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
 
2011-11-15 08:42:11 AM
That was the first sensible article I've seen from Pat Buchanan.
 
2011-11-15 09:22:02 AM
Becoming again implies they ever changed.
 
2011-11-15 09:24:08 AM

Aarontology: Becoming again implies they ever changed.


Touche, sir.
 
2011-11-15 09:48:09 AM
But if we don't invade their countries and kill their leaders how will we convert them to Christianity?
 
2011-11-15 09:54:29 AM
So the candidates leading the GOP nomination process advocate starting a war against a country that hasn't threatened us in order to eliminate the weapons of mass destruction our intelligence agencies claim they posses? Do I have that right? Am I to assume as well that such a war would be funded by promissory notes to China?
 
2011-11-15 09:56:06 AM

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


sometimes he pops out of his senility to say something that actually makes sense.
 
2011-11-15 10:45:52 AM

ignatiusst: So the candidates leading the GOP nomination process advocate starting a war against a country that hasn't threatened us in order to eliminate the weapons of mass destruction our intelligence agencies claim they posses? Do I have that right? Am I to assume as well that such a war would be funded by promissory notes to China?


Well yeah, what do you expect them to do, raise taxes on the wealthy? Everyone knows that's impossible.
 
2011-11-15 10:53:41 AM

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


wait! WHAT ?
that article was written by a democrat!!
 
2011-11-15 10:57:27 AM

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

wait! WHAT ?
that article was written by a democrat!!


After his fellow Republicans see this, that might be the case.
 
2011-11-15 11:03:42 AM

CruiserTwelve: But if we don't invade their countries and kill their leaders how will we convert them to Christianity?


With bombs. Jesus bombs.
 
2011-11-15 11:05:15 AM
This feels like a trick question. They only think war isn't called for when a Democrat calls for it. And even then their opinion becomes "your war shouldn't happen, and it's way too small!"
 
2011-11-15 11:05:40 AM

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.
 
2011-11-15 11:06:54 AM
We need to stay out of the middle east so that we can stop the most endless war of the all that's bankrupting us:

The War on Poverty:
46 years and counting
250,000 dead Americans
$10 trillion spent
4 major American Cities Destroyed
 
2011-11-15 11:09:07 AM
We should just nuke the rest of the planet to be completely sure that that only people left are freedom-loving Americans.
 
2011-11-15 11:10:24 AM
Good stuff. Glad to see a little actual sense from a right-wing pundit. Keep it up.
 
2011-11-15 11:10:56 AM
Buchanan goes RINO?
 
2011-11-15 11:11:07 AM

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


It's gotta be a trap.
 
2011-11-15 11:11:10 AM

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


You know who else wanted to exterminate all other life...
 
2011-11-15 11:11:46 AM

Satanic_Hamster: You know who else wanted to exterminate all other life...


The Daleks?
 
2011-11-15 11:11:53 AM
'Becoming?'
 
2011-11-15 11:12:07 AM

make me some tea: Good stuff. Glad to see a little actual sense from a right-wing pundit. Keep it up.


www.ackbar.org
 
2011-11-15 11:13:33 AM

cameroncrazy1984: ignatiusst: So the candidates leading the GOP nomination process advocate starting a war against a country that hasn't threatened us in order to eliminate the weapons of mass destruction our intelligence agencies claim they posses? Do I have that right? Am I to assume as well that such a war would be funded by promissory notes to China?

Well yeah, what do you expect them to do, raise taxes on the wealthy? Everyone knows that's impossibleunpossible.


FIFM
 
2011-11-15 11:15:20 AM

IrateShadow: Satanic_Hamster: You know who else wanted to exterminate all other life...

The Daleks?


Exactly. And like the Daleks, Americans are getting so fat and lazy that we'll be defeated by a simple but effective technology; stairs.
 
2011-11-15 11:18:17 AM
I'm sorry, the only way we can funnel large amounts of defense spending to large corporate interests and not actually spend any of it on the infrastructure of this country is to gin up a convenient war so we're building bridges over there instead of building them here. Plus, we get to blow up those bridges later on, so it's a win-win situation.
 
2011-11-15 11:18:48 AM
I have noticed the right wing turds having been mentioning Iran more, Even the ironic peace prize recipient was saying no military options were off the table.
 
2011-11-15 11:18:54 AM

IrateShadow: Satanic_Hamster: You know who else wanted to exterminate all other life...

The Daleks?


Berserkers.

/Though to be fair, goodlife wouldn't be killed immediately.
 
2011-11-15 11:19:10 AM
I find myself agreeing with Pat Buchanan. Now I feel dirty.
 
2011-11-15 11:19:10 AM

Satanic_Hamster: Exactly. And like the Daleks, Americans are getting so fat and lazy that we'll be defeated by a simple but effective technology; stairs.


Guy on Hoverround: "You don't expect me to actually climb those? Whar's the elevator?"
 
2011-11-15 11:20:21 AM
B-b-but I thought it was 0bamao handing 0bamao money to "those people" that bankrupted the country after the glorious free-market paradise that GWB left after his revolutionary, freedom-spreading two terms in office! DAMN YOU TAXBAMA!
 
2011-11-15 11:20:40 AM
Seems there have been a surprising number of articles the last few days of GOP'ers bashing the GOP and their overreaching.

Almost like a coordinated effort to make the message more center based and less far right. A push to get independents and moderates back.

Don't be fooled by the fools.

Tom Coburn, Pat Buchanan, etc.

These few pushing a new narrative are not to be believed that those they support for higher offices would follow through on such ideas if elected.
 
2011-11-15 11:22:09 AM

DarwiOdrade: make me some tea: Good stuff. Glad to see a little actual sense from a right-wing pundit. Keep it up.

[www.ackbar.org image 277x360]


Probably.
 
2011-11-15 11:22:53 AM
Fark that, I don't want to get nuked over Israel.
 
2011-11-15 11:23:40 AM
Under the Constitution, said Paul, no president has the right to launch an unprovoked attack on Iran without congressional authorization.


