, but that is what happens when various policies that have an impact on our lives, or at least the results of the policies, are not popular with the people.  People are going to judge as best they can.  Maybe we don't have all the details, but we can still judge based on what we do know.  Hell, representatives vote on legislation without really know what is contained within all the time.  It's not possible for everyone to know everything about all laws and policies that are presented, passed, and implemented.

Furthermore, you are doing all this preaching about judging and complaining about politicians.  You are implying your opinions all over the place here, and you are basing them on something.  You obviously think you know the deal.  

Also, please define a "good leader" for me.


----------



## Big Smoothy (Oct 29, 2006)

dg806 said:


> Progress is still being made.



*dg806:*

1.  Can you specifically tell us how?



2. What is your opinion of Abdul Aziz Al-Hamkim?


3.  What is your opinion of SCIRI?


----------



## cman (Oct 29, 2006)

dg806 said:


> Progress is still being made. Most people have no idea what goes on there. They never will. Only anti war activists see it as a failure. It can't be abandoned. It will upset the whole middle east and that will cause world unstability. Liberals just don't get it.
> I will agree it would be easier with more troops though. But the liberals will never let that happen. They have to have something to complain about and something to base their upcoming elections on. They have nothing else.
> I'm very thankful the republicans are in office. If the democrats had been in, there is no telling what the hell kind of shape we would be in. I guarentee the stock market would have never recovered from 911 and we would be in a deep depression and the world would be in turmoil from rampant terroists attacks that would go on without any consequences.


Agree, cnn is distorting the facts. Now the Dems say we have a solution. so it iether took them 5 years to think of something or they had an Idea all alon and put winning an election before american soldiers lives. Iether way they are unfit for anything axcept crying. When I talk to peeps comming back they say we are winning big time.
We kill 1000 of them for every 1 of our guys. How is that not a tremendouse success? Also they keep saying on cnn, we lost 70 people this month. the deadliest month. Its a war zone, people die. here in the states there are 1300 murders a month. 1300 in our supposed civilized cities and only 70 in a war zone. Most of the 1300 are in Democrat controlled cities.


----------



## cman (Oct 29, 2006)

*I'm very thankful the republicans are in office. If the democrats had been in, there is no telling what the hell kind of shape we would be in*. I guarentee the stock market would have never recovered from 911 and we would be in a deep depression and *the world would be in turmoil from rampant terroists attacks that would go on without any consequences.[/*quote]

Yes again ,look at what clinton did about the USS cole. *Nothing. *

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Cole_bombing

When the terrorists want the dems in charge, you know who you need to vote for. the party they feer!
Not the party that wants a bunch of purse carrying trannies in pink cammo asking the enemy if free cookies would make them stop setting off 
car bombs.
P.S. off subject but, check out my new bike. Had her up to 150 so far.


----------



## cman (Oct 29, 2006)

Also, please define a "good leader" for me.[/quote]

They are not allowed to run. so you pick the lesser of the two evils.
Plus keep in mind that while peeps in DC say we are a democracy they lie. we are a democracy when it comes to things not covered  under the constitution. like seatbelt laws. not covered, so we vote on it. My gun rights are covered, so no vote. any new law of restriction is no law at all. We are a *Republic. *Look at forefathers quotes and you will see this. Also that is why they put one nation under God in the pledge. So they could take the pledge out of school. says right in there, and to the *Republic* for which it stands.
P.S. did I mention my new Bike?2006 zx636  LOL


----------



## CowPimp (Oct 29, 2006)

cman said:


> Also, please define a "good leader" for me.


 
They are not allowed to run. so you pick the lesser of the two evils.
Plus keep in mind that while peeps in DC say we are a democracy they lie. we are a democracy when it comes to things not covered  under the constitution. like seatbelt laws. not covered, so we vote on it. My gun rights are covered, so no vote. any new law of restriction is no law at all. We are a *Republic. *Look at forefathers quotes and you will see this. Also that is why they put one nation under God in the pledge. So they could take the pledge out of school. says right in there, and to the *Republic* for which it stands.
P.S. did I mention my new Bike?2006 zx636  LOL[/QUOTE]

That's not really answering my question.  Someone referred to GWB as a good leader.  I would like to know what criteria the poster is basing the statement that GWB is a good leader, because by any definition that I can think of he is far from a good leader.


