Insanity Test...

340 replies [Last post]
Ashland's picture
Offline
Joined: 2007-03-07

Knowing what you know now, would you still have voted for GW Bush in 2000 & 2004?

troll's picture
Offline
Joined: 2004-11-29

Yes.

Dust Bunny's picture
Offline
Joined: 2007-05-07

Yes, especially knowing what I know now about Gore and Kerry.

AllREIT's picture
Offline
Joined: 2006-12-16

Dust Bunny wrote:Yes, especially knowing what I know now about Gore and Kerry.

Bingo!

snaggletooth's picture
Offline
Joined: 2007-07-13

I wrote in Bobby Hull.  Unfortunately I don't know his real name, so I guess I ended up voting for a hockey player...oh well.

Ashland's picture
Offline
Joined: 2007-03-07

http://money.cnn.com/2004/01/21/markets/election_demsvreps/

Why are we so worried about democrats winning elections?
------------

DB - you wrote that knowing what you now know about Gore & Kerry you would have voted the same way.

The current cost of the Iraq war is $10 Billion PER MONTH!

The cost to date of the war to date has been something like $380 Billion.

If Gore had not had the election stolen from him in 2000 we likely 1 - Would not have attacked Iraq(which had NOTHING TO DO WITH 9/11.) 2 - Would not have been the central front in the war on terror had it not been for our intervention. 3 - By our own estimates Al Qaeda is now as capable as they were when they killed almost 4000 people in 2001. 4 - Not stretched our armed forces to its breaking point. ARE WE REALLY MORE SAFE TODAY!!!???

If you had $380 Billion to spend - let's call it half than that - $190 Billion. Let's assume that we spent the other $190 Billion obliterating Al Qaeda. Would you have put the money towards

- Alternatives to oil dependency
- Finding cures to cancer
- Fund the social security fund.
- Push problems with Medicare off.
- Provide universal pre-school for each child(which economists say has a positive economic result & payoff period of less than 20 yrs.)
- What else?

Why do you think if Bush hadn't won & hadn't gone out of his way to make a case for war in Iraq that we'd be in a worse place than we are now?

FreeFromJones's picture
Offline
Joined: 2006-11-29

Ashland,
You're just another idiot who believes that the Republicans stole the election.  Poor Al Gore couldn't carry his home state so we have to blame the loss on the Republicans.  The same whining continues today, the democratic controlled congress has lower approval ratings than George Bush so it's his fault.  Just check out the various liberal whine, I mean news sites. 
If you had a clue about how to win a war, you'd see that pulling out is not the way to do it.  I served for 25 years and never once did I consider leaving because Ididn't agree with all of the decisions being made. 
Do you really think that the Democrat and Republican congressmen would have spent the money on anything really constructive? I don't.  Have all the decisions which have been made been correct?  NO! Do we pull out like whimpering liberal pansies? NO!
Yes, we are safer, and if Clinton would have taken care of this problem while he had the chance, we could be even safer. You liberals tend to forget that 9/11 happened on your watch under your Boy, Baby Face Bill. 
Bush inherited the problems and is trying to fix them.  Thanks for all the help.

