More doubt for Dear Leader

[erynthered]

I wish people would stop bringing that up. That casualty rate makes this one of the most benign wars in history, even by imperialistic standards.

 

 

Nose pick.....Flightsuit.......mission accomplished....Halliburton!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Kelly the Dog]

The Iraq war was a war started as a choice by both sides. Hillary Clinton herself said we must go to war with Iraq. I'm not sure why the left consistently feels like the GOP is single-handedly responsible for approving the war with Iraq. I respect the fact that the war took place on Bush's watch, but to keep implying that it was done ONLY by Bush and that no one on the left supported it is the kind of thing I expect more from someone like Blzrul.

Because he started it. If he didn't want to do it and go out of his way to do it, it doesn't get done. Period. Not to mention that the only reason a ton of Democrats voted yes was because they were scared to do otherwise for fear of being called un-American. That was a wholly constructed campaign by the Republicans.

[Kelly the Dog]

Nose pick.....Flightsuit.......mission accomplished....Halliburton!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I would call it massive death. Dismemberment. Trauma. And a trillion. But okay... I could see how this is trivial to you, too.

[erynthered]

I would call it massive death. Dismemberment. Trauma. And a trillion. But okay... I could see how this is trivial to you, too.

 

 

Its not trivial to me. Its just your acting like a 12 year old. Anytime someone brings up something negative about your boy, you and your ilk bring up the war. WTF in LA's post was there anything about Iraq? There wasn't.

[IDBillzFan]

Because he started it. If he didn't want to do it and go out of his way to do it, it doesn't get done. Period. Not to mention that the only reason a ton of Democrats voted yes was because they were scared to do otherwise for fear of being called un-American. That was a wholly constructed campaign by the Republicans.

Yeah. Okay. The Dems were scared. That's why they voted, to paraphrase your earlier comment, to put 4000 Americans to death. Because they were scared.

 

I honestly love the way you give the Democrats mulligans for choices they clearly made on their own, but hold Republicans responsible because it was a "constructed campaign."

 

That's some beautiful stuff right there.

[Joe Miner]

Because he started it. If he didn't want to do it and go out of his way to do it, it doesn't get done. Period. Not to mention that the only reason a ton of Democrats voted yes was because they were scared to do otherwise for fear of being called un-American. That was a wholly constructed campaign by the Republicans.

 

That's awesome how you're able to go back in time and read the minds of the Democrats that voted for something.

 

Even if your right, what does that say about your Democratic leadership that they were such pussies that they'd rather compromise their principals and put hundreds of thousands of lives at risk in a war they felt was unjust and that they didn't want than to risk their chances at reelection because they were called some names?

 

This is in no way a defense of Republicans. It's just meant to point out that you're full of sh-- by solely blaming one side.

[Kelly the Dog]

Yeah. Okay. The Dems were scared. That's why they voted, to paraphrase your earlier comment, to put 4000 Americans to death. Because they were scared.

 

I honestly love the way you give the Democrats mulligans for choices they clearly made on their own, but hold Republicans responsible because it was a "constructed campaign."

 

That's some beautiful stuff right there.

I don't give them mulligans. I think it was completely spineless, offensive, pathetic and the worst thing they could have done, and have said that over and over. There was no excuse for it.

[Kelly the Dog]

That's awesome how you're able to go back in time and read the minds of the Democrats that voted for something.

 

Even if your right, what does that say about your Democratic leadership that they were such pussies that they'd rather compromise their principals and put hundreds of thousands of lives at risk in a war they felt was unjust and that they didn't want than to risk their chances at reelection because they were called some names?

 

This is in no way a defense of Republicans. It's just meant to point out that you're full of sh-- by solely blaming one side.

Again, I think it was spineless of the Democrats, and inexcusable, and I don't know how many it affected, it's just my opinion that it was a lot of them.

 

I think the Republicans did a great job of demonizing people back then into thinking it was un-American to be against the war, and it wasn't only politicians, it affected all kinds of people everywhere. And it was blatant.

[Kelly the Dog]

Its not trivial to me. Its just your acting like a 12 year old. Anytime someone brings up something negative about your boy, you and your ilk bring up the war. WTF in LA's post was there anything about Iraq? There wasn't.

Ummmm... maybe because about 90% of all of the Bush Bad stuff had a direct or indirect connection to the Iraq war?

[erynthered]

Ummmm... maybe because about 90% of all of the Bush Bad stuff had a direct or indirect connection to the Iraq war?