----------



## cman (Oct 29, 2006)

CowPimp said:


> They are not allowed to run. so you pick the lesser of the two evils.
> Plus keep in mind that while peeps in DC say we are a democracy they lie. we are a democracy when it comes to things not covered under the constitution. like seatbelt laws. not covered, so we vote on it. My gun rights are covered, so no vote. any new law of restriction is no law at all. We are a *Republic. *Look at forefathers quotes and you will see this. Also that is why they put one nation under God in the pledge. So they could take the pledge out of school. says right in there, and to the *Republic* for which it stands.
> P.S. did I mention my new Bike?2006 zx636  LOL


 
That's not really answering my question. Someone referred to GWB as a good leader. I would like to know what criteria the poster is basing the statement that GWB is a good leader, because by any definition that I can think of he is far from a good leader.[/quote]

I would not go as far as to say a *good *leader. but a better leader than a dem, just for the sake of standing up. we were atacked several times and rolled over, and that invites more attacks. Just like in school. get picked on and do nothing, everyone says" hey i can pick on him and look tuff without having to fight" so you are a target.
Just talk to some active duty personell comming back from there. yea you will find an occasional negative whiner. but for the most part they say thaty the genneral public practically worships them for liberating them. Bush is a globalist, and the Dems are too. Iether way we will see the end of our constitution. Real americans get no publicity with the liberal press. Just like the Isael coverage. The people in Israel are required to have a bomb shelter in their home. Other side of the border, required to have a terrorist rocket storage room in their house. When you let a terrorist shoot at a tank from your sons room and your son gets killed from return fire. whos fault is his death? the peeps defending their lives, or the nut job letting terroists shoot at an armed forces in his home. But CNN cares nothing about truth, just their aggenda. If you watch mainstream news you are getting 90% lies and no truth. All they showed were the childrens coffins, not the devestation on the Israeli side. We kicked the British out at cost of lives. I suggest Lebenon kick out the nut jobs and quite blaming Israel for wanting to exist.


----------



## Big Smoothy (Oct 30, 2006)

Mr_Snafu said:


> *dg806:*
> 
> 1.  Can you specifically tell us how?
> 
> ...




*dg806?*

Are you here?


----------



## BoneCrusher (Oct 30, 2006)

> I would not go as far as to say a *good *leader. but a better leader than a dem, just for the sake of standing up.



Please sit back down ... bipartisan politics is killing our country's political process.  Your right to control your government has been denied because of bipartisan politics.  You just showed that your political identity has been galvanized to being a "Republican" vs. all others as though that is a good and useful thing.  While you take your seat collect all the issues you feel strongly about and research them.  See who best represents those issues then vote for that person *REGARDLES* of their supposed political alignment.


----------



## ZECH (Oct 30, 2006)

Mr_Snafu said:


> *dg806?*
> 
> Are you here?





Abdul Aziz Al-Hamkim and SCIRI?
Why are they brought into this? They are just trouble makers. They just want to take over and rule Iraq with their beliefs. 
They were severely weakened after its failed assassination attempt on Saddam Hussein in 82. The Islamic scholars they want to control the government are idiots. They see this as an opportunity to gain control which will not work.


----------



## DOMS (Oct 30, 2006)

BoneCrusher said:


> Please sit back down ... bipartisan politics is killing our country's political process.  Your right to control your government has been denied because of bipartisan politics.  You just showed that your political identity has been galvanized to being a "Republican" vs. all others as though that is a good and useful thing.  While you take your seat collect all the issues you feel strongly about and research them.  See who best represents those issues then vote for that person *REGARDLES* of their supposed political alignment.



It's funny that I've never seen you say anything disparaging about the Democrats.


----------



## BoneCrusher (Oct 30, 2006)

DOMS said:


> It's funny that I've never seen you say anything disparaging about the Democrats.


That's cuz they're not in power.  Nor did I slam the Republicans this time ... just bipartisan politics.


----------



## ALBOB (Oct 30, 2006)

BoneCrusher said:


> That's cuz they're not in power.  Nor did I slam the Republicans this time ... just bipartisan politics.



You meant PARTISAN politics, right?


----------



## BoneCrusher (Oct 30, 2006)

ALBOB said:


> You meant PARTISAN politics, right?


Hiya ALBOB ... but no.  Bi-partisan excluding other parties from the electoral process.  Old Ralph Nader dealing with forign policy is a thrilling thought.


----------



## ALBOB (Oct 30, 2006)

BoneCrusher said:


> Hiya ALBOB ... but no.  Bi-partisan excluding other parties from the electoral process.  Old Ralph Nader dealing with forign policy is a thrilling thought.




I must be having lexdysia again.  I thought Bi-partisan was inclusive of both parties while partisan excluded the party you don't belong to.  Oh well, regardless of what you call it, I agree with you.  There's way too much of it going on.  Vote on the issues, not just which party the candidate belongs to.


----------



## BoneCrusher (Oct 30, 2006)

ALBOB said:


> I must be having lexdysia again.  I thought Bi-partisan was inclusive of both parties while partisan excluded the party you don't belong to.  Oh well, regardless of what you call it, I agree with you.  There's way too much of it going on.  Vote on the issues, not just which party the candidate belongs to.


What I meant to address was DOMS attempt to get me into a repub vs. dem war ... not interested in that.  ALL party identity reduces our ability to get the job done in a way that best meets the needs of John ... errr I better chose a non gender specific name so as to keep the PC police off my ass ... Pat Q. American.


lexdysia


----------



## LoadedBats (Oct 30, 2006)

viet_jon said:


> I could care less debating over who won the war. Because really, does it even matter? Millions of people die for nothing, and that's BS. *War accomplishes nothing*.



