If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Townhall)   Before we go to the polls in 2012, let's find out if the GOP is becoming again the same old War Party that bankrupted the nation   (townhall.com) divider line 213
    More: Interesting, GOP, Strait of Hormuz, existential threats, Meir Dagan, oil exports, atomic nuclei, Mossad, inaction  
•       •       •

3929 clicks; posted to Politics » on 15 Nov 2011 at 11:01 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



213 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2011-11-15 12:37:19 PM

Lionel Mandrake: Including the democratic majority that voted against the Iraq war? As opposed to the 2% of Republicans who voted no? Yeah, exactly the same. And who the Hell said the wars ALONE were the problem?


And what was the judgement of the DNC...the Establishment Democrats?

Link (new window)

Link (new window)

You can to fool yourself about the Democratic Party if you like, but you aren't fooling anyone else. Your assertions call into question your critical thinking abilities - or your motives. Democrats always want it both ways - they want to claim they're against wars they vote for, claim to detest brutal methods they themselves employ, and so on. It's the left wing of the corporate war party, that's all. Good Cop, Bad Cop. Only dunces can't see through the bullsh*t, and only water-carriers engage in transparent spin-doctoring.

And if you'll check the top of the page, you'll see it was subby who implied that the wars alone bankrupted the nation.
 
2011-11-15 12:37:44 PM

pxsteel: Infernalist: pxsteel: Geotpf: Infernalist: pxsteel: Count me in as almost ABO. I would not vote for Buchanan or any other 'holy roller'. Having a 'church' in the white house would be a very bad idea.

Can I offer you some legit advice? The whole 'Anyone but Obama' mantra might feel good, but it's a political disaster.

The Democrats tried the same thing in 2004 with Kerry. 'Anyone but Bush!' was their mantra, and they got a wooden, uninspiring, flip-flopping Governor who got destroyed long before the election drew to a close.

In short, they tried 'Anyone but Bush!' and got a Democratic version of Mitt Romney. Minus the magic underwear.

I agree with this. The 2012 election is almost exactly the same as the 2004 election, with the parties reversed. Unpopular President, crappy opposition candidate, tie goes to the incumbent.

Unemployment was not 9%+ in 2004.

It's not a Magic Switch, my friend. When Unemployment passes 8.9%, the people don't suddenly 'change' their opinions of the President and the GOP.

And right now, even with Unemployment being as high as it is, without Obama campaigning at all, with all these debates from the GOP trying to get their message out, Obama's kicking the living crap out of them in the polls.

Because people still blame the GOP for the economic troubles that we're in. Obama inherited this mess and they don't blame him for it.

The switch is not 8.9%. It is around 7.6%. If the GOP candidate has any brains at all, Obama will get piledrived next year in commercial after commercial over the bad economy.


Which is a bad idea since a majority of Americans still view the Republicans as the source of our current economic problems. Why do you think they're focused so much on other matters, like foreign policy and how to cut waste in government?

Because if they address the economic issues, it opens the door for people to ask pointed questions as to how we got here.

Imagine that it happens, what you suggest up there. Commercial after commercial comes out...and is immediately matched by corresponding commercials linking the beginnings of the economic issues to 2006 and earlier. Other commercials pointing out the lack of any Jobs bills coming from the Republican House for 2 years+ and how they've stalled the President's Jobs Bill in the House.

The Republicans do 'not' want to stir that hornet's nest. And they(the primary candidates) know it.
 
2011-11-15 12:39:49 PM

AMonkey'sUncle: Arkanaut: St_Francis_P: That was the first sensible article I've seen from Pat Buchanan.

Whatever you say, Pat Buchanan is not an idiot. He may be a racist, a troll, and an idiot, but definitely not a Communist.

WAT?


whoooooooooooooosssshhhhhhhhHHHHHH!
 
2011-11-15 12:40:43 PM

canyoneer: Lionel Mandrake: Including the democratic majority that voted against the Iraq war? As opposed to the 2% of Republicans who voted no? Yeah, exactly the same. And who the Hell said the wars ALONE were the problem?

