Bishop Hedd Posted March 19, 2008 Posted March 19, 2008 Happy Anniversery today! http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/355509_wared.html I think we got democracy, cheap gas and a stable economy out of all this right?
Alaska Darin Posted March 19, 2008 Posted March 19, 2008 Wait, you mean big government liberal programs don't worK?
molson_golden2002 Posted March 19, 2008 Posted March 19, 2008 Wait, you mean big government liberal programs don't worK? Are not your stocks the Fed stepped in to protect up today?
Alaska Darin Posted March 19, 2008 Posted March 19, 2008 Are not your stocks the Fed stepped in to protect up today? Translation: Hi! I don't understand the issue, nor the resolution so I'm gonna give credit to my ideal! Welcome to why you're a hypocrite.
molson_golden2002 Posted March 19, 2008 Posted March 19, 2008 Translation: Hi! I don't understand the issue, nor the resolution so I'm gonna give credit to my ideal! Welcome to why you're a hypocrite. I understand enough. Big government is saving the sacred private sector from itself. I'm just wondering if you are against that? I remember you were complaining how the government was taking too much of your earnings on investments from taxes, yet here they are saving your investments. Funny how that works, eh?
John Adams Posted March 19, 2008 Posted March 19, 2008 Way back when, Bush said it would cost about 50-60 billion to remove Saddam and install a Democratic government.
Kelly the Dog Posted March 19, 2008 Posted March 19, 2008 Way back when, Bush said it would cost about 50-60 billion to remove Saddam and install a Democratic government. It's like Pep Boys. They always get you on the installation charges. Not to mention they always seem to find different stuff that is broken once they get in the hood. Or charge you for stuff that didn't need fixing. This whole war is really like having car trouble.
molson_golden2002 Posted March 19, 2008 Posted March 19, 2008 It's like Pep Boys. They always get you on the installation charges. Not to mention they always seem to find different stuff that is broken once they get in the hood. Or charge you for stuff that didn't need fixing. This whole war is really like having car trouble. Too bad we don't have a Lemon law for war
DC Tom Posted March 19, 2008 Posted March 19, 2008 Way back when, Bush said it would cost about 50-60 billion to remove Saddam and install a Democratic government. Cost less than that, I think. It just costs far, far more to sustain the damn thing.
Bishop Hedd Posted March 19, 2008 Author Posted March 19, 2008 Wait, you mean big government liberal programs don't worK? I've heard non-sequitars on several occasions from you but you just topped yourself with that one. I guess the "Surge" (sounds like a lame energy drink from the coca cola company don't it) is just working out dandy too. The conservatives are really putting all their marbles on that one even though it shows absolutely no sign of fostering any political discourse in that country.
molson_golden2002 Posted March 19, 2008 Posted March 19, 2008 I've heard non-sequitars on several occasions from you but you just topped yourself with that one.I guess the "Surge" (sounds like a lame energy drink from the coca cola company don't it) is just working out dandy too. The conservatives are really putting all their marbles on that one even though it shows absolutely no sign of fostering any political discourse in that country. I went down the river with him on this one once. In his opinion Iraq is a big government program like the war on poverty or something. I don't know who we bombed during the war on poverty, but you get the picture. I suppose he has a point.
Peter Posted March 19, 2008 Posted March 19, 2008 If only W were more like his father vis a vis Iraq. GHWB and his administration responded to an actual invasion, built a real coalition, and worked it so that we were only responsible for 10% of the cost. Moreover, GHWB and Brent Scowcroft knew when to get the hell out and not get involved with the chaos that we have seen here. By contrast, W has shown that he is no GHWB. W has been an unmitigated disaster. Even one of the few good things he has done (lowering taxes) will probably be reversed as a result of the consequences of his other policies.
Alaska Darin Posted March 19, 2008 Posted March 19, 2008 I understand enough. Big government is saving the sacred private sector from itself. Really? What are the long term ramifications of the decision? What were the symptoms that led up to the bailout? I'm just wondering if you are against that? I remember you were complaining how the government was taking too much of your earnings on investments from taxes, yet here they are saving your investments. Funny how that works, eh? Further proof that you have almost no clue what you're talking about.
Alaska Darin Posted March 19, 2008 Posted March 19, 2008 I've heard non-sequitars on several occasions from you but you just topped yourself with that one. Really? Why don't you explain exactly what you mean. I guess the "Surge" (sounds like a lame energy drink from the coca cola company don't it) is just working out dandy too. Do you have a point? Or just regurgitating something in an attempt to deflect from the issue at hand? I'm gonna guess "B". The conservatives are really putting all their marbles on that one even though it shows absolutely no sign of fostering any political discourse in that country. Why should it be any different over there than it is over here?
East Brady Posted March 19, 2008 Posted March 19, 2008 Don't worry guys, Clinton, McCain and Obama will carry on as instructed, nothing will change.
KD in CA Posted March 19, 2008 Posted March 19, 2008 I went down the river with him on this one once. In his opinion Iraq is a big government program like the war on poverty or something. I don't know who we bombed during the war on poverty, but you get the picture. I suppose he has a point. But for some reason, even though the war on poverty was lost a long time ago, you continue to support 'surge' after 'surge' of wasted efforts rather than admitting it was a mistake and you've been defeated. Interesting.
Alaska Darin Posted March 20, 2008 Posted March 20, 2008 But for some reason, even though the war on poverty was lost a long time ago, you continue to support 'surge' after 'surge' of wasted efforts rather than admitting it was a mistake and you've been defeated. Interesting. Isn't reality a hoot?
DC Tom Posted March 20, 2008 Posted March 20, 2008 But for some reason, even though the war on poverty was lost a long time ago, you continue to support 'surge' after 'surge' of wasted efforts rather than admitting it was a mistake and you've been defeated. Interesting. But don't you understand? Sunburn missiles are fast...
Bishop Hedd Posted March 20, 2008 Author Posted March 20, 2008 I went down the river with him on this one once. In his opinion Iraq is a big government program like the war on poverty or something. I don't know who we bombed during the war on poverty, but you get the picture. I suppose he has a point. Really? Ha ha! Yeah I guess an inane plan that sprang forth from the bowels of Billy Kristol's nutty Orwellian named Project for the New American Century group and the U of Chicago's neoconservative clan could be labeled as "big government". ...but "liberal"? Yeah I guess that's why noted "libs" like Wellstone, Feingold, Kennedy all voted against it while DLC conservative hacks like Clinton, Lieberman and Feinstein voted for it. http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll...&vote=00237 Did you see Bush's ridiculous unpaid infomercial this morning? Once again doing the "fight em there so we don't fight em here" routine. What a looser!
Alaska Darin Posted March 20, 2008 Posted March 20, 2008 Really? Ha ha!Yeah I guess an inane plan that sprang forth from the bowels of Billy Kristol's nutty Orwellian named Project for the New American Century group and the U of Chicago's neoconservative clan could be labeled as "big government". ...but "liberal"? Yeah I guess that's why noted "libs" like Wellstone, Feingold, Kennedy all voted against it while DLC conservative hacks like Clinton, Lieberman and Feinstein voted for it. It has nothing to do with who started it or why, Sparky. Try looking at the world through something other than your "liberal love" glasses. It's still just another "program" that you end up with when you so readily cede power to a faceless bureaucracy. One of the byproducts, if you will. I don't expect you to get it because liberals just don't understand the term "consequences". Only idealism. What a looser! Loser.
Recommended Posts