I generally don't post in open chat, but that is the most uneducated statement i've ever heard.  And one i've heard too often.  War accomplishes nothing.  Tell that to europeans and jews who were being conquered by the Nazi's.  If it weren't for the Revolutionary War, the United States would have been under british monarchy rule.  The south would have secluded it self from the north(and still possessed slaves) had it not been for the Civil War.  And Kuwait would have been completely over thrown by Iraq had the US not interfered.  Japan joined the nazi's and deliberately attacked US soil.  I suppose our war against Japan accomplished nothing as well.  Granted many wars are not warranted and driven strongly by money and politics.  But to say war accomplishes nothing is a truly ignorant statement.


----------



## DOMS (Oct 30, 2006)

BoneCrusher said:


> That's cuz they're not in power.  Nor did I slam the Republicans this time ... just bipartisan politics.



You talk about about not being bipartisan, but I've never seen slam the Democrats.  No once.  Not ever.  And hiding behind the "they're not power" statement is crap.  Just because a group isn't in power doesn't mean that they can cause bad things to happen.


----------



## BoneCrusher (Oct 30, 2006)

DOMS said:


> You talk about about not being bipartisan, but I've never seen slam the Democrats. No once. Not ever. And hiding behind the "they're not power" statement is crap. Just because a group isn't in power doesn't mean that they can cause bad things to happen.


Guilty as charged. Get over it. If you're trying to out me as some sort of closet Democrat you're in for a tough inquisition. I have a strong history here of saying what I feel regardless of what people think. The Democrats are ineffectual and thus haven't pissed me off enough to elicit my ire. When they do acquire the power to actually do something that I am not in favor of I'll kick 'em in the teeth and rest peacefully at night knowing that I've both responsibly discharged my duties as a good American and helped you become a happier IM'er.

Just for the imagery on where sit; 

I live in Texas. Completely Republican controlled, with the main leadership still in the hands of BushCo ... Gov. Rick Perry is a BushCo tool. A Democrat here in Texas is nothing more than a moderate Republican looking for a seat in an election ... there are no actual Democrats in my world. You Yankees (anyone living north of Dallas Texas is a Yankee) have all the Democrats at your disposal.  Do with them as you will, but do keep 'em on a leash as I hear they're not paper-trained and tend to piss themselves a bit (gratuitous slam for your benefit).


----------



## BigDyl (Oct 30, 2006)

BoneCrusher said:


> Guilty as charged. Get over it. If you're trying to out me as some sort of closet Democrat you're in for a tough inquisition. I have a strong history here of saying what I feel regardless of what people think. The Democrats are ineffectual and thus haven't pissed me off enough to elicit my ire. When they do acquire the power to actually do something that I am not in favor of I'll kick 'em in the teeth and rest peacefully at night knowing that I've both responsibly discharged my duties as a good American and helped you become a happier IM'er.
> 
> Just for the imagery on where sit;
> 
> I live in Texas. Completely Republican controlled, with the main leadership still in the hands of BushCo ... Gov. Rick Perry is a BushCo tool. A Democrat here in Texas is nothing more than a moderate Republican looking for a seat in an election ... there are no actual Democrats in my world. You Yankees (anyone living north of Dallas Texas is a Yankee) have all the Democrats at your disposal.  Do with them as you will, but do keep 'em on a leash as I hear they're not paper-trained and tend to piss themselves a bit (gratuitous slam for your benefit).



I think your a spy.


----------



## DOMS (Oct 30, 2006)

BoneCrusher said:


> Guilty as charged. Get over it. If you're trying to out me as some sort of closet Democrat you're in for a tough inquisition. I have a strong history here of saying what I feel regardless of what people think. The Democrats are ineffectual and thus haven't pissed me off enough to elicit my ire. When they do acquire the power to actually do something that I am not in favor of I'll kick 'em in the teeth and rest peacefully at night knowing that I've both responsibly discharged my duties as a good American and helped you become a happier IM'er.
> 
> Just for the imagery on where sit;
> 
> I live in Texas. Completely Republican controlled, with the main leadership still in the hands of BushCo ... Gov. Rick Perry is a BushCo tool. A Democrat here in Texas is nothing more than a moderate Republican looking for a seat in an election ... there are no actual Democrats in my world. You Yankees (anyone living north of Dallas Texas is a Yankee) have all the Democrats at your disposal.  Do with them as you will, but do keep 'em on a leash as I hear they're not paper-trained and tend to piss themselves a bit (gratuitous slam for your benefit).




I don't have to proove shit.  Your posts have done that.

Why is it that Democrats act like homosexuals circa 1950?


----------



## BoneCrusher (Oct 30, 2006)

BigDyl said:


> I think your a spy.


Okay I'll byte ... on what am I a spy?


----------



## BoneCrusher (Oct 30, 2006)

DOMS said:


> I don't have to proove shit.  Your posts have done that.
> 
> Why is it that Democrats act like homosexuals circa 1950?