And what was the judgement of the DNC...the Establishment Democrats?

Link (new window)

Link (new window)

You can to fool yourself about the Democratic Party if you like, but you aren't fooling anyone else. Your assertions call into question your critical thinking abilities - or your motives. Democrats always want it both ways - they want to claim they're against wars they vote for, claim to detest brutal methods they themselves employ, and so on. It's the left wing of the corporate war party, that's all. Good Cop, Bad Cop. Only dunces can't see through the bullsh*t, and only water-carriers engage in transparent spin-doctoring.

And if you'll check the top of the page, you'll see it was subby who implied that the wars alone bankrupted the nation.


You can't look at how the President used the military in Libya...and look at how Bush used the military in Iraq...and think that both sides are equal.

It's ludicrous.
 
2011-11-15 12:43:09 PM

cameroncrazy1984: You're right, the Bush tax cuts contributed too.


And so did 50 years of deficit spending on everything from food stamps to atomic bombs. And here we are. Guess what? You can't spend more than you take in for 50 years - no matter what you're spending on - without going bankrupt. Who knew???
 
2011-11-15 12:45:55 PM

canyoneer: cameroncrazy1984: You're right, the Bush tax cuts contributed too.

And so did 50 years of deficit spending on everything from food stamps to atomic bombs. And here we are. Guess what? You can't spend more than you take in for 50 years - no matter what you're spending on - without going bankrupt. Who knew???


Did you miss the part where we were running a 'Surplus' during the Clinton(a Democrat lol) Administration?

And where the GOP immediately demanded tax cuts as a result? Shock, right?
 
2011-11-15 12:49:17 PM

canyoneer: Your assertions call into question your critical thinking abilities - or your motives.


Oooo...ad hominem...always the sign of a formidable opponent

canyoneer: And what was the judgement of the DNC...the Establishment Democrats?


I never claimed the Dems were perfect - far from it - but equating the two parties in terms of belligerency is foolish.

canyoneer: Good Cop, Bad Cop. Only dunces can't see through the bullsh*t, and only water-carriers engage in transparent spin-doctoring.


see above

canyoneer: And if you'll check the top of the page, you'll see it was subby who implied that the wars alone bankrupted the nation.


read it again. Subby said it was the "WAR PARTY" that bankrupted the nation. As in, the same party that gave the poor, suffering rich tax breaks that cost over a trillion in revenue.
 
2011-11-15 12:49:46 PM

Infernalist: You can't look at how the President used the military in Libya...and look at how Bush used the military in Iraq...and think that both sides are equal. It's ludicrous.


What's ludicrous is that we used the military in Libya at all. What do we get out of it? Who cares if some tin-horn foreigner abuses his people? He was keeping the oil flowing...and Libyan oil all goes to Europe anyway. Sounds to me like Obama was just doing the Europeans a favor...a quid pro quo for Afghanistan, so to speak. Sounds like the Europeans have been blowing their money on fancy f*ckin' trains and lifetime unemployment insurance for decades, and then suddenly realized they should have bought some more bombs and fighter jets instead.

But just to be clear: You're fine with wars, as long as they're cheap, right?
 
2011-11-15 12:51:33 PM
Having completely lost the "national defense" party image to Obama, the GOP is now forced to create a narrative that Obama somehow mishandled Iran - and they'd "fix" the situation if elected. With bombs, presumably.
 
2011-11-15 12:52:10 PM

canyoneer: Who cares if some tin-horn foreigner abuses his people?


People who aren't amoral sociopaths?
 
2011-11-15 12:53:18 PM

canyoneer: What's ludicrous is that we used the military in Libya at all. What do we get out of it? Who cares if some tin-horn foreigner abuses his people? He was keeping the oil flowing...and Libyan oil all goes to Europe anyway. Sounds to me like Obama was just doing the Europeans a favor...a quid pro quo for Afghanistan, so to speak. Sounds like the Europeans have been blowing their money on fancy f*ckin' trains and lifetime unemployment insurance for decades, and then suddenly realized they should have bought some more bombs and fighter jets instead.