If only that were enforced.
 
2011-11-15 11:23:49 AM

IrateShadow: Satanic_Hamster: You know who else wanted to exterminate all other life...

The Daleks?


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.
 
2011-11-15 11:24:00 AM
BS. It was welfare recipients with fancy rims who got a loan for a house but refused to pay on it that caused the crash.
 
2011-11-15 11:25:13 AM
Don't be silly, Pat. When Republicans are actually in charge, they can recklessly spend as much as they want without their base complaining. For more proof, see the George W. Bush years.

Spending only kills jobs when Democrats do it.
 
2011-11-15 11:26:21 AM
Can't see or read anything about Pat Buchanan without thinking of this

can't find a good video of it.

Patty-Patty Buch-Buch!

/make some valid point the ole curmudgeon does.
 
2011-11-15 11:26:22 AM
Why is the GOP obsessed with israel? Am I missing something about the republican mindset or it is just a talking point?
 
2011-11-15 11:29:20 AM

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?
 
2011-11-15 11:30:01 AM
i.imgur.com
 
2011-11-15 11:30:04 AM

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


There is a faction of GOP fundies who feel that will be the source of their End-of-Days prophecy.
 
2011-11-15 11:30:31 AM

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


It figures in with the "End Times" malarkey.
 
2011-11-15 11:32:46 AM

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


Having Teh Joos in the Holy Land is one of the prerequisites for Jeebus coming back.
 
2011-11-15 11:32:57 AM

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

There is a faction of GOP fundies who feel that will be the source of their End-of-Days prophecy.


Wait, are they serious? I read both comments about that and I just don't understand how a grown adult wanting to run a country would seriously buy into this.
 
2011-11-15 11:34:46 AM

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


Dispensational premillenialism.
 
2011-11-15 11:34:52 AM

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.
 
2011-11-15 11:38:39 AM

monoski: Buchanan goes RINO?


Yup. Just waiting for some teatard or neocon hack to drop the RINO bomb on him.
 
2011-11-15 11:39:37 AM

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.
 
2011-11-15 11:39:38 AM

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.
 
2011-11-15 11:39:57 AM

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

There is a faction of GOP fundies who feel that will be the source of their End-of-Days prophecy.

Wait, are they serious? I read both comments about that and I just don't understand how a grown adult wanting to run a country would seriously buy into this.


They don't necessarily do. They do it for the type of voter they are courting. A large enough block of those voters believe in end-times prophesy enough to matter. Once you know the types of dog-whistle term and beliefs that appeals to rapturists, you start seeing it everywhere in the speeches and ads of right-wing politicians, especially those in the South.
 
2011-11-15 11:40:37 AM
I just feel the need to post this part again.

And 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.

-- Pat Freaking Buchanon


Suspect quote may come in handy.
 
2011-11-15 11:41:28 AM

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?


dorkshelf.com

GET OUT, NOOB!
 
2011-11-15 11:43:04 AM
Not that the wars were a good idea, but the notion that the wars alone "bankrupted" the country is facile. Only a shallow thinker or a cynical partisan would push it. Especially considering that both parties are demonstrably "the war party."
 
2011-11-15 11:44:43 AM

canyoneer: Not that the wars were a good idea, but the notion that the wars alone "bankrupted" the country is facile. Only a shallow thinker or a cynical partisan would push it. Especially considering that both parties are demonstrably "the war party."


So, vote Republican.
 
2011-11-15 11:45:52 AM
Ron Paul, the only truly anti-war candidate to have graced our national stage since I don't know when. Still crazy like a bed bug. Still living in a blimp above Texas. Still the best chance the Republicans have at winning the big race in 2012.
 
2011-11-15 11:48:28 AM

Freaky_Sold_Mustard: Ron Paul, the only truly anti-war candidate to have graced our national stage since I don't know when.


Yeah, that's why he's been running all those ads on Fark proclaiming himself as "The Military's choice for President".
 
2011-11-15 11:48:36 AM

ignatiusst: So the candidates leading the GOP nomination process advocate starting a war against a country that hasn't threatened us in order to eliminate the weapons of mass destruction our intelligence agencies claim they posses? Do I have that right? Am I to assume as well that such a war would be funded by promissory notes to China?


Whoa.
Deja-Va-Va-va-va-va-va-vu
 
2011-11-15 11:49:12 AM

Infernalist: So, vote Republican.


So, vote against the war party. I know that's a highly complex and almost inscrutable concept, but if you mull it over for a few weeks, it might soak in.
 
2011-11-15 11:49:46 AM

Freaky_Sold_Mustard: Still the best chance the Republicans have at winning the big race in 2012.


That is to say, if the big race were an online poll.
 
2011-11-15 11:49:56 AM

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


Pat Buchanan has been 100% correct about the neocons and the GOP "war party" since long before it was cool. His passionate and articulate opposition to the Iraq invasion was, literally, better than I could have done. And his position on the matter has remained consistent for 10 years.

But on nearly every other subject, the man is 100% wrong. And insufferable.
 
2011-11-15 11:50:38 AM

canyoneer: Not that the wars were a good idea, but the notion that the wars alone "bankrupted" the country is facile. Only a shallow thinker or a cynical partisan would push it. Especially considering that both parties are demonstrably "the war party."


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?
 
2011-11-15 11:50:38 AM

Satanic_Hamster: IrateShadow: Satanic_Hamster: You know who else wanted to exterminate all other life...

The Daleks?

Exactly. And like the Daleks, Americans are getting so fat and lazy that we'll be defeated by a simple but effective technology; stairs.


Daleks don't climb stairs, they level the building!
 
2011-11-15 11:51:14 AM
If the RNC runs a bowl of jello salad for president, it has my vote.

I'm voting ABO!! Anyone but Obama!

Vote early, Vote Often, Vote Pro-Life!
 
2011-11-15 11:51:14 AM

Freaky_Sold_Mustard: Ron Paul, the only truly anti-war candidate to have graced our national stage since I don't know when. Still crazy like a bed bug. Still living in a blimp above Texas. Still the best chance the Republicans have at winning the big race in 2012.