No you diddant ... tell me you diddant just use the profanity and gayness  play.  You gotta be kidding me right


----------



## Decker (Oct 30, 2006)

dg806 said:


> A failure? Not from what I see and hear. Me or you either one can quote anything and make either side look good. I don't believe much in studies.
> Schools are being built, the power grid is better than ever..........we could do like Saddam and just go in and kill everyone we don't agree with, but that would not accomplish much would it? And we have every ability to do that and more if we wished. The country is in civil war because we care and want to help them out. What happens if we leave. Do the democrats have an exit strategy? Not that I know of.
> Terroism up 400%..........what do you think it would be if Bush hadn't stood up in Afghanistan and Iraq? Far worse than that. We (the USA) must do what no other country in the world will do/or can do. Fair? Maybe not, but necessary.
> 
> ...


Iraq is in civil war b/c the US invaded the country resulting the destruction of any semblance of equilibrium between the Sunnis, Shia, and Kurds. The US made the civil war happen. The US destabilized the entire Middle East with its illegal invasion. 

Facts: Iraq did not attack the US. Iraq did not have WMDs. Iraq was not complicitous w/ Al Qaeda in the 9/11 attacks. 

Why did Bush single out Iraq for attack? Can anyone answer that? If I were cynical, I???d say to manipulate oil prices and establish a US stronghold in the Middle East.

Now someone has to clean up Bush???s mess.

Bush has no strategy for dealing with Iraq. ???Stay the course until victory is achieved??? is not a strategy, it???s a campaign slogan. What does ???victory??? mean? I think we know what ???stay the course??? means???remember Viet Nam? 

You know who does have a plan for Iraq? Russ Feingold, John Kerry, Richard Clarke, Al Gore, and really, any Democrat you talk to. You are repeating republican propaganda??????No plan from the Dems for Iraq??????.Since something always looks better than nothing, the Repubs. play the propaganda card to make ???Stay the Course??? look viable???when in fact its been a miserable failure.

As for tax cuts, a tax cut does not (and never has) pay for itself. That???s another fact. 

Try to include in your calculations for economic growth, the debt created by the tax cuts. 

Otherwise take the credit cards in your pocket and max them out???go on, give yourself a payraise/taxcut. That money has to be paid back down the road??????WITH INTEREST???but who cares, the numbers look good now, don???t they?


----------



## DOMS (Oct 30, 2006)

BoneCrusher said:


> No you diddant ... tell me you diddant just use the profanity and gayness  play.  You gotta be kidding me right



It's no "play."  It's an observation.  Quite frequently I see people who espouse the goals of the Democrats, praise the Democrat leaders, vote Democrat, vilify every Republican, and spout phrases found on the Democrats websites.  They do all this but say, "I'm not a Democrat."


----------



## Decker (Oct 30, 2006)

bio-chem said:


> we did re-elect the guy who put our forces in Iraq in the first place. so didnt that show what say we had? and we dont live in a democracy. to say so is a joke. we dont live in anything resembling a democracy. we live in a republic. we live in a country where we dont make the laws, we elect the men who make the laws. and if we dont like it, we can tell them we want them to change, or wait till they are up for re-election then vote for the other guy.


We live in a democratic republic.  The popular vote is, for presidential elections at least, 'refined' in the electoral college.  We do live in a democracy, just not a direct democracy.  A direct democracy is epitomized by the lynch mob.


----------



## bio-chem (Oct 30, 2006)

Decker said:


> We live in a democratic republic.  The popular vote is, for presidential elections at least, 'refined' in the electoral college.  We do live in a democracy, just not a direct democracy.  A direct democracy is epitomized by the lynch mob.



i think you should review the definition of democracy and republic. they are 2 different forms of government. direct democracy/non-direct democracy? did you just make that up?  review the pledge of alegiance. we live in a republic thats just all there is to it.


----------



## bio-chem (Oct 30, 2006)

Decker said:


> Iraq is in civil war b/c the US invaded the country resulting the destruction of any semblance of equilibrium between the Sunnis, Shia, and Kurds. The US made the civil war happen. The US destabilized the entire Middle East with its illegal invasion.
> 
> Facts: Iraq did not attack the US. Iraq did not have WMDs. Iraq was not complicitous w/ Al Qaeda in the 9/11 attacks.
> 
> ...



wow there are so many things wrong with this.  there was no equilibrium in iraq before we invaded thats ridiculous. a minority group held power due to a psychotic dictator who killed/tortured those who opposed him. hardly sounds like an equilibrium.

illegal invasion?  your right iraq did not attack the US (on US soil), we did not find WMD's or any evidence they were in collusion with al-queda. how about the invasion of kuwait? and the fact that they did not comply with the no-fly zone at all during the 10 years following the gulf war? shooting at our planes seems like an act of war to me.  so you are right in that we were given bogus reasons to go in to invade iraq. Bush should have just kept with the known facts. hindsight is always 20/20 and you forget not just the president but congress (all of which the people elected) voted to go to war with iraq over the intelligence then at hand. Bush shared it with congress, and it was not a unilateral decision everyone makes it out to be.