But just to be clear: You're fine with wars, as long as they're cheap, right?



Right. Remove Iraq as a favor to Israel and to avenge them thinking about killing Bush's daddy = good.

Remove a dictator who has killed US citizens and soldiers = bad.
 
2011-11-15 12:54:48 PM

Dusk-You-n-Me: Having completely lost the "national defense" party image to Obama, the GOP is now forced to create a narrative that Obama somehow mishandled Iran - and they'd "fix" the situation if elected. With bombs, presumably.


It probably isn't a coincidence that the Republicans started beating the Iran drum so much at the same time the Obama confirmed that we will be fully out of Iraq by year's end.
 
2011-11-15 12:56:43 PM

canyoneer: Infernalist: You can't look at how the President used the military in Libya...and look at how Bush used the military in Iraq...and think that both sides are equal. It's ludicrous.

What's ludicrous is that we used the military in Libya at all. What do we get out of it? Who cares if some tin-horn foreigner abuses his people? He was keeping the oil flowing...and Libyan oil all goes to Europe anyway. Sounds to me like Obama was just doing the Europeans a favor...a quid pro quo for Afghanistan, so to speak. Sounds like the Europeans have been blowing their money on fancy f*ckin' trains and lifetime unemployment insurance for decades, and then suddenly realized they should have bought some more bombs and fighter jets instead.

But just to be clear: You're fine with wars, as long as they're cheap, right?


Shall I elaborate on what we got out of it? Alright.

1) A stable Europe. The whole mess in Libya with the rebellion was throwing Europe's economies into an uproar, threatening their recoveries, and by extension, our own recovery. By intervening, we stabilized the European oil market, their economies and ensured that the recovery took hold.

2) Generated a 'massive' amount of positive PR and good will with the region. This is the sort of PR and goodwill that you can't buy with money or weapons. They may hate us again in 20 years, but right now, they're singing songs about America and waving the American flag in Tripoli.

3) Removed another of Russia/China's pocket leaders.

4) Ensured the continuation of the Arab Spring, thus putting more pressure on, at the moment, Syria.

Now, we did all of this for less than 100 million dollars.

So, to sum up, we did the 'right thing', the 'realpolitik' thing, the cheap thing 'and' the 'no dead Americans' thing, all in one war and the only ones upset about it are the Chinese, Dead Daffy and co, the Russians, a few wingnuts in the Democratic party and most of the GOP.

Does that clarify it enough for you?
 
2011-11-15 01:00:19 PM

Philip Francis Queeg: It probably isn't a coincidence that the Republicans started beating the Iran drum so much at the same time the Obama confirmed that we will be fully out of Iraq by year's end.


Definitely not a coincidence. The GOP makes up threats to campaign on. Iran, marriage equality, Sharia law, over-regulation, abortion, anchor babies, all of them are made up issues to distract from the fact that they are not fiscally conservative and haven't been for decades. All their plans for the future are just more of the same actions that got us into this mess. Cut taxes and regulations. Wow. Ground breaking stuff. Why don't you come up with something ne-WHAT GAYS WANT TO MARRY WHERE DO I VOTE?
 
2011-11-15 01:08:56 PM

lordlight: Why is the GOP obsessed with israel? Am I missing something about the republican mindset or it is just a talking point?


Because it's a wedge social issue that has NOTHING to do with economics.

See also: abortion, gun rights, DADT, war on drugs, creationism, gay marriage and abstinence only education
 
2011-11-15 01:09:08 PM

St_Francis_P: That was the first sensible article I've seen from Pat Buchanan.


I think he's written several things that were very sensible. Here's another: Link (new window)

That doesn't mean he's off the hook for stuff he's written about race, state-sponsored religion, etc. though.
 
2011-11-15 01:14:19 PM

Infernalist: Did you miss the part where we were running a 'Surplus' during the Clinton(a Democrat lol) Administration? And where the GOP immediately demanded tax cuts as a result? Shock, right?


Do you understand accounting? If not, here's an explanation of the "Clinton Surplus" for you: Revenues exceeded expenditures during that period because of high social security tax collections.