troll's picture
Offline
Joined: 2004-11-29

Ashland wrote:
If Gore had not had the election stolen from him in 2000

Whenever you read something like that you know, instantly, that the speaker is an idiot.
The reason we are in Iraq is because we are fighting terrorism--and Iraq was a terror state.
Iraq occupies a land area that is key to controlling the threat of terror.  A basic military technique is "Divide and Conquor" and a pro-West Iraq would separate Syria from Iran--stopping the free flow of weapons.
The despicable set in this country--the whiners--are fond of saying that the markets perform better under Democrats, "on average."
As they say, figures never lie but liars always figure.
What the liars do is a simple averaging exercise.  They take the return during each administration since--conveniently--1927 and average them.
In doing this the 1,000 days of the Kennedy administration count as one and so does the more than twelve years of the Roosevelt administration.
The reason that they start with 1927 is because that was the beginning of the Hoover administration which was in power when the market crashed in 1929--that way the GOP averages include an administration when the averages damn near zeroed out.
There are only thirteen administrations in this averaging deal--averaging small groups of numbers is notoriously misleading.
If you start in 1933--leaving Hoover off--the numbers are not 11% and 2% they're more like 11% and 10%.
If you start in 1944--leaving out the thirteen years of the Roosevelt administration that count just as much as the less than three years of the Ford administration--the numbers flip and favor the GOP.
The number used for the Roosevelt years is just as spectacular on the upside as the number used for Hoover is spectacular on the downside.  Roosevelt comes to office with the Dow at something like 50--yep 50, and it's now just shy of 14,000.  On his watch it went up hundreds of percentage points--hundreds of them.
But numbers are misleading.  Going from 50 to 500 is a 1000% gain but dropping from 500 to 50 is not a 1000 percent loss.  In other words the first two numbers used in this nonsense comparison set it up.
Hoover's number is minus about 90% while Roosevelt's number is a huge positive number, yet much of what happened was little more than recovering.  I'm not bothering to look up the actual numbers, simply demonstrating the techniques used by the despicable people to support their lying.
The reality is that there have been two "golden ages" in the US economy since the Great Depression.  The first was the post war period of the 1950s--while Eisenhower was in office.
The second was in the 1980s when Reagan was in office.
The Clinton years were good too--but that is because of the Gingrich revolution and the fact that the GOP controlled the House for the first time since 1933 and they kept President Clinton's natural instinct to tax and spend in check.
Don't even try to make a case for good times when the House, Senate and White House are all controlled by Democrats.  For that example take a look at the Carter years.
When you hear Whiners such as this Ashland child spout nonsense like he just did remember that they're using only 13 numbers--and two of them are -90% for Hoover and +2,500% for Roosevelt.
As I said, figures never lie but liars always figure.
 

Mandoman's picture
Offline
Joined: 2007-03-07

FreeFromJones wrote:
You liberals tend to forget that 9/11 happened on your watch under your Boy, Baby Face Bill. 
Bush inherited the problems and is trying to fix them.  Thanks for all the help.

Are you saying the 2000 election occurred after 9/11/2001???

troll's picture
Offline
Joined: 2004-11-29

Mandoman wrote:
Are you saying the 2000 election occurred after 9/11/2001???

No, idiot.  What is being said is that it was the weak-sister response to the previous eight years of attacks that emboldened Al Quada to mount the successful attacks of 9-11-01.
It is also nonsensical to not agree that every moment of the planning occurred on the Clinton watch.
Now, tell us which attacks were planned and executed on the Bush administration's watch?

troll's picture
Offline
Joined: 2004-11-29

Ashland wrote:If Gore had not had the election stolen from him in 2000 ....
 
That line's one of those great shortcuts in life. When you read it, you know you're dealing with an irrational person, and needn't waste any more time talking to them.
It's sort of like when someone mentions the Illuminati or Chemtrails...
 

Mandoman's picture
Offline
Joined: 2007-03-07

Devil'sAdvocate wrote:Mandoman wrote:
Are you saying the 2000 election occurred after 9/11/2001???

No, idiot.  What is being said is that it was the weak-sister response to the previous eight years of attacks that emboldened Al Quada to mount the successful attacks of 9-11-01.
It is also nonsensical to not agree that every moment of the planning occurred on the Clinton watch.
Now, tell us which attacks were planned and executed on the Bush administration's watch?

Easy there, Sizzle Chest.  I was trying to get a clarification of when W was elected, since you noted that it wasn't his watch during 2001.
I believe there have been at least 3631 successful attacks carried out so far under the current "watch," but I haven't read the paper the last couple of days, so maybe that number is a little higher at this time.
I'm not disagreeing with you, just making it obvious who the real "idiot" is.

anonymous's picture
Offline
Joined: 2005-09-29

Mandoman, Do you believe that our country would be safer if Gore or