manipulate oil prices? establish a US stronghold?  what wierd science fiction websites do you read? we all knew oil-prices would go up, not down once we invaded iraq. it happened during the first gulf war and everyone knew it would happen again. why would bush try and manipulate the gas prices up?  to help his oil buddies in texas? if you believe a president would go to war over that, you should be writing for the x-files.

so if the democracts have a plan for iraq, why are they not shouting it from the rooftops. what is the democrats plan for iraq? ive never read anything about it? why the big secret? the dems have never had a plan other than "thats wrong". if they did they wouldnt have handed the election over to the republicans again. and thats what they did. Bush had a negative approval rating going into the elections and the democrats still couldnt put up a viable candidate. they gave the elections to the republicans, by not giving us someone realistic to vote for.  

i like your idea against the republican tax cuts. it makes sense not to tax cut if your actually going to pay downt the debt. too bad the democrats will only think of new ways to spend the money on things we dont need.


----------



## ZECH (Oct 30, 2006)

Decker said:


> As for tax cuts, a tax cut does not (and never has) pay for itself. That???s another fact.




Please explain this to me??  A tax cut gives money back to me, that was mine in the beginning. It gives me more money to spend how I see fit, thus helping the economy and creating jobs. The liberal approach is to raise taxes and fund more big government and takes money from me. How does that help the economy? And honestly, there is too much big government on both sides. I'll admit I'm nowhere near an expert on this, so If I'm seeing this wrong, I'm all ears. I have never understood how raising taxes helps the average citizen or the economy.


----------



## bio-chem (Oct 30, 2006)

BoneCrusher said:


> No you diddant ... tell me you diddant just use the profanity and gayness  play.  You gotta be kidding me right



he didnt use the 'gayness play' it's an analogy. meaning by relating two unlike things he is able to paint a picture expressing his beliefs. in a quite funny way i might add. he is saying your hiding.


----------



## Decker (Oct 30, 2006)

bio-chem said:


> i think you should review the definition of democracy and republic. they are 2 different forms of government. direct democracy/non-direct democracy? did you just make that up? review the pledge of alegiance. we live in a republic thats just all there is to it.


Here're are the definitions from the Oxford dictionary:

*republic*

??? *noun* a state in which supreme power is held by the people and their elected representatives, and which has an elected or nominated president rather than a monarch. 
??? ORIGIN Latin _respublica_, from _res_ ???concern??? + _publicus_ ???of the people, public???.
*democracy*

/di*mok*r si/ 
??? *noun* (pl. *democracies*) *1* a form of government in which the people have a voice in the exercise of power, typically through elected representatives. *2* a state governed in such a way. *3* control of a group by the majority of its members. 
??? ORIGIN Greek _demokratia_, from _demos_ ???the people??? + _-kratia_ ???power, rule???.

Please explain why the 2 definitions are mutually exclusive.


----------



## Decker (Oct 30, 2006)

bio-chem said:
			
		

> wow there are so many things wrong with this. there was no equilibrium in iraq before we invaded thats ridiculous. a minority group held power due to a psychotic dictator who killed/tortured those who opposed him. hardly sounds like an equilibrium.


 
Was there a civil war in Iraq prior to the US invasion? No. There was equilibrium. True it was at the hands of a dictator, but there was no civil war, 100,000+ Iraqis were still alive, almost 3000 US soldiers were still alive, 22,000 US soldiers were not wounded and we weren???t spending $4 billion a week.




			
				bio-chem said:
			
		

> illegal invasion? your right iraq did not attack the US (on US soil), we did not find WMD's or any evidence they were in collusion with al-queda. how about the invasion of kuwait? and the fact that they did not comply with the no-fly zone at all during the 10 years following the gulf war? shooting at our planes seems like an act of war to me. so you are right in that we were given bogus reasons to go in to invade iraq. Bush should have just kept with the known facts. hindsight is always 20/20 and you forget not just the president but congress (all of which the people elected) voted to go to war with iraq over the intelligence then at hand. Bush shared it with congress, and it was not a unilateral decision everyone makes it out to be.


 
The legal reasons for triggering a use of force by the US were only: WMDs and Hussein???s support of Al Qaeda. Neither reason was found to be legitimate. I don???t care what Congress knew or that everyone in the world thought Hussein had WMDs. The weapons inspectors were on the ground in Iraq telling GW Bush that no weapons were being found. Bush???s response, damn the ongoing factfinding, I am authorizing the attack. That was illegal pursuant to Res. 1441 of the UN and the limited grant of power from Congress.




			
				biochem said:
			
		

> manipulate oil prices? establish a US stronghold? what wierd science fiction websites do you read? we all knew oil-prices would go up, not down once we invaded iraq. it happened during the first gulf war and everyone knew it would happen again. why would bush try and manipulate the gas prices up? to help his oil buddies in texas? if you believe a president would go to war over that, you should be writing for the x-files.