Surplus SS tax collections are by law transfered to the general budget, and the federal government writes an IOU to the SS Trust Fund - promising to make good any shortfalls in SS spending versus tax collection that may occur in the future. It's called an "intergovernmental transfer." In the business world, that would be called "fraud," because the government is taking in money, spending it on something else besides that for which it was collected, writing itself an IOU (a liability), and accounting for that liability as an asset (the IOU is an "asset" in SS trust Fund accounting, but in reality, it is a liability for the federal government). In the government world, it's part of the Social Security Act of 1935.

So, in reality there was no surplus, and the IOUs are insufficient to make good on current and future shortfalls because of inflation, meaning Uncle Sam will have to borrow yet more money (and pay more interest on that borrowed money) to cover the IOUs when they come due.

Of course this was no reason for tax cuts, because the "surplus" didn't really ever exist. To his credit, Al Gore advocated his infamous "lockbox" for SS revenues during the 2000 election - a capital idea - that would require an amendment to the SS Act of 1935. He proposed proper accrual accounting for the SS Trust Fund, basically. Most people had no clue what he was talking about.
 
2011-11-15 01:16:27 PM
28.media.tumblr.com

Problem GOP?
 
2011-11-15 01:19:44 PM

Philip Francis Queeg: People who aren't amoral sociopaths?


So, I presume you advocate military intervention in, say, Central Africa, right? There are dozens of tin-horn foreigners abusing their people there right now... as we speak. And West Africa, too. And in Syria. I suppose you advocate U.S. military intervention in Syria, right? Uzbekistan? North Korea?
 
2011-11-15 01:20:31 PM

canyoneer: Lionel Mandrake: Including the democratic majority that voted against the Iraq war? As opposed to the 2% of Republicans who voted no? Yeah, exactly the same. And who the Hell said the wars ALONE were the problem?

And what was the judgement of the DNC...the Establishment Democrats?

Link (new window)

Link (new window)

You can to fool yourself about the Democratic Party if you like, but you aren't fooling anyone else. Your assertions call into question your critical thinking abilities - or your motives. Democrats always want it both ways - they want to claim they're against wars they vote for, claim to detest brutal methods they themselves employ, and so on. It's the left wing of the corporate war party, that's all. Good Cop, Bad Cop. Only dunces can't see through the bullsh*t, and only water-carriers engage in transparent spin-doctoring.

And if you'll check the top of the page, you'll see it was subby who implied that the wars alone bankrupted the nation.


Your links do not support your position.

The quotes you give in the links are before Operation Desert Fox, stating that Iraq had the ability to threaten allies. After Operation Desert Fox, the DOD stated that the specified targets had been damaged or destroyed and the Operation was deemed a success.
Link (new window)

This was not voting for a land war.

They believed that Saddam had weapons. They believed that they'd gotten them all. Then Bush said (with no real evidence) that they had not, in fact gotten them all. He then sent us in a long land war with the support of nearly the entire GOP and some Democrats.

Next time, post a link that's actually relevant.
 
2011-11-15 01:23:48 PM

canyoneer: Philip Francis Queeg: People who aren't amoral sociopaths?

So, I presume you advocate military intervention in, say, Central Africa, right? There are dozens of tin-horn foreigners abusing their people there right now... as we speak. And West Africa, too. And in Syria. I suppose you advocate U.S. military intervention in Syria, right? Uzbekistan? North Korea?


Care =/= advocate military intervention.
 
2011-11-15 01:27:24 PM

AMonkey'sUncle: Arkanaut: St_Francis_P: That was the first sensible article I've seen from Pat Buchanan.

Whatever you say, Pat Buchanan is not an idiot. He may be a racist, a troll, and an idiot, but definitely not a Communist.

WAT?


Well ya know, there's idiots and then there's idiots.
 
2011-11-15 01:43:41 PM

Serious Black: We should just nuke the rest of the planet to be completely sure that that only people left are freedom-loving Americans.


Dibs on Australia
 
2011-11-15 01:47:43 PM
I find it interesting that nearly half of the candidates said they did NOT favor military action by the US against Iran, and yet this thread is full of "they wanna go to war!
 
