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 (3 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 08:19:21 PM  
I actually agree with Pat Buchanan?

images3.wikia.nocookie.net
 
2011-11-15 08:22:13 PM  

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.
 
2011-11-15 08:43:46 PM  

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!
 
2011-11-15 08:50:22 PM  

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

Holy crap, I even agree with him on 99% of what he says.

Now I have to go shower.

But he's right on nearly everything, and if he's saying the attack on Iraq was bogus and we need to watch out for something similar for Iran...maybe we should listen (this time).


Don't feel bad. When sensible people agree with paleoconservative old f*cks like Pat, it's purely accidental and undoubtedly for different reasons.
 
2011-11-15 08:51:32 PM  

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?
 
2011-11-15 08:51:53 PM  
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.
 
2011-11-16 01:59:56 AM  

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
 
2011-11-16 10:52:03 AM  

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.
 
2011-11-16 12:54:56 PM  

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.
 
2011-11-16 02:25:25 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: 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...


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. If the evidence meets whatever standard the law sets, the person is extradited. The US offered NO evidence (to this day, the FBI says it HAS no evidence that Bin Laden was involved in 9/11).

"On September 21, the Taliban responded to the ultimatum, promising that if the U.S. could bring evidence that bin Laden was guilty, they would hand him over, stating that they had no evidence linking him to the September 11 attacks." (new window)

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

"Former CIA official Robert Grenier confirmed the offers, but said the US was not interested because they considered the offers 'a ploy.'" (new window)
 
2011-11-16 02:42:14 PM  

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
 
2011-11-16 02:57:30 PM  

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.
 
2011-11-17 10:58:35 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: 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.


Really? Would the US hand over a suspect to a foreign government without an extradition hearing? No. If the government requesting extradition refused to attend the hearing or provide sufficient evidence to warrant an extradition, there would be no extradition. That's the law here, and that's the law there. And, do you know why we didn't attend the hearing and present our evidence? Because there was no evidence.

Here's Dick Cheney (March 29, 2006): "We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama Bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming." (new window).

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.

He most certainly did not (new window). That was just another Bush lie.

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.


The eve of war? Before 9/11? Are you sure about that?
 
Displayed 13 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 »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report