Here???s one of the science fiction websites I frequent: http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=1325264 You???re right, it???s not just the oil. I also believe that the billions being shoveled into private coffers in the privatization of the Iraqi war is reason for instigating war in the first place. Hell, in prison, you can get your throat cut for a carton of smokes???.what would be done for 100 billion packs of smokes?




			
				bio-chem said:
			
		

> so if the democracts have a plan for iraq, why are they not shouting it from the rooftops. what is the democrats plan for iraq? ive never read anything about it? why the big secret? the dems have never had a plan other than "thats wrong". if they did they wouldnt have handed the election over to the republicans again. and thats what they did. Bush had a negative approval rating going into the elections and the democrats still couldnt put up a viable candidate. they gave the elections to the republicans, by not giving us someone realistic to vote for.


 
http://www.comw.org/pda/0512exitplans.html
At the above sight you will find a shitload of alternative Iraqi solutions. From Frank Murtha to Dennis Kucinich. Anyone telling you that the Dems don???t have a plan is lying to you. Yes, the contemporary democrat is fucking toothless when it comes to getting the message out. I can???t deny that. Republicans are much better campaigners.




			
				bio-chem said:
			
		

> i like your idea against the republican tax cuts. it makes sense not to tax cut if your actually going to pay downt the debt. too bad the democrats will only think of new ways to spend the money on things we dont need.


 
Thanks but need I remind you who is borrowing our futures away. Remember, East Asia owns ½ of our T-bills. And when is the last time GWB proposed a spending cut?


----------



## Decker (Oct 30, 2006)

dg806 said:


> Please explain this to me?? A tax cut gives money back to me, that was mine in the beginning. It gives me more money to spend how I see fit, thus helping the economy and creating jobs. The liberal approach is to raise taxes and fund more big government and takes money from me. How does that help the economy? And honestly, there is too much big government on both sides. I'll admit I'm nowhere near an expert on this, so If I'm seeing this wrong, I'm all ears. I have never understood how raising taxes helps the average citizen or the economy.


Fair enough.  Here's how I understand it.  Tax cuts are easy.  But unless spending cuts accompany those tax cuts, the US will, by law, have to borrow more money to cover the costs of government.  That money must be repaid with interest.  Never in our country???s history have tax cuts stimulated the economy enough to actually pay for the tax cuts themselves.  There is no free lunch.

The tax money is not yours.  Nobody truly earns 100% of his money himself.  Your efforts stand on the shoulders of a wide array of governmental services that support the free market in which you earn your money.  Consider that the free market would not exist without governmental support:  Public infrastructure (highways/phone or electrical or internet systems, police or military protections, public schools etc, anti-trust law, legal infrastructure in general???.even the very money we use is gov. issued.)

You may find this hard to believe DG, but I am a small government type of guy.  I believe that the federal gov. should reign in the corporate influence on our politicians.  Then restore the voice of the people.  Then the size should be reduced???devolve the power of the federal government to the point where the states can once again be captains of their own fates.  

There will always be a need for centralized government.  Our job is to make sure it doesn???t grow to a size that permits tyranny.  I think we are at that point today.


----------



## BoneCrusher (Oct 30, 2006)

bio-chem said:


> he didnt use the 'gayness play' it's an analogy. meaning by relating two unlike things he is able to paint a picture expressing his beliefs. in a quite funny way i might add. he is saying your hiding.



bio-chem it was rather obvious that he wants to snag an under-cover Democrat and get him to commit ... but his process lacks the humor you'd like it to posses.  He was just plain insulting the Dem's with a complete lack of the level of sophistication you'd like him to have shown.
Calling me a gay closet Democrat was his play ... and you felt that was funny.  My point ... one that you missed ... in my earlier response to his factless and meaningless post is that he has to be trying to crack jokes because swearing at people and calling them a fag is sophomoric and that he should step up his game a little.  It's the kinda lame behavior you normally see 8th graders use ... "What a fag"  "Yeah ya fuckin' homo ...??? to someone they are about to steal lunch money from.


----------



## DOMS (Oct 30, 2006)

BoneCrusher said:


> bio-chem it was rather obvious that he wants to snag an under-cover Democrat and get him to commit ... but his process lacks the humor you'd like it to posses.  He was just plain insulting the Dem's with a complete lack of the level of sophistication you'd like him to have shown.
> Calling me a gay closet Democrat was his play ... and you felt that was funny.  My point ... one that you missed ... in my earlier response to his factless and meaningless post is that he has to be trying to crack jokes because swearing at people and calling them a fag is sophomoric and that he should step up his game a little.  It's the kinda lame behavior you normally see 8th graders use ... "What a fag"  "Yeah ya fuckin' homo ...??? to someone they are about to steal lunch money from.



You say that as if there's something wrong with being gay.  

And all your pathetic blathering doesn't change the fact that you're a closet Democrat.