2011-11-15 02:00:10 PM
It just wouldn't be a proper GOP Presidency without a big distracting war to deal with years after they leave.
 
2011-11-15 02:01:20 PM
Becoming? How about still?
 
2011-11-15 02:08:21 PM

BojanglesPaladin: I find it interesting that nearly half of the candidates said they did NOT favor military action by the US against Iran, and yet this thread is full of "they wanna go to war!


Oh no, NEARLY half! So that means a majority of them want to go to war? Sounds like they want to go to war.
 
2011-11-15 02:09:02 PM

canyoneer: Infernalist: Did you miss the part where we were running a 'Surplus' during the Clinton(a Democrat lol) Administration? And where the GOP immediately demanded tax cuts as a result? Shock, right?

Do you understand accounting? If not, here's an explanation of the "Clinton Surplus" for you: Revenues exceeded expenditures during that period because of high social security tax collections.

Surplus SS tax collections are by law transfered to the general budget, and the federal government writes an IOU to the SS Trust Fund - promising to make good any shortfalls in SS spending versus tax collection that may occur in the future. It's called an "intergovernmental transfer." In the business world, that would be called "fraud," because the government is taking in money, spending it on something else besides that for which it was collected, writing itself an IOU (a liability), and accounting for that liability as an asset (the IOU is an "asset" in SS trust Fund accounting, but in reality, it is a liability for the federal government). In the government world, it's part of the Social Security Act of 1935.

So, in reality there was no surplus, and the IOUs are insufficient to make good on current and future shortfalls because of inflation, meaning Uncle Sam will have to borrow yet more money (and pay more interest on that borrowed money) to cover the IOUs when they come due.

Of course this was no reason for tax cuts, because the "surplus" didn't really ever exist. To his credit, Al Gore advocated his infamous "lockbox" for SS revenues during the 2000 election - a capital idea - that would require an amendment to the SS Act of 1935. He proposed proper accrual accounting for the SS Trust Fund, basically. Most people had no clue what he was talking about.


lolwut
 
2011-11-15 02:17:45 PM

canyoneer: Infernalist: Did you miss the part where we were running a 'Surplus' during the Clinton(a Democrat lol) Administration? And where the GOP immediately demanded tax cuts as a result? Shock, right?

Do you understand accounting? If not, here's an explanation of the "Clinton Surplus" for you: Revenues exceeded expenditures during that period because of high social security tax collections.

Surplus SS tax collections are by law transfered to the general budget, and the federal government writes an IOU to the SS Trust Fund - promising to make good any shortfalls in SS spending versus tax collection that may occur in the future. It's called an "intergovernmental transfer." In the business world, that would be called "fraud," because the government is taking in money, spending it on something else besides that for which it was collected, writing itself an IOU (a liability), and accounting for that liability as an asset (the IOU is an "asset" in SS trust Fund accounting, but in reality, it is a liability for the federal government). In the government world, it's part of the Social Security Act of 1935.

So, in reality there was no surplus, and the IOUs are insufficient to make good on current and future shortfalls because of inflation, meaning Uncle Sam will have to borrow yet more money (and pay more interest on that borrowed money) to cover the IOUs when they come due.

Of course this was no reason for tax cuts, because the "surplus" didn't really ever exist. To his credit, Al Gore advocated his infamous "lockbox" for SS revenues during the 2000 election - a capital idea - that would require an amendment to the SS Act of 1935. He proposed proper accrual accounting for the SS Trust Fund, basically. Most people had no clue what he was talking about.


I've tried to explain this one over and over again to no avail around here. All you have to do is look at the Treasury's debt numbers to see there was no surplus. You can find them here:

Link (new window)

1999 Sept 30th Total Debt: $5,656,270,901,633.43
2000 Sept 29th Total Debt: $5,674,178,209,886.86

Math 101 says if Debt increase by $17 billion there was no surplus.
 