The best chance that the GOP has for winning the White House is Huntsman and he'll never get through the primaries.

The man needs to go ahead and lead the charge to form the Real Republican Party. This would be similar to how the Ghostbusters had to become The Real Ghostbusters when they made a cartoon because some jackholes had already made a crappy Ghostbusters cartoon.
 
2011-11-15 11:51:46 AM

canyoneer: Only a shallow thinker or a cynical partisan would push it.


It being the covert assassination of Iranian scientists, or it being the unwarranted occupation of Iraq with no exit strategy?
 
2011-11-15 11:53:23 AM

PistolBob: If the RNC runs a bowl of jello salad for president, it has my vote.

I'm voting ABO!! Anyone but Obama!

Vote early, Vote Often, Vote Pro-Life!


YouTube called. It needs its most prolific commenter.
 
2011-11-15 11:54:51 AM

canyoneer: Infernalist: So, vote Republican.

So, vote against the war party. I know that's a highly complex and almost inscrutable concept, but if you mull it over for a few weeks, it might soak in.


This is like saying 'vote against the tax party!'

War is a tool. It has its place and time and can be used effectively and efficiently to accomplish a goal that is, otherwise, unattainable.

The tax system, likewise, is a tool that can be used effectively and efficiently to accomplish a goal that is otherwise unattainable.

Now, if you're saying we should vote against the party in government that rushes to a war-mindset and seeks to use military force at any and every opportunity, then yes, we should definitely vote against the Republicans.
 
2011-11-15 11:56:31 AM
"Becoming again"?

They've been The Party of War and International Bullying since I was old enough to vote, at any rate.

They are, apparently, only against war when a black guy is in the white house...
 
2011-11-15 11:57:22 AM

canyoneer: Not that the wars were a good idea, but the notion that the wars alone "bankrupted" the country is facile. Only a shallow thinker or a cynical partisan would push it. Especially considering that both parties are demonstrably "the war party."


Good use of the word facile. Right to point out that yes, the Iraq war and the Afghanistan war did not happen in a vacuum. But really, if you had to point to any one thing that was significantly different before and after the recession hit, you might say "Oh hey how bout them trillion dollar wars, maybe they had some significant influence?"
Yeah, if I was an investigator looking over the data for some kind of cause and effect correlation, with out doing any research, it would be asinine for me to say "Oh yeah they were the cause of the recession." But it would be even more asinine to ignore them, or rather, not suspect them as the primary cause. Pretty much the elephant that broke the camels back imo.
 
2011-11-15 11:57:29 AM

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.


He's an Ultranationalist. This means he doesn't see the logic in bombing countries on the other side of the planet for vague goals (or merely to support other countries (that is, Israel)) if it costs American blood or treasure. Of course, he happens to be completely correct on this particular topic.
 
2011-11-15 12:00:07 PM

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

wait! WHAT ?
that article was written by a democrat!!


Oh hell no! We don't want him. He's yours to keep, GOP!
 
2011-11-15 12:00:08 PM
Regarding Iran and nukes I have read the following as compelling reasons for Iran to not build nukes but have the preparations to make them as a last resort.

1) The theocracts have said that nukes are an unholy weapon and that those that use them(America) are cursed by God.

2) Iran does a great deal of trade with China and Russia who have both tried to mitigate sanctions against Iran by aruging their nuclear efforts are peaceful. If Iran suddenly shows it has nukes then Iran loses 2 profitable trading partners whose money Iran needs and without which they would have a recession and civil unrest.

3) If Iran did have nukes, it would compell saudi arabia to get into the game and build its own nukes thus starting an arms race in the mideast that Iran won't profit from.

4) Outside intervention: US, Isreal, others would make it a nightmare for them if they joined the nuclear club.

Regarding the end times nonsense, puzzlme me this: grant as a premise that there is a prophecy about armmegeddon, antichrist, Hell's forces reeling in defeat, and so on, why on earth would hell even get invovled? Seriously if you are scripted as the loser why show up on the battlefield. The antichrist is either smart enough to realize such a battle would have a foregone conclusion and would wisely choose to stay at home with netflix or the antichrist is so dumb as to not even be a threat in the first place. This entire end times fantasy is absurd.
 
2011-11-15 12:00:22 PM

monoski: Buchanan goes RINO?


He's barely a Republican in the first place; kind of like Ron Paul. People forget he ran for President (on the Reform Party ticket) against Republican George W. Bush in 2000.

Now, that doesn't mean he (and Paul) aren't conservatives; they just don't parrot the Republican Party line 100% of the time.
 
2011-11-15 12:01:27 PM
Vietnam is a good cop out for Republican dickweeds.

They always say Kennedy started it(actually Harry Truman did), so it isn't their fault, but at the same time the hippies and the media didn't let them win.
 
2011-11-15 12:04:10 PM
...and then let's get outraged and all vote for the same old War Party Democrats who bankrupted the nation.
 
2011-11-15 12:04:26 PM
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.
 
2011-11-15 12:04:36 PM
Philip Francis Queeg: In several polls military members supported him over other candidates. Most service members don't want to be in Iraq/Iran. Paul supports the military, he just thinks they should be over here as protection, not in other countries.
 
2011-11-15 12:04:59 PM

thismomentinblackhistory: Freaky_Sold_Mustard: Still the best chance the Republicans have at winning the big race in 2012.

That is to say, if the big race were an online poll.


He's the only candidate I can see siphoning any votes away from the Democrats. He might be as nutty as marzipan, but frankly, if he gets the nomination, Republicans will have to vote for him; some Democrats will vote for him because they (and myself being one) see him as an unembedded outsider.I don't consider myself a Republican or a Democrat, I consider my self a rational person with limited options, so would I vote for him over Fartbongo? I can't answer as of right now. I know he is crazier than a shiat house rat, but frankly, he is consistent. I don't think he would have the influence to get any of his moon-battier policies into play, but I also think he could set some limited but accomplish-able goals that he could get done in four years. I would vote for him just because I have high confidence he would put a lot of effort into reigning in military spending. I wouldn't vote for him because I have an inherit mistrust of idealists, as I see their world view as too simplistic to grasp an accurate picture.
 