----------



## BoneCrusher (Oct 30, 2006)

Decker said:


> Fair enough.  Here's how I understand it.  Tax cuts are easy.  But unless spending cuts accompany those tax cuts, the US will, by law, have to borrow more money to cover the costs of government.  That money must be repaid with interest.  Never in our country???s history have tax cuts stimulated the economy enough to actually pay for the tax cuts themselves.  There is no free lunch.
> 
> The tax money is not yours.  Nobody truly earns 100% of his money himself.  Your efforts stand on the shoulders of a wide array of governmental services that support the free market in which you earn your money.  Consider that the free market would not exist without governmental support:  Public infrastructure (highways/phone or electrical or internet systems, police or military protections, public schools etc, anti-trust law, legal infrastructure in general???.even the very money we use is gov. issued.)
> 
> ...



A very good image of one of the keystones of the Republican party.  Unfortunatley small government leaves no wiggle room, much less potential for exploitation, and no real platform for a strong power base from wich to expand.  I'm with you Decker ... truly.  Smaller is needed now more than ever.


----------



## BoneCrusher (Oct 30, 2006)

DOMS said:


> And all your pathetic blathering doesn't change the fact that you're a closet Democrat.


 
  Spin your wheels better and get outta your rut.  You???re stuck in a position with no substance ... WHO CARES if I'm a Democrat or a Republican?  Does it really matter that I voted for Bush vs. Gore?  Nope.  Does it really matter that I voted for his papa?  Nope.  What matters is that you and millions of people just like you are drones voting the party line and "blathering" on about how bad the other guy's party is while doing nothing to really prevent this idiocy from getting worse.  Pick the issues and vote on them.  DO something to get outta rut your in so you can be a more productive AMERICAN citizen.  Worry about the needs of the country, rather than the needs of _your_ party and spare me the ego driven party drivel.  

DOMS give me a leading Democrat who has actually done anything at the national or international level in resent history, and I mean successfully not ideologically, and I'll join you in the public caining.



DOMS said:


> You say that as if there's something wrong with being gay.


  Uhhh ??? no I never even implied there is a deficiency to being gay.  Just calling people gay as a means to somehow support your argument is a very childish method of debate and just plain wrong.  LOL ??? it would seem that you calling Dem???s ???homosexuals since circa 1950??? implies that you think less of the party by relating them to gay people and in this post are now wanting to nail me for that being a bad thing to do.  You bring up the entire issue of homosexuality a bit much DOMS ??? who is it that really needs to come out of the closet here?


----------



## cman (Oct 30, 2006)

Decker said:


> Fair enough. Here's how I understand it. Tax cuts are easy. But unless spending cuts accompany those tax cuts, the US will, by law, have to borrow more money to cover the costs of government. That money must be repaid with interest. Never in our country???s history have tax cuts stimulated the economy enough to actually pay for the tax cuts themselves. There is no free lunch.
> 
> The tax money is not yours. Nobody truly earns 100% of his money himself. Your efforts stand on the shoulders of a wide array of governmental services that support the free market in which you earn your money. Consider that the free market would not exist without governmental support: Public infrastructure (highways/phone or electrical or internet systems, police or military protections, public schools etc, anti-trust law, legal infrastructure in general???.even the very money we use is gov. issued.)
> 
> ...


You are brain washed. if the dems would stop giving money to deadbeats, paying for ilegals to have babys, pay for the illegals formula and college and mom and dads rent and food, etc etc etc, the forfathers revolted over a 10% tax. were at %42 we were not to be taxed at all. originally only gvmnt employees, and forigners paid on their incom, a citicsens money was a fair comodety exchange. non taxable. the dems have spent and spent. cut taxes cut spending. every once in a while you go to war and then taxes are collected. the dems want no war so they can give losers money for nothing. you say there is no free lunch. tell that to the beaners who come here illegally. (not talking about mex americans)


----------



## DOMS (Oct 30, 2006)

BoneCrusher said:


> Spin your wheels better and get outta your rut.  You???re stuck in a position with no substance ... WHO CARES if I'm a Democrat or a Republican?



I simply made an observation abuot closet Democrats.  I've heard many say something limp wristed like "I'm not a Democrat, but..."  I've only once heard someone say "I'm not a Republicna, but..."  I find it funny that Democrats are so shy about saying who that affiliate with.  



BoneCrusher said:


> Uhhh ??? no I never even implied there is a deficiency to being gay.  Just calling people gay as a means to somehow support your argument is a very childish method of debate and just plain wrong.  LOL ??? it would seem that you calling Dem???s ???homosexuals since circa 1950??? implies that you think less of the party by relating them to gay people and in this post are now wanting to nail me for that being a bad thing to do.  You bring up the entire issue of homosexuality a bit much DOMS ??? who is it that really needs to come out of the closet here?



Like bio-chem said, it was an apt comparison.  I never called you gay.  Not once.  Much like a liberal, you persecute yourself.  



BoneCrusher said:


> You bring up the entire issue of homosexuality a bit much DOMS ??? who is it that really needs to come out of the closet here?



Other than for comparative purposes, I bring it up in humor.  Which would require a sense of humor to appreciate, which you seem to lack.  Yet another trait of the angry left.


----------



## Big Smoothy (Oct 30, 2006)

dg806,

Thanks for the response.  I do resepct your opinion.


And....your ability to google.


We both hope for the best.