2011-11-15 02:18:48 PM

cameroncrazy1984: canyoneer: Infernalist: Did you miss the part where we were running a 'Surplus' during the Clinton(a Democrat lol) Administration? And where the GOP immediately demanded tax cuts as a result? Shock, right?

Do you understand accounting? If not, here's an explanation of the "Clinton Surplus" for you: Revenues exceeded expenditures during that period because of high social security tax collections.

Surplus SS tax collections are by law transfered to the general budget, and the federal government writes an IOU to the SS Trust Fund - promising to make good any shortfalls in SS spending versus tax collection that may occur in the future. It's called an "intergovernmental transfer." In the business world, that would be called "fraud," because the government is taking in money, spending it on something else besides that for which it was collected, writing itself an IOU (a liability), and accounting for that liability as an asset (the IOU is an "asset" in SS trust Fund accounting, but in reality, it is a liability for the federal government). In the government world, it's part of the Social Security Act of 1935.

So, in reality there was no surplus, and the IOUs are insufficient to make good on current and future shortfalls because of inflation, meaning Uncle Sam will have to borrow yet more money (and pay more interest on that borrowed money) to cover the IOUs when they come due.

Of course this was no reason for tax cuts, because the "surplus" didn't really ever exist. To his credit, Al Gore advocated his infamous "lockbox" for SS revenues during the 2000 election - a capital idea - that would require an amendment to the SS Act of 1935. He proposed proper accrual accounting for the SS Trust Fund, basically. Most people had no clue what he was talking about.

lolwut


1999 Sept 30th Total Debt: $5,656,270,901,633.43
2000 Sept 29th Total Debt: $5,674,178,209,886.86

That's not a surplus...
 
2011-11-15 02:20:04 PM

EWreckedSean: I've tried to explain this one over and over again to no avail around here. All you have to do is look at the Treasury's debt numbers to see there was no surplus. You can find them here:

Link (new window)

1999 Sept 30th Total Debt: $5,656,270,901,633.43
2000 Sept 29th Total Debt: $5,674,178,209,886.86

Math 101 says if Debt increase by $17 billion there was no surplus


Farking interest, how does it work?
 
2011-11-15 02:20:49 PM

EWreckedSean: 1999 Sept 30th Total Debt: $5,656,270,901,633.43
2000 Sept 29th Total Debt: $5,674,178,209,886.86

That's not a surplus..


Ok, go learn the difference between debt and deficit and what an interest rate is, then come back and attempt to speak like an educated person.
 
2011-11-15 02:23:09 PM

Lionel Mandrake: Infernalist: lordlight: Why is the GOP obsessed with israel? Am I missing something about the republican mindset or it is just a talking point?

It's a religious thing.

A big part of the Evangelical belief system is that the Rapture and the return of Jesus Christ, Son of God, cannot happen until the world unites against Israel and moves to wipe it off the map. But, those who stand against that united Satanic army will be blessed by God when he returns to wipe that military force out. So, a lot of Evangelical Christians advocate supporting Israel no matter what because of Jesus and such.

The Israelis know about this mindset and find it ludicrous but still take full advantage of their religious lunacy by lobbying the Christian church network in America for political support.

Yup. And these are the assholes that dominate the Republican Party.

The GOP is dedicated to doing what's necessary to hasten the return of Christ. This is the prime motivation for their foreign and domestic policy.

And people still vote for these lunatics.


Not to mention they oppose things like "Planned Parenthood" because they feel it is the population control arm of the "New World Order". Another reason they oppose not only abortion but every form of birth control.
 
2011-11-15 02:23:13 PM

BojanglesPaladin: I find it interesting that nearly half of the candidates said they did NOT favor military action by the US against Iran, and yet this thread is full of "they wanna go to war!


Did they actually say such, or were they simply not asked? (Sometimes not all candidates are asked every question.)
 
2011-11-15 02:24:01 PM
You know, I'd throw up some links to help people understand, but some people just prefer to be ignorant.

None of which is relevant to the point at hand, that being the GOP sucks and is going to lose in spectacular fashion come next November.
 