2011-11-15 12:07:10 PM

Gergesa: Regarding Iran and nukes I have read the following as compelling reasons for Iran to not build nukes but have the preparations to make them as a last resort.

1) The theocracts have said that nukes are an unholy weapon and that those that use them(America) are cursed by God.

2) Iran does a great deal of trade with China and Russia who have both tried to mitigate sanctions against Iran by aruging their nuclear efforts are peaceful. If Iran suddenly shows it has nukes then Iran loses 2 profitable trading partners whose money Iran needs and without which they would have a recession and civil unrest.

3) If Iran did have nukes, it would compell saudi arabia to get into the game and build its own nukes thus starting an arms race in the mideast that Iran won't profit from.

4) Outside intervention: US, Isreal, others would make it a nightmare for them if they joined the nuclear club.

Regarding the end times nonsense, puzzlme me this: grant as a premise that there is a prophecy about armmegeddon, antichrist, Hell's forces reeling in defeat, and so on, why on earth would hell even get invovled? Seriously if you are scripted as the loser why show up on the battlefield. The antichrist is either smart enough to realize such a battle would have a foregone conclusion and would wisely choose to stay at home with netflix or the antichrist is so dumb as to not even be a threat in the first place. This entire end times fantasy is absurd.


According to Evangelical logic, the Devil is so proud that he thinks he can beat God. So, even though he's going up against the omnipotent Creator of all things, the Devil thinks he can win still.

Don't ask me, I don't preach the stuff. I just had to listen to it for 18 years.
 
2011-11-15 12:07:11 PM

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.


Buchanan's not running. Romney and Perry and Cain and Gingrich are. One of those four will be going up against Obama in 2012, and they are all "holy rollers", IMHO.
 
2011-11-15 12:09:29 PM

Jake Havechek: Vietnam is a good cop out for Republican dickweeds.

They always say Kennedy started it(actually Harry Truman did), so it isn't their fault, but at the same time the hippies and the media didn't let them win.


Actually NATO and the French started Vietnam. We were asked in after they realized they couldn't handle it.
 
2011-11-15 12:10:37 PM

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.
 
2011-11-15 12:10:59 PM

JLEM: canyoneer: Only a shallow thinker or a cynical partisan would push it.

It being the covert assassination of Iranian scientists, or it being the unwarranted occupation of Iraq with no exit strategy?


If we (or Israel) are actually killing Iranian scientists (they do seem to die in car accidents and unexplained explosions a lot, but there's little proof that the US/Israel (or somebody else) are actually killing them), that's orders of magnitute better than bombing the country overtly.
 
2011-11-15 12:12:29 PM

Infernalist: flip-flopping Governor


dude, Jim Carrey was a senator.
 
2011-11-15 12:12:31 PM

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.
 
2011-11-15 12:15:43 PM

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.
 
2011-11-15 12:19:58 PM

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


When I find myself agreeing with Buchanan I always think about things one more time.

But this time he appears correct. Freaky.
 
2011-11-15 12:20:50 PM

canyoneer: Not that the wars were a good idea, but the notion that the wars alone "bankrupted" the country is facile. Only a shallow thinker or a cynical partisan would push it. Especially considering that both parties are demonstrably "the war party."


You're right, the Bush tax cuts contributed too.
 
2011-11-15 12:21:43 PM

pxsteel: Jake Havechek: Vietnam is a good cop out for Republican dickweeds.

They always say Kennedy started it(actually Harry Truman did), so it isn't their fault, but at the same time the hippies and the media didn't let them win.

Actually NATO and the French started Vietnam. We were asked in after they realized they couldn't handle it.


Dien Bien Phu falls, Rock Around the Clock.
 
2011-11-15 12:24:05 PM
Now he's done it.

Next up on FOX News - Pat Buchanan (D) hates America. . . .
 
2011-11-15 12:24:08 PM

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.
 
2011-11-15 12:26:28 PM
Perhaps I blinked, when did the GOP take a break from being the war party?


On a side note, I know several wonderful, friendly, loving people who are Republican. If the candidates more closely resembled the people who vote for them, we would live in a much improved world. The situation flumoxes me.
 
2011-11-15 12:28:56 PM

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.


Obama is not a drooling idiot like Bush. Nor is the war in Iraq in full swing. And, gee, Obama actually killed Bin Laden.

The source of the unpopularity of the incumbent is irrelevant. You can't beat somebody with nobody. All of the possible Republican canidates are at least as flawed as Kerry was. So, if both sides suck, the tie goes to the incumbent.
 
2011-11-15 12:29:22 PM

ignatiusst: So the candidates leading the GOP nomination process advocate starting a war against a country that hasn't threatened us in order to eliminate the weapons of mass destruction our intelligence agencies claim they posses? Do I have that right? Am I to assume as well that such a war would be funded by promissory notes to China?


Seems to me, that they have lost a bit of credibility with the WMD thing.
Just sayin.
 
2011-11-15 12:31:27 PM

Rapmaster2000: St_Francis_P: That was the first sensible article I've seen from Pat Buchanan.

It's gotta be a trap.


Actually, Pat's been doing this for years. He's a Paleoconservative who never got over Woodrow Wilson. He's a vicious opponent of Neocons, referring to them as "Right-Wing Trotskyites." I've seen criticism of the Bush Administration from him that would make Keith Olbermann blush. But his isolationism has a significant xenophobic element too.
 
2011-11-15 12:31:53 PM

Philip Francis Queeg: Freaky_Sold_Mustard: Ron Paul, the only truly anti-war candidate to have graced our national stage since I don't know when.

Yeah, that's why he's been running all those ads on Fark proclaiming himself as "The Military's choice for President".


I haven't seen those ads, but maybe he is the Militarys' choice for President. Maybe some folks in the Military are tired of being deployed, oh say, 47 times and really don't want to be deployed to Iran.
 
