I actually agree with Pat Buchanan?

randomjsa: Obama: Biggest deficits in history, wracking up more debt in four years than Bush did in 8.

But its the Republicans that "bankrupted" us?

Or Harry Reid and other Democrats throwing a tantrum because the Republicans wanted to cut a mere 100 billion in spending... decrying it as "draconian"?

Or Obama appointing a deficit commission and then ignoring what they said completely?

Or the passage of ObamaCare, which we now know is going to cost us an absolute fortune?

Blaming stimulus packages to jumpstart the economy is like accusing doctors of electrocuting the patient rather than seeing the bigger problem of the heart attack.

BojanglesPaladin: CapnBlues: I'd argue bogus rather than righteous.

I suppose you could, but an an officially sanctioned organization in Afghanistan murdered 3,000 Americans in an unprovoked attack. By ANY standard, the United States is well within its legal and moral rights to launch a military attack. This is what I mean when I say 'righteous'.

right·eous [ rchəss ] 1.strictly observant of morality: always behaving according to a religious or moral code
2.justifiable: considered to be correct or justifiable
3.responding to injustice: arising from the perception of great injustice or wrongdoing

Otherwise I would have said it was "biatchin' awesome :)

we sure showed those Afghans for what those Saudis did.

And ended Al Qaeda once and for all.

Righteous!

FishingWithFredo: Geotpf: The stimulus money was spent 100% in the good ol' USA. Either it was spent on new roads and bridges and water systems and power plants and airports (improving the overall standard of living of the country), or spent on tax cuts and unemployment benefits, all of which is respent in the domestic economy.

Except when

it wasn't.

Hmm, I wonder what those weirdo hippies at those "Occupy" protests have been whining about. Why don't they get off our lawn and get jobs?

And it made everything good right? I mean it was righteous to cause more suffering and it was not as if negotiation couldn't have produced better and cheaper results. Righteousness. That's better than clever or proportional. 10 years on, we're righteous.Why can't the Afghans see that? We gotta give them dictionaries. Show them the definition. They'll all be like, OK that justifies my kid's death, I can't be bitter now. Because I elected that government that sheltered Al qaeda, so I deserve this.

nigeman: And it made everything good right? I mean it was righteous to cause more suffering and it was not as if negotiation couldn't have produced better and cheaper results. Righteousness. That's better than clever or proportional. 10 years on, we're righteous.Why can't the Afghans see that? We gotta give them dictionaries. Show them the definition. They'll all be like, OK that justifies my kid's death, I can't be bitter now. Because I elected that government that sheltered Al qaeda, so I deserve this.

Good one. But the people here might not get what you mean... you know... the righteous ones.

/Ron Paul

FishingWithFredo: Geotpf: The stimulus money was spent 100% in the good ol' USA. Either it was spent on new roads and bridges and water systems and power plants and airports (improving the overall standard of living of the country), or spent on tax cuts and unemployment benefits, all of which is respent in the domestic economy.

Except when

it wasn't.

Your examples are really weak. In both cases, the money was, in fact, spent in America. In the first case, the money was spent on engineering in America, although the final product was built overseas. In the second case, they hired foreigners to do the job, but the job was done in America, therefore said foreigners probably bought food and lodging and other stuff from Americans in America with some/all of their wages. If that's the best you can do, you've proved my point.

CapnBlues: Thanks for being a good sport. :)

Quite welcome. Thanks for being rational.

Headso: but after 10 years of it not getting any better maybe it is time to abandon that pipe dream.

You may have noticed that we ARE leaving?

LIke, it was decided before Obama even got elected?

nigeman: we sure showed those Afghans for what those Saudis did.

And ended Al Qaeda once and for all.

Sigh. Way to miss the point. The whole "But they were mostly Saudis !" thing is just dumb and unrelated to my post.

A state sanctoned organization in a foreign country launched an unprovoked attack on US soil and murdered thousands of innocent Americans. Once the Taliban refused to hand them over, and officially protected them, there was never any option but a military attack against that country. No rational or reasonable person has a hard time with this. We destroyed the training camps and the country's government in a matter of months.

Unfortunately, once we destroyed the government, we had to help build them a new one. Because we're good guys like that. Previous countries tried to take it over, we just wanted to give the country back to the people instead of a bunch of warlords. And that takes a loooong time, and there is little likelihood of pure success, much less a guarantee of success.

Even in Germany and Japan which were stable countries with a homogenous people, culture, language and an already well established central authority system it took many years. Afghanistan is not like that. As I said, ask Russia, Ask Brittain. The BEST we could hope for is to get it propped up long enough for us to get clear before it collapses again. At least we are trying something different this time: A Democratic central government.

shamanwest: Satanic_Hamster: shamanwest: This, sir, is what is wrong with political discourse today. Honest concern is expressed and you immediately bring up the worst race in existence for a false comparison.

I hope you are proud of yourself.

What are you talking about? No one brought up the Dutch.

Sigh.

The Daleks are the worst race in all existence.

The Irish are the worst race on earth.

The Dutch are just pathetic.

"There go the Belgians again!
They're worse than the Burmese"
-Dana Gould

DrPainMD:

DrPainMD: Whoa, there. They DID offer to hand him over, and their extradition procedure was very similar to US extradition law: a hearing is held and the country wishing the extradition presents its evidence.

Not sure if serious.

Everyone understood this to be a stalling tactic. Additionally, the events of 9/11 are not analogous to someone accused of drug trafficking, and an 'extradition hearing' by the Taliban was universally understood to be farce. And the 'no evidence' malarky? Obama himself claimed responsibility.

Afghanistan even offered to hand him over BEFORE 9/11 and was turned down.

Everyone understood this to be a stalling tactic on the eve of war.