 

 

.....and you felt obligated to bring up the war in response to LA's post that had nothing to do with Bush or the war.

 

You're !@#$ing hilarious today, Kelly!!

[Kelly the Dog]

.....and you felt obligated to bring up the war in response to LA's post that had nothing to do with Bush or the war.

 

You're !@#$ing hilarious today, Kelly!!

I thought it had everything to do with it. Unless I misinterpreted, I thought he said that all of the crap that he and the right had to put up with, the constant complaining and the "Bush bad" stuff of the last eight years, is now reversed. And then he said or strongly implied that all the Bush bad stuff was trivial compared to the real problems of Obama's war on capitalism.

 

For the past eight years we've had to completely put up with the other side's shiiit, so now that the tables are turned, we can barely contain ourselves...

[erynthered]

I thought it had everything to do with it. Unless I misinterpreted, I thought he said that all of the crap that he and the right had to put up with, the constant complaining and the "Bush bad" stuff of the last eight years, is now reversed. And then he said or strongly implied that all the Bush bad stuff was trivial compared to the real problems of Obama's war on capitalism.

 

Yeah I think you misinterpreted it blzrul, I mean Tennyboy, oops I mean Coli.......damn, I cant keep you guys straight.

 

 

Pun intended.

[IDBillzFan]

I thought it had everything to do with it. Unless I misinterpreted, I thought he said that all of the crap that he and the right had to put up with, the constant complaining and the "Bush bad" stuff of the last eight years, is now reversed. And then he said or strongly implied that all the Bush bad stuff was trivial compared to the real problems of Obama's war on capitalism.

Actually, you kind of inferred that incorrectly, but I can see your line of thinking.

 

It wasn't just the Iraq war. It was everything, with particular emphasis on the recent election. It didn't matter whose head popped up in the news, if they had any inclination toward the right, the left would attack and ridicule, the latter of which I detested the most. Whether it was the war in Iraq, Joe the Plumber, Sarah Palin's daughter, etc., it was attack and ridicule of the highest order at multiple angles. To your credit, it landed your party the House, the Senate and the White House. But after reading and listening to the left's crap for eight years, you can bet your ass that some of us on the right absolutely relish the fact that your party is about to prove that it is as dysfunctionally ridiculous...if not MORESO...than the right could ever be.

 

The fact that the new administration thinks spending its way out of this economic mess -- a mess created by BOTH sides -- at a precedent-setting rate just fuels the fire, even without the constant stumbling of badly chosen cabinet appointees, or the push for a universal health care program that has absolutely NO map to it beyond the fact that we simply must have it or the world will collapse at our feet.

 

Regardless of what side of the fence you're on, you'd have to be a completely blind homer to not realize that the ONLY way to pay for all of this spending is to lower the income requirements for tax increases. And when that happens, the hardcore right won't be the only ones yelling and screaming at this administration.

 

The people were sold a bill of goods, and Obama has proven that he is not above breaking promises early and often, as is evident by his signing a bill full of pork when he previously said he would not. Once you start breaking promises, it's a slippery slope. Piss off the wrong people -- the people who put you in office -- and they'll be more than happy to push you down the slope without any time to strap on your skis.

[DC Tom]

I wish they would bring it up more. The entire (false) idea was to stop another 9/11, which killed 3000 people.

 

I'm sorry, but 4000 killed, 10,000 hurt and hundreds of thousands affected in serious ways psychologically, hundreds of billions of dollars, and the trashing of American ideals all over the world for no friggin' reason is a big friggin' deal in my book.

 

The key words being "for no friggin' reason". Invading Iraq was unreasonable on it's face. 4000 people dying in an unreasonable war is an unreasonable casualty rate.

 

However, 4000 combat deaths over six years of war in a deployed force of 135k-150k is half a percent annual. That is an extraordinarily low rate of loss for a war (Vietnam, a "low intensity" conflict, was twice that at a minimum. WWII, twice that again). If you want to use the ridiculousness of the war as criticism for the casualty rate, fine with me. I can agree with that. Trying to use the casualty rate as a demonstration of the uselessness of the war, however, is a logical non-starter.

[DC Tom]

Actually, you kind of inferred that incorrectly, but I can see your line of thinking.