2011-11-15 12:31:59 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.


The problem with that, is the Corporations that run this shindig won't be able to farm out their slave neighbor labor needs.

Think of the Stock Holders!
 
2011-11-15 12:32:47 PM

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.
 
2011-11-15 12:33:19 PM
Remind me, folks. These are the same people that claim Obama fails at foreign policy by letting France and Britain lead the attacks against Libya at the cost of 0 American lives?
 
2011-11-15 12:37:09 PM

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


He's a pretty straight up guy for a religious, racist whackaloon. I don't agree with him mostly, but I find his honesty admirable.
 
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?
 
2011-11-15 02:59:51 PM
Meh, Buchanan's always been a hardline isolationist.
 
2011-11-15 03:07:00 PM

Infernalist: So, they don't really 'count' when you mention 'military options'


I like how you can say something this stupid and yet be condescending, your mom must have given you plenty of misplaced positive reinforcement to have such a large yet unwarranted ego ;)
 
2011-11-15 03:09:47 PM
0.tqn.com

Just sayin.
 
2011-11-15 03:11:53 PM

Headso: Infernalist: So, they don't really 'count' when you mention 'military options'

I like how you can say something this stupid and yet be condescending, your mom must have given you plenty of misplaced positive reinforcement to have such a large yet unwarranted ego ;)


And I'm sure you can point to a single case where WMDs were used on the field of battle, treated as anything other than a deterrent, and/or show any sign whatsoever of having a relevant bit of reality to show that I'm wrong?

Bonus points: You can't use Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

And my mom never gave me much of anything.

Your mom, on the other hand, gave me plenty.
 
2011-11-15 03:15:41 PM

Headso: why because it might collapse into a third world shiathole run by war lords and religious zealots?


Pretty much, yeah. We would have had the Taliban and Al Queda type terrorist camps back up and running before the shadows of our departing planes passed the border.

It's still likely to happen of course. Ask Russia, ask Brittain. But there is a better chance of leaving a stable government in charge. This way it's like 10% instead of 2%. Soo.. that's good.
 
2011-11-15 03:17:14 PM

coeyagi: 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


Yes, forget that the US Treasury shows the debt increasing every single year of the Clinton years right? Tell you what, let's look at FactCheck's article.

This part I especially liked:

Clinton's large budget surpluses also owe much to the Social Security tax on payrolls. Social Security taxes now bring in more than the cost of current benefits, and the "Social Security surplus" makes the total deficit or surplus figures look better than they would if Social Security wasn't counted. But even if we remove Social Security from the equation, there was a surplus of $1.9 billion in fiscal 1999 and $86.4 billion in fiscal 2000. So any way you count it, the federal budget was balanced and the deficit was erased, if only for a while.

I love how FactCheck doesn't realize that Social Security is only one of the trust funds that the US government borrows from. So let's look at 2000:

Social Security: $152.3 billion
Civil Service Retirement Fund: $30.9 billion
Federal supplementary medical insurance Trust fund: $18.5 billion
Federal Hospital Insurance Trust Fund: $15.0 billion
Unemployment Trust Fund: $9.0 billion
Military Retirement Fund: $8.2 billion
Transportation Trust Funds: $3.8 billion
Employee life insurance & retirement: $1.8 billion
Other: $7.0 billion
TOTAL: $246.5 billion borrowed from Federal trust funds (oops, not just $152.3 billion FactCheck)

Which is why, as I have pointed out:

1999 Sept 30th Total Debt: $5,656,270,901,633.43
2000 Sept 29th Total Debt: $5,674,178,209,886.86
 
2011-11-15 03:17:14 PM
Ok, which one of you jokers hacked townhall?
 
2011-11-15 03:18:58 PM

Gergesa: Regarding the end times nonsense, puzzlme me this: grant as a premise that there is a prophecy about armmegeddon, antichrist, Hell's forces reeling in defeat, and so on, why on earth would hell even get invovled? Seriously if you are scripted as the loser why show up on the battlefield. The antichrist is either smart enough to realize such a battle would have a foregone conclusion and would wisely choose to stay at home with netflix or the antichrist is so dumb as to not even be a threat in the first place. This entire end times fantasy is absurd.


Have you read Good Omens by Pratchett and Gaiman? Their take is that the certainty of victory is mere angelic propaganda; hell tells its own side that victory is certain. And the Antichrist is one of my favourite fictional kids, mainly because they didn't try to make him cute. So many authors cannot resist the temptation to try to make their under-thirteens "OMG KEWT!!!1" which always makes me wonder if said authors have ever been or interacted with the age group. I mean, seriously, I have maternal instincts in overdrive--to the point that I spent a large chunk of my childhood memorizing my mom's baby books, including one that had truly awesome full-page, full-colour photos of the stages of development--and *I* know that kids spend an enormous chunk of time being distinctly un-cute

/rant
 
2011-11-15 03:20:34 PM

Helen_Arigby: *I* know that kids spend an enormous chunk of time being distinctly un-cute


Appropriately enough, I missed a period there...
 
2011-11-15 03:21:53 PM

EWreckedSean: coeyagi: 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

Yes, forget that the US Treasury shows the debt increasing every single year of the Clinton years right? Tell you what, let's look at FactCheck's article.

This part I especially liked:

Clinton's large budget surpluses also owe much to the Social Security tax on payrolls. Social Security taxes now bring in more than the cost of current benefits, and the "Social Security surplus" makes the total deficit or surplus figures look better than they would if Social Security wasn't counted. But even if we remove Social Security from the equation, there was a surplus of $1.9 billion in fiscal 1999 and $86.4 billion in fiscal 2000. So any way you count it, the federal budget was balanced and the deficit was erased, if only for a while.