2011-11-15 02:24:11 PM
Pat Buchanan sure is a libtard. Anyone who doesn't support arbitrary bombings and invasion of all Muslim countries without a plan is far too liberal to comment on that fine selection of republickin' candidates.

Too much thinkin', not enough prayin'. God is on our side, so we don't need to think. Ever. About anything.
 
2011-11-15 02:24:13 PM

cameroncrazy1984: EWreckedSean: I've tried to explain this one over and over again to no avail around here. All you have to do is look at the Treasury's debt numbers to see there was no surplus. You can find them here:

Link (new window)

1999 Sept 30th Total Debt: $5,656,270,901,633.43
2000 Sept 29th Total Debt: $5,674,178,209,886.86

Math 101 says if Debt increase by $17 billion there was no surplus

Farking interest, how does it work?


Yes, how does it work? In the US, interest on debt is included in our budget because it is an accrued cost just as much as anything else. You can't just ignore it and say well we had a surplus, you know, if you don't count the interest on debt.
 
2011-11-15 02:24:38 PM

cameroncrazy1984: Oh no, NEARLY half! So that means a majority of them want to go to war? Sounds like they want to go to war.


Once you throw out the 'red meat' candidates like Bachman, Santorum, Cain etc. who are never going to get the nomination anyways, one could argue that most of the viable candidates have a position that is no more 'war-like' than Obama's stated position on Iran.

Which (gasp!) makes much of the gnashing of teeth and rending of hair on this threwad kinda... silly.
 
2011-11-15 02:25:42 PM

cameroncrazy1984: EWreckedSean: 1999 Sept 30th Total Debt: $5,656,270,901,633.43
2000 Sept 29th Total Debt: $5,674,178,209,886.86

That's not a surplus..

Ok, go learn the difference between debt and deficit and what an interest rate is, then come back and attempt to speak like an educated person.


Try and understand that interest on debt is included in our annual budget moron.
 
2011-11-15 02:27:09 PM
4.bp.blogspot.com
Remember the last GOP candidate who ran on a foreign policy platform of no "nation building"?
 
2011-11-15 02:33:45 PM

BojanglesPaladin: one could argue that most of the viable candidates have a position that is no more 'war-like' than Obama's stated position on Iran.


Well, Obama's continuing of the Afghan debacle is pretty retarded and he mentioned no military options off the table with Iran just the other day so not sure if he should be the guy you want to use as an example of sane military policy.
 
2011-11-15 02:37:06 PM

Headso: BojanglesPaladin: one could argue that most of the viable candidates have a position that is no more 'war-like' than Obama's stated position on Iran.

Well, Obama's continuing of the Afghan debacle is pretty retarded and he mentioned no military options off the table with Iran just the other day so not sure if he should be the guy you want to use as an example of sane military policy.


Afghanistan is a righteous war. They didn't hand over OBL, so they got an asskicking as they deserved.

Now, getting 'out' is desired by all, I think. It's just doing so with a modicum of stability that's the problem.

And personally, 'not taking any options off the table' is a fairly sane and pragmatic approach.
 
2011-11-15 02:41:33 PM

Infernalist: Now, getting 'out' is desired by all, I think. It's just doing so with a modicum of stability that's the problem.


curious how you stabilize a pile of diarrhea...

Infernalist: And personally, 'not taking any options off the table' is a fairly sane and pragmatic approach.


I disagree, it's hyperbole that serves no purpose in actual negotiations. We won't be nuking Iran, we won't be infecting the country with bioweapons or dropping chemical weapons on them, these are options the military has and they are not on the table for dealing with Iran in its current state.
 
2011-11-15 02:47:14 PM

Headso: Infernalist: Now, getting 'out' is desired by all, I think. It's just doing so with a modicum of stability that's the problem.

curious how you stabilize a pile of diarrhea...

Infernalist: And personally, 'not taking any options off the table' is a fairly sane and pragmatic approach.

I disagree, it's hyperbole that serves no purpose in actual negotiations. We won't be nuking Iran, we won't be infecting the country with bioweapons or dropping chemical weapons on them, these are options the military has and they are not on the table for dealing with Iran in its current state.