 

It wasn't just the Iraq war. It was everything, with particular emphasis on the recent election. It didn't matter whose head popped up in the news, if they had any inclination toward the right, the left would attack and ridicule, the latter of which I detested the most. Whether it was the war in Iraq, Joe the Plumber, Sarah Palin's daughter, etc., it was attack and ridicule of the highest order at multiple angles. To your credit, it landed your party the House, the Senate and the White House. But after reading and listening to the left's crap for eight years, you can bet your ass that some of us on the right absolutely relish the fact that your party is about to prove that it is as dysfunctionally ridiculous...if not MORESO...than the right could ever be.

 

The fact that the new administration thinks spending its way out of this economic mess -- a mess created by BOTH sides -- at a precedent-setting rate just fuels the fire, even without the constant stumbling of badly chosen cabinet appointees, or the push for a universal health care program that has absolutely NO map to it beyond the fact that we simply must have it or the world will collapse at our feet.

 

Regardless of what side of the fence you're on, you'd have to be a completely blind homer to not realize that the ONLY way to pay for all of this spending is to lower the income requirements for tax increases. And when that happens, the hardcore right won't be the only ones yelling and screaming at this administration.

 

The people were sold a bill of goods, and Obama has proven that he is not above breaking promises early and often, as is evident by his signing a bill full of pork when he previously said he would not. Once you start breaking promises, it's a slippery slope. Piss off the wrong people -- the people who put you in office -- and they'll be more than happy to push you down the slope without any time to strap on your skis.

 

 

Which reminds me...a $410B spending bill signed today, outside the budget. On top of a $800B "stimulus package" a month ago, outside the budget. On top of a submitted budget that already has a $1.75T deficit.

 

For those keeping count, that's three trillion in deficit spending.

 

I'll say this for the Obama Administration: they learned the Bush Administration's lessons well, in putting irresponsible spending in "supplemental spending" bills so as to pretend it's not a budget deficit.

[erynthered]

The key words being "for no friggin' reason". Invading Iraq was unreasonable on it's face. 4000 people dying in an unreasonable war is an unreasonable casualty rate.

 

However, 4000 combat deaths over six years of war in a deployed force of 135k-150k is half a percent annual. That is an extraordinarily low rate of loss for a war (Vietnam, a "low intensity" conflict, was twice that at a minimum. WWII, twice that again). If you want to use the ridiculousness of the war as criticism for the casualty rate, fine with me. I can agree with that. Trying to use the casualty rate as a demonstration of the uselessness of the war, however, is a logical non-starter.

 

He'll use the war in any context that suits his/liberal argument to protect any negative remarks about his boy, obama.

 

Maybe even in a Johnson/Flutie debate too......

[Joe Miner]

Which reminds me...a $410B spending bill signed today, outside the budget. On top of a $800B "stimulus package" a month ago, outside the budget. On top of a submitted budget that already has a $1.75T deficit.

 

For those keeping count, that's three trillion in deficit spending.

 

I'll say this for the Obama Administration: they learned the Bush Administration's lessons well, in putting irresponsible spending in "supplemental spending" bills so as to pretend it's not a budget deficit.

 

"Anything you can do I can do better; I can do anything better than you."

[DC Tom]

He'll use the war in any context that suits his/liberal argument to protect any negative remarks about his boy, obama.

 

Maybe even in a Johnson/Flutie debate too......

 

$1.3 trillion in deficit spending in SEVEN WEEKS. Not proposed spending. ACTUAL spending. $87 dollars per person in the US PER DAY over the past fifty days above and beyond the government's regular budgeted spending. And it's borrowed.

 

 

And you people are arguing about what, exactly? Your right to be childish about Obama, because they started it with Bush? You people are idiots.

[erynthered]

$1.3 trillion in deficit spending in SEVEN WEEKS. Not proposed spending. ACTUAL spending. $87 dollars per person in the US PER DAY over the past fifty days above and beyond the government's regular budgeted spending. And it's borrowed.

 

 

And you people are arguing about what, exactly? Your right to be childish about Obama, because they started it with Bush? You people are idiots.

 

 

Pointing out the hypocrisy and the lunacy of the left is neither childish nor idiotic. Its fun!!

 

 

.....and yes I'm well aware of the spending......and you're part of the problem.

[IDBillzFan]

Which reminds me...a $410B spending bill signed today, outside the budget. On top of a $800B "stimulus package" a month ago, outside the budget. On top of a submitted budget that already has a $1.75T deficit.

 

For those keeping count, that's three trillion in deficit spending.

And of course Nancy Pelosi is setting the stage for a second stimulus...you know...just in case.