I love how FactCheck doesn't realize that Social Security is only one of the trust funds that the US government borrows from. So let's look at 2000:

Social Security: $152.3 billion
Civil Service Retirement Fund: $30.9 billion
Federal supplementary medical insurance Trust fund: $18.5 billion
Federal Hospital Insurance Trust Fund: $15.0 billion
Unemployment Trust Fund: $9.0 billion
Military Retirement Fund: $8.2 billion
Transportation Trust Funds: $3.8 billion
Employee life insurance & retirement: $1.8 billion
Other: $7.0 billion
TOTAL: $246.5 billion borrowed from Federal trust funds (oops, not just $152.3 billion FactCheck)

Which is why, as I have pointed out:

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


Dude, I knew you were just going to go running around for numbers, glad I could waste your day!

//agree that the numbers are wrong, still better than anything Bush (praise thy name, for he is the shiatstorm creator) ever did.
/// no seriously, thanks for proving that Clinton did not even get a surplus on the enormous interest on debt accumulated thanks to Reagan
 
2011-11-15 03:23:25 PM

Infernalist: And I'm sure you can point to a single case where WMDs were used on the field of battle, treated as anything other than a deterrent, and/or show any sign whatsoever of having a relevant bit of reality to show that I'm wrong?

Bonus points: You can't use Hiroshima and Nagasaki.


This was great, post. You have moved the goal posts to now suddenly be about times we used WMDs instead of if the words "no military options off the table" actually means "no military options off the table". Then you are asking for an example of a time we used a WMD and then in the next sentence you give an example and then tell me I can't use it as an example. Well, Napalm is considered a chemical weapon, Agent Orange when used as a defoliant on crops and feed stock is considered a chemical weapon. Not that those facts have anything to do with what the words "no military options off the table" mean.
 
2011-11-15 03:26:55 PM

BojanglesPaladin: It's still likely to happen of course. Ask Russia, ask Brittain. But there is a better chance of leaving a stable government in charge. This way it's like 10% instead of 2%. Soo.. that's good.


IMO The law of diminishing returns would suggest that spending a trillion bucks for that extra 8% isn't worth it.
 
2011-11-15 03:34:38 PM

Headso: Infernalist: And I'm sure you can point to a single case where WMDs were used on the field of battle, treated as anything other than a deterrent, and/or show any sign whatsoever of having a relevant bit of reality to show that I'm wrong?

Bonus points: You can't use Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

This was great, post. You have moved the goal posts to now suddenly be about times we used WMDs instead of if the words "no military options off the table" actually means "no military options off the table". Then you are asking for an example of a time we used a WMD and then in the next sentence you give an example and then tell me I can't use it as an example. Well, Napalm is considered a chemical weapon, Agent Orange when used as a defoliant on crops and feed stock is considered a chemical weapon. Not that those facts have anything to do with what the words "no military options off the table" mean.


Well, you seem to think that WMDs count as relevant 'military options', so I'm merely suggesting that you show some 'proof' of that in reality. I mean, if they're relevant options, surely we've have seen some use of them in the real world, right? We've seen just about every other type of military option from aerial bombings, pinpoint surgical strikes to outright occupational armies. But no WMDs.

Now, I've told you why they don't count as a standard 'military option'(that being, they exist as deterrents against WMD attack), so by all means, prove me wrong.

Show me how they're legitimate military options. Give me some precedent.

Napalm is considered a chemical weapon now? lol The last I checked, Napalm is classified as a component in incendiary devices/weapons.

God, okay, you're boring me now. You know what? Don't bother replying.
 
2011-11-15 03:36:13 PM

coeyagi: EWreckedSean: coeyagi: 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

Yes, forget that the US Treasury shows the debt increasing every single year of the Clinton years right? Tell you what, let's look at FactCheck's article.

This part I especially liked:

Clinton's large budget surpluses also owe much to the Social Security tax on payrolls. Social Security taxes now bring in more than the cost of current benefits, and the "Social Security surplus" makes the total deficit or surplus figures look better than they would if Social Security wasn't counted. But even if we remove Social Security from the equation, there was a surplus of $1.9 billion in fiscal 1999 and $86.4 billion in fiscal 2000. So any way you count it, the federal budget was balanced and the deficit was erased, if only for a while.

I love how FactCheck doesn't realize that Social Security is only one of the trust funds that the US government borrows from. So let's look at 2000:

Social Security: $152.3 billion
Civil Service Retirement Fund: $30.9 billion
Federal supplementary medical insurance Trust fund: $18.5 billion
Federal Hospital Insurance Trust Fund: $15.0 billion
Unemployment Trust Fund: $9.0 billion
Military Retirement Fund: $8.2 billion
Transportation Trust Funds: $3.8 billion
Employee life insurance & retirement: $1.8 billion
Other: $7.0 billion
TOTAL: $246.5 billion borrowed from Federal trust funds (oops, not just $152.3 billion FactCheck)

Which is why, as I have pointed out:

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

Dude, I knew you were just going to go running around for numbers, glad I could waste your day!

//agree that the numbers are wrong, still better than anything Bush (praise thy name, for he is the shiatstorm creator) ever did.
/// no seriously, thanks for proving that Clinton did not even get a surplus on the enormous interest on debt accumulated thanks to Reagan


I have the numbers bookmarked, as I have had this discussion many times before. But if it helps you feel better to think you wasted a bunch of my time, well enjoy believing it I guess.

As to the 1990s, the web boom provided 7 to 11% annual growth, while spending increases were kept under 3%. That's why we almost got rid of the deficit.
 
2011-11-15 03:46:42 PM
The ridiculous thing here is that some partisans actually believe that the government's red ink problem got slightly better for a very short time because of some brilliant management by Bill Clinton. Of course, I have heard other partisans assign the credit to the Republican legislative majorities of the day, but they're equally smoking crack. There was no surplus, and the only reason things got less bad for a while was dumb luck (based on an overheated bubble economy).Our crap political establishment is brilliant at nothing.
 
2011-11-15 03:48:03 PM
So what's the problem? You can vote for the War Party or the War Party.
 
2011-11-15 03:49:29 PM

Geotpf: JLEM: canyoneer: Only a shallow thinker or a cynical partisan would push it.

It being the covert assassination of Iranian scientists, or it being the unwarranted occupation of Iraq with no exit strategy?

