DC Tom Posted July 22, 2014 Posted July 22, 2014 Which again begs the question, why the hysteria about Cheney now? Why not just put him on ignore? Liberals need a boogeyman to scare the people.
Azalin Posted July 22, 2014 Posted July 22, 2014 Liberals need a boogeyman to scare the people. didn't we elect one in 2008 and again in 2012?
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted July 22, 2014 Posted July 22, 2014 I'm quite certain Aaron Burr was the worst VP in American history. Just saying.
TakeYouToTasker Posted July 22, 2014 Posted July 22, 2014 I'm quite certain Aaron Burr was the worst VP in American history. Just saying. He rid the world of Alexander Hamilton, whose influence on American finance still plagues us today. I'd say that qualifies him as the most effective Vice President in history.
FireChan Posted July 22, 2014 Posted July 22, 2014 My point is that you and other critics of Bush and Cheney have attributed at least 3 different primary reasons for the invasion of Iraq. The link to Al Qaeda was never the major motivating factor. It was always about WMDs and the threat posed by a rogue nation. Here's the full text speech in which the war was sold to the public. Al Qaeda is mentioned once and loosely referenced at that. http://www.theguardi...mar/18/usa.iraq Those "lies" were circulating throughout the 90s and early 00s. Cheney was still at Halliburton when the Clinton admin was discussing the Iraqi threat. I would also like to add that CNN did a survey in 2002 that said 73% of the US population was in overwhelming support for an invasion even if there were no WMD's. Cheney stuffed the ballot box. He rid the world of Alexander Hamilton, whose influence on American finance still plagues us today. I'd say that qualifies him as the most effective Vice President in history. "The bank is trying to kill me, but I am going to kill it!" Or was that Old Hickory?
Alaska Darin Posted July 22, 2014 Posted July 22, 2014 when did any of those you cited link iraq and 9/11? That was the justification for the entire fiasco in the minds many americans. and leave edwards out of any serious discussion. he's a discredited, shameful, disgusting subhuman pos that his been fully excommunicated from the dem party....just as cheney should be from the repugs. then it's truly asounding how similar your positions are to those put forth by those media ouitlets. What positions? Be specific.
TakeYouToTasker Posted July 22, 2014 Posted July 22, 2014 I would also like to add that CNN did a survey in 2002 that said 73% of the US population was in overwhelming support for an invasion even if there were no WMD's. Cheney stuffed the ballot box. "The bank is trying to kill me, but I am going to kill it!" Or was that Old Hickory? Correct in the second. It was Andrew Jackson.
GG Posted July 22, 2014 Posted July 22, 2014 Correct in the second. It was Andrew Jackson. Funny how the only times the USA faced bankruptcy was when they dallied with Jeffersonian economic ideals. Not a coincidence that the Confederacy was a financial ruin.
TakeYouToTasker Posted July 22, 2014 Posted July 22, 2014 Funny how the only times the USA faced bankruptcy was when they dallied with Jeffersonian economic ideals. Not a coincidence that the Confederacy was a financial ruin. I see a list of non-sequiturs, disjointed statements, and misinformation. Was that your intention?
GG Posted July 22, 2014 Posted July 22, 2014 I see a list of non-sequiturs, disjointed statements, and misinformation. Was that your intention? Ok, I'll play along. Exactly how are we still paying for Hamilton's influence on finance?
TakeYouToTasker Posted July 22, 2014 Posted July 22, 2014 (edited) Ok, I'll play along. Exactly how are we still paying for Hamilton's influence on finance? Hamilton was a firm believer in the activist imperial state, and a proponent of big government. He was openly disdainful of economic liberty (and liberty in general), and fought tooth and nail for the merger of bank and state. You, being a neoconservative, likely share the opinion of David Brooks, that those are good things. I do not. Edited July 22, 2014 by TakeYouToTasker
IDBillzFan Posted July 22, 2014 Posted July 22, 2014 (edited) because "shutting their piehole" rather than actually engaging in argument, is what the ultimate goal is for some of you. Oh, please. Grow the hell up. You'd think at one point you could comprehend these discussions simply by mistake. Bush doesn't go into Iraq without votes, and one of those crucial votes came from Hillary, so if you're genuinely intent on casting blame for Iraq, be a man and blame everyone from every party who had voted to go to war. After all, that's what we do with ACA. We blame only the people who voted for it. Edited July 22, 2014 by LABillzFan
Deranged Rhino Posted July 22, 2014 Posted July 22, 2014 After all, that's what we do with ACA. We blame only the people who voted for it. This is why you're incapable of having an honest intellectual discussion about anything political. You not only subscribe to a rigid, group-think mentality -- you boast about it. I find that ironic considering you're such a cheerleader for the party that claims to be about personal freedom and responsibility.
GG Posted July 22, 2014 Posted July 22, 2014 Hamilton was a firm believer in the activist imperial state, and a proponent of big government. He was openly disdainful of economic liberty (and liberty in general), and fought tooth and nail for the merger of bank and state. You, being a neoconservative, likely share the opinion of David Brooks, that those are good things. I do not. Speaking of incorrect assumptions. Please point to where Hamilton argued for curtailed economic liberties, and merger of state and banking, and how it still haunts us.
3rdnlng Posted July 22, 2014 Posted July 22, 2014 (edited) This is why you're incapable of having an honest intellectual discussion about anything political. You not only subscribe to a rigid, group-think mentality -- you boast about it. I find that ironic considering you're such a cheerleader for the party that claims to be about personal freedom and responsibility. And you sir have made an assumption without any basis in fact. Try this on for size: After all, that's what we opponents do with ACA. We Opponents blame only the people who voted for it. A person can have an opinion that coincides with others without it being "group think". Edited July 22, 2014 by 3rdnlng
Deranged Rhino Posted July 22, 2014 Posted July 22, 2014 And you sir have made an assumption without any basis in fact. Try this on for size: After all, that's what we opponents do with ACA. We Opponents blame only the people who voted for it. A person can have an opinion that coincides with others without it being "group thin". No, I made a conclusion based on LA's long posting history in this forum and his own choice of words. You changed his words to fit your point. This isn't Fox News, it's PPP -- facts matter. Get it together, 3rd.
GG Posted July 22, 2014 Posted July 22, 2014 what's with the triple posting Android quirk. The Reply didn't register on the phone, so I kept hitting the button.
IDBillzFan Posted July 22, 2014 Posted July 22, 2014 This is why you're incapable of having an honest intellectual discussion about anything political. You not only subscribe to a rigid, group-think mentality -- you boast about it. I find that ironic considering you're such a cheerleader for the party that claims to be about personal freedom and responsibility. Have I not ONLY blamed the people who voted for ACA? Where is the intellectual honesty missing from that statement? And for what it's worth, saying that that my criticism of people who voted for ACA makes me part of a rigid, group-think mentality is pretty ironic, no? By calling those who believe ACA to be a SCFOAMF part of a rigid group-think mentality, aren't you, now part of a rigid group-think mentality al a DailyKos, Huffington Post and MSNBC? Oh, wait. You're the exception. My bad.
Recommended Posts