Lol. Really? That is what you see when you read 'military options'? WMDs only? That's...quaint.

Yeah. lol
 
2011-11-15 02:49:39 PM

Infernalist: Headso: Infernalist: Now, getting 'out' is desired by all, I think. It's just doing so with a modicum of stability that's the problem.

curious how you stabilize a pile of diarrhea...

Infernalist: And personally, 'not taking any options off the table' is a fairly sane and pragmatic approach.

I disagree, it's hyperbole that serves no purpose in actual negotiations. We won't be nuking Iran, we won't be infecting the country with bioweapons or dropping chemical weapons on them, these are options the military has and they are not on the table for dealing with Iran in its current state.

Lol. Really? That is what you see when you read 'military options'? WMDs only? That's...quaint.

Yeah. lol


lol, yeah really... like no military options off the table includes those options, lol hehe!
 
2011-11-15 02:49:46 PM
We know they want to blow up Iran so what else do we need to know? I have heard that china is trying to develop a nuclear weapon so they need to be careful who they pick a fight with.
 
2011-11-15 02:52:17 PM

EWreckedSean: cameroncrazy1984: EWreckedSean: 1999 Sept 30th Total Debt: $5,656,270,901,633.43
2000 Sept 29th Total Debt: $5,674,178,209,886.86

That's not a surplus..

Ok, go learn the difference between debt and deficit and what an interest rate is, then come back and attempt to speak like an educated person.

Try and understand that interest on debt is included in our annual budget moron.


Hi, CSB, check this out!

Link (new window)

//smiles
 
2011-11-15 02:53:03 PM

Headso: Well, Obama's continuing of the Afghan debacle is pretty retarded and he mentioned no military options off the table with Iran just the other day so not sure if he should be the guy you want to use as an example of sane military policy.


To be fair, as a nation, we should NEVER say that military action is 100% out fo the question. (Although it shoudl be left unsaid if at all possible). Further, It would have been insanely stupid and reckless to just yank troops out of Afghanistan. He took the priudent course and just followed GW and Patreaus' schedule.

I take more of an issue with Obama's radical increase in automated assasinations across the borders of sovereign nations, and entangling us in the Ligya affair (but not Syria and others) without congressional approval.

Frankly, Obama has been far more bloodthirsty and reckless in some aspects of his foreign policy than his campaigning would have suggested.

So yes, he may not be the 'gold' standard, but on the issue of Iran, he is perfectly sane.
 
2011-11-15 02:54:16 PM

Headso: Infernalist: Headso: Infernalist: Now, getting 'out' is desired by all, I think. It's just doing so with a modicum of stability that's the problem.

curious how you stabilize a pile of diarrhea...

Infernalist: And personally, 'not taking any options off the table' is a fairly sane and pragmatic approach.

I disagree, it's hyperbole that serves no purpose in actual negotiations. We won't be nuking Iran, we won't be infecting the country with bioweapons or dropping chemical weapons on them, these are options the military has and they are not on the table for dealing with Iran in its current state.

Lol. Really? That is what you see when you read 'military options'? WMDs only? That's...quaint.

Yeah. lol

lol, yeah really... like no military options off the table includes those options, lol hehe!


Lol okay, lemme explain a few things to you, cause you're flailing about so...foolishly.

WMDs are, from a U.S. point of view, a strategic and political weapon. They're not designed to be used on a field of battle. They exist as a deterrent against similar weapons and nothing more. It's the U.S. saying "If you use WMDs on us, you will cease to exist as a nation."

So, they don't really 'count' when you mention 'military options'. Not unless Iran actually 'uses' a nuke or some sort of weapon like that on us, then they'll become a glow-in-the-dark parking lot.

I hope this helped you understand reality a bit better. Not that I think you'll listen to any of it, of course.

This is Fark.
 
2011-11-15 02:59:40 PM

BojanglesPaladin: Further, It would have been insanely stupid and reckless to just yank troops out of Afghanistan.


why because it might collapse into a third world shiathole run by war lords and religious zealots?
 
Displayed 50 of 213 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report