If we (or Israel) are actually killing Iranian scientists (they do seem to die in car accidents and unexplained explosions a lot, but there's little proof that the US/Israel (or somebody else) are actually killing them), that's orders of magnitute better than bombing the country overtly.


Duly noted. But whatever you're pushing has nothing to do with my reply.
 
2011-11-15 03:50:50 PM

canyoneer: There was no surplus, and the only reason things got less bad for a while was dumb luck (based on an overheated bubble economy)


This is popular from the both sides are bad people but if that was the only factor we would have had a surplus during the real estate bubble too but instead we got 5 trillion in debt during that time.
 
2011-11-15 03:59:25 PM
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

Let's count the many layers of liberal stupidity/dishonesty we have here, shall we?

First off, somebody refresh my memory on how Democrats voted on the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, and the global War on Terror operations in general. But these are "the GOP's wars?" You wish, farking liars.

Now let's look at how the wars "have bankrupted the nation."

Congressional Research Service: Total cost of Iraq, Afghanistan and other global War on Terror operations since 9/11 (through March 2011): $1.283 trillion

Obama's liberal pork-fest known as the Stimulus, which kept unemployment at, uh, around 9%: $821 billion

So Obama spent in 1-3 years (on payoffs to unions and political contributors that did little to nothing to stimulate the economy) about two-thirds of what was spent on the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and the entire War on Terror in more than a decade.

So tell us more about what's "bankrupting the nation," dishonest lefty dumbasses.
 
2011-11-15 04:00:43 PM

Infernalist: Headso: Infernalist: So, they don't really 'count' when you mention 'military options'

I like how you can say something this stupid and yet be condescending, your mom must have given you plenty of misplaced positive reinforcement to have such a large yet unwarranted ego ;)

And I'm sure you can point to a single case where WMDs were used on the field of battle, treated as anything other than a deterrent, and/or show any sign whatsoever of having a relevant bit of reality to show that I'm wrong?

Bonus points: You can't use Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

And my mom never gave me much of anything.

Your mom, on the other hand, gave me plenty.


I'd modify that to:
"Used against a military target."
 
2011-11-15 04:01:16 PM

FishingWithFredo: that did little to nothing to stimulate the economy)


It did a lot. And we need more.
 
2011-11-15 04:04:13 PM
Again? No... Still, yes.

They have never given up their lust for blood.

I have tried to find any redeeming quality in the Republican party... sadly, the more I look, the less I like them. They are truly worse than I could have possibly imagined.

Republicans aren't just trying to destroy America in a futile effort for political gain, they're trying to destroy my faith in my fellow Americans.
 
2011-11-15 04:06:54 PM
Granted, GOP is pretty bastard-like, but when did Fark become the DNC soap box?
 
2011-11-15 04:08:44 PM

FishingWithFredo: 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

Let's count the many layers of liberal stupidity/dishonesty we have here, shall we?

First off, somebody refresh my memory on how Democrats voted on the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, and the global War on Terror operations in general. But these are "the GOP's wars?" You wish, farking liars.

Now let's look at how the wars "have bankrupted the nation."

Congressional Research Service: Total cost of Iraq, Afghanistan and other global War on Terror operations since 9/11 (through March 2011): $1.283 trillion

Obama's liberal pork-fest known as the Stimulus, which kept unemployment at, uh, around 9%: $821 billion

So Obama spent in 1-3 years (on payoffs to unions and political contributors that did little to nothing to stimulate the economy) about two-thirds of what was spent on the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and the entire War on Terror in more than a decade.

So tell us more about what's "bankrupting the nation," dishonest lefty dumbasses.


Tax cuts are a liberal pork-fest?
 
2011-11-15 04:09:54 PM

FishingWithFredo: 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

Let's count the many layers of liberal stupidity/dishonesty we have here, shall we?

First off, somebody refresh my memory on how Democrats voted on the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, and the global War on Terror operations in general. But these are "the GOP's wars?" You wish, farking liars.

Now let's look at how the wars "have bankrupted the nation."

Congressional Research Service: Total cost of Iraq, Afghanistan and other global War on Terror operations since 9/11 (through March 2011): $1.283 trillion

Obama's liberal pork-fest known as the Stimulus, which kept unemployment at, uh, around 9%: $821 billion

So Obama spent in 1-3 years (on payoffs to unions and political contributors that did little to nothing to stimulate the economy) about two-thirds of what was spent on the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and the entire War on Terror in more than a decade.

So tell us more about what's "bankrupting the nation," dishonest lefty dumbasses.


See, if you spend money on a war, that money (mostly) goes poof. It is either spent overseas (remember those shrinkwrapped pallets of hundred dollar bills?), or is spent on stuff that is useless unless you are at war (or are keeping it around to prevent others from attacking you). Of course, that keeps some Americans employed. But most of it just disappears, basically, either buying useless stuff, or being sent overseas.

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.
 
2011-11-15 04:10:07 PM

Spaz-master: Granted, GOP is pretty bastard-like, but when did Fark become the DNC soap box?


The Brain-Rabbits landed.
 
2011-11-15 04:10:42 PM

Philip Francis Queeg: FishingWithFredo: 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

Let's count the many layers of liberal stupidity/dishonesty we have here, shall we?

First off, somebody refresh my memory on how Democrats voted on the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, and the global War on Terror operations in general. But these are "the GOP's wars?" You wish, farking liars.

Now let's look at how the wars "have bankrupted the nation."

Congressional Research Service: Total cost of Iraq, Afghanistan and other global War on Terror operations since 9/11 (through March 2011): $1.283 trillion

Obama's liberal pork-fest known as the Stimulus, which kept unemployment at, uh, around 9%: $821 billion

So Obama spent in 1-3 years (on payoffs to unions and political contributors that did little to nothing to stimulate the economy) about two-thirds of what was spent on the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and the entire War on Terror in more than a decade.

So tell us more about what's "bankrupting the nation," dishonest lefty dumbasses.

Tax cuts are a liberal pork-fest?