----------



## BoneCrusher (Oct 30, 2006)

DOMS said:


> I simply made an observation abuot closet Democrats. I've heard many say something limp wristed like "I'm not a Democrat, but..." I've only once heard someone say "I'm not a Republicna, but..." I find it funny that Democrats are so shy about saying who that affiliate with.


No DOMS you called me a closet liberal/democrat. Anyone not agreeing with what you see as proper perspective is a crying liberal. You sound like an under-study to Rich46yo.



DOMS said:


> Like bio-chem said, it was an apt comparison. I never called you gay. Not once. Much like a liberal, you persecute yourself.


Where have I stated or even remotely hinted that you called me gay? Again with the gay play followed up by the "liberal" tag. You expressed knowledge of my posts, then call me a liberal. Tell me about my liberal views DOMS ... what liberal perspective have I taken? 



DOMS said:


> Other than for comparative purposes, I bring it up in humor. Which would require a sense of humor to appreciate, which you seem to lack. Yet another trait of the angry left.


LOL it was poorly aimed humor at my expense but that's okay ... insult away DOMS. You still say nothing useful and offer no points of fact. Instead you deny the sense of humor I've steadily maintained throughout your unprovoked attempts to mislabel me as a Democrat (remember I have not yet said anything against the Republicans, just bi-partisan politics). That's okay it's just how you debate ... 

I am sure your ego is such that you're unable to give up trying to win this pointless pissing match that you've started here, but you're being repetitious now and getting kinda boring. You could at least look up something else I've said to misquote me on as you insult me some more. If you're going to waste my time debating nothing than be creative and change up a little bit ... make it interesting instead of mundane.


----------



## Decker (Oct 31, 2006)

cman said:


> You are brain washed. if the dems would stop giving money to deadbeats, paying for ilegals to have babys, pay for the illegals formula and college and mom and dads rent and food, etc etc etc, the forfathers revolted over a 10% tax. were at %42 we were not to be taxed at all. originally only gvmnt employees, and forigners paid on their incom, a citicsens money was a fair comodety exchange. non taxable. the dems have spent and spent. cut taxes cut spending. every once in a while you go to war and then taxes are collected. the dems want no war so they can give losers money for nothing. you say there is no free lunch. tell that to the beaners who come here illegally. (not talking about mex americans)


I don't know what you are trying to say.  
It seems that you have a problem with beans.
Time for me to 'cut and run.'


----------



## ZECH (Oct 31, 2006)

Decker said:


> Fair enough.  Here's how I understand it.  Tax cuts are easy.  But unless spending cuts accompany those tax cuts, the US will, by law, have to borrow more money to cover the costs of government.  That money must be repaid with interest.  Never in our country???s history have tax cuts stimulated the economy enough to actually pay for the tax cuts themselves.  There is no free lunch.
> 
> The tax money is not yours.  Nobody truly earns 100% of his money himself.  Your efforts stand on the shoulders of a wide array of governmental services that support the free market in which you earn your money.  Consider that the free market would not exist without governmental support:  Public infrastructure (highways/phone or electrical or internet systems, police or military protections, public schools etc, anti-trust law, legal infrastructure in general???.even the very money we use is gov. issued.)
> 
> ...



I think when you cut taxes, you need to cut the unnecessary pork in the government you don't need. Yes it's obvious you can't continue everything you were once doing. But we don't need 2/3rd's of what we have.
Thats my point.........should have been clearer.
Yes we have waay too much government in our lives.


----------



## DOMS (Oct 31, 2006)

dg806 said:


> I think when you cut taxes, you need to cut the unnecessary pork in the government you don't need. Yes it's obvious you can't continue everything you were once doing. But we don't need 2/3rd's of what we have.
> Thats my point.........should have been clearer.
> Yes we have waay too much government in our lives.



Forget about cutting this or that, how about they stop using the "if you don't use it, you lose it" fiscal mentality?  If ever there was a model for waste, that would be it.


----------



## ALBOB (Oct 31, 2006)

DOMS said:


> Forget about cutting this or that, how about they stop using the "if you don't use it, you lose it" fiscal mentality?  If ever there was a model for waste, that would be it.




But that's how I got my six month old desktop computer replaced with a brand new laptop and two docking stations.   (My office is in town but I travel to an alternate location occasionally.   )


----------



## DOMS (Oct 31, 2006)

ALBOB said:


> But that's how I got my six month old desktop computer replaced with a brand new laptop and two docking stations.   (My office is in town but I travel to an alternate location occasionally.   )


You'll keep your clay tablets and like it!


----------



## maniclion (Oct 31, 2006)

I watched the HBO movie *Mr. Conservative: Goldwater on Goldwater* the other day and I wish Republicans were more like that, still staunch supporters of the military, yet not wanting government up in everyones business...


----------



## DOMS (Oct 31, 2006)

And I wish that the Democrats were a bunch of limp wristed, spineless, "Yeah, there's a social program for everything" bunch of whiners.


----------



## BigDyl (Oct 31, 2006)

Republicants want the government up in everyones grill son!!1


----------