If Obama likes them, then yes.
 
2011-11-15 04:11:12 PM

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

sometimes he pops out of his senility to say something that actually makes sense.


He's been senile since 1963? Wow, I thought Alzheimer's killed people faster than that. He must be the Uberderp
 
2011-11-15 04:16:16 PM
In all this GOP campaigning, I have yet to hear a GOP candidate mention George W Bush. I wonder why? Hmm?
 
2011-11-15 04:21:29 PM

dogdaze: In all this GOP campaigning, I have yet to hear a GOP candidate mention George W Bush. I wonder why? Hmm?


i619.photobucket.com

GEORGE DUBYA BUSH IS PEOPLE!
 
2011-11-15 04:24:06 PM

LarryDan43: BS. It was welfare recipients with fancy rims who got a loan for a house but refused to pay on it that caused the crash.


You forgot to mention that those rims were on a brand new Mercedes, which they drove to the bodega to buy all their lobster and steak and bon-bons with food stamps.
 
2011-11-15 04:32:03 PM

Gergesa: Satanic_Hamster: IrateShadow: Satanic_Hamster: You know who else wanted to exterminate all other life...

The Daleks?

Exactly. And like the Daleks, Americans are getting so fat and lazy that we'll be defeated by a simple but effective technology; stairs.

Daleks don't climb stairs, they level the building!


images.wikia.com

Disagrees
 
2011-11-15 04:42:41 PM

Headso: IMO The law of diminishing returns would suggest that spending a trillion bucks for that extra 8% isn't worth it.


I guess that depends on the value you place on that 8%. If you knew for certain that it would prevent a nuclear attack on the United States, It would be money well spent. If you doubt that all the extra blood and treasure will have any effect, then it is money and lives wasted.

Probably somewhere in-between. But the Afghanistan war was righteous, no one seriously disputes that. and AFTER we blew the thirld world wasoid to hell, we kinda have to leave it better than we ffound it. Pottery Barn rule and all. So good, bad, or indifferent, we had to spend a LOT of money and lives with no real expectation of 'success'.
 
2011-11-15 04:58:27 PM
Johnny_Whistle:
[images.wikia.com image 640x480]

Disagrees

Well that's just cheating.
 
2011-11-15 05:07:49 PM

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.



Naw Dawg. I ain't no Pat Buchanan.

/Just...
 
2011-11-15 05:08:30 PM

Spaz-master: Granted, GOP is pretty bastard-like, but when did Fark become the DNC soap box?


Since Obama's poll numbers have been in the toilet.

The smearing isn't working and it's not going to work.
 
2011-11-15 05:16:16 PM

CruiserTwelve: But if we don't invade their countries and kill their leaders how will we convert them to Christianity?


Jesus themed Summer Camps?
 
2011-11-15 05:41:11 PM

BojanglesPaladin: Headso: IMO The law of diminishing returns would suggest that spending a trillion bucks for that extra 8% isn't worth it.

I guess that depends on the value you place on that 8%. If you knew for certain that it would prevent a nuclear attack on the United States, It would be money well spent. If you doubt that all the extra blood and treasure will have any effect, then it is money and lives wasted.

Probably somewhere in-between. But the Afghanistan war was righteous, no one seriously disputes that. and AFTER we blew the thirld world wasoid to hell, we kinda have to leave it better than we ffound it. Pottery Barn rule and all. So good, bad, or indifferent, we had to spend a LOT of money and lives with no real expectation of 'success'.


I'd argue bogus rather than righteous.

i.huffpost.com
 
2011-11-15 05:53:40 PM

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 :)
 
2011-11-15 06:02:34 PM

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).
 
2011-11-15 06:07:37 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 :)


Heh... well, I was pretty opposed to it, because women and children are pretty much always the ones who suffer the most from war. By that definition, just about any war is not right (thought righteous, I don't know?), but I accept you definition and thus the internal logic of your argument. Thanks for being a good sport. :)
 
2011-11-15 06:08:44 PM

CapnBlues: Heh... well, I was pretty opposed to it, because women and children are pretty much always the ones who suffer the most from war. By that definition, just about any war is not right (thought righteous, I don't know?), but I accept your definition and thus the internal logic of your argument. Thanks for being a good sport. :)


I'm an idjit -- I ACCEPT YOU DEFINITION! YOU ACCEPT ME DEFINITION! :)
 
2011-11-15 06:40:48 PM

BojanglesPaladin: we kinda have to leave it better than we ffound it.


but after 10 years of it not getting any better maybe it is time to abandon that pipe dream.
 
2011-11-15 06:45:35 PM

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.
 
2011-11-15 07:00:34 PM
Don't worry, Mr. Buchanan. None of the Republican candidates whose policies you critiqued is going to be elected President anyway.
 
2011-11-15 07:06:22 PM
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?
 
2011-11-15 07:25:00 PM

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.
 
2011-11-15 07:25:05 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?


I agree with your premise that the present administration is making some effed up decisions. However, this economy goat fark is the result of the build up of debt over an extended period of time, not just from the doings of any one political party.

Trickle down economics is a theory yet to be proven, so instead shiat just snowballed. So here we are stripping each other down with derp this and libby that, while the farkin fat cats sit up in their ivory towers sucking on fat cubans laughing at us stupid ninnies arguing over bs politics.

I mean really people, where the eff is that getting us?
 
2011-11-15 07:51:26 PM

BojanglesPaladin: we kinda have to leave it better than we ffound it


I'm not convinced that we are capable of that. We can't even manage to improve things in our own country. What on Earth would qualify us to improve theirs? Perhaps if we worked on ourselves and lived by example, we would have better luck influencing other countries to improve themselves?
 
2011-11-15 08:07:32 PM

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


Came here to say this.

I heard there was a lot of opposition to Iraq within the Republicans back in 2003, but since they were in power, they pulled rank, and well, you know what happened. Only when Obama got into power were they able to say what most of the Democrats had been saying, but by then, the blood had been spilled and it was on their hands.

And it still is.
 
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 213 of 213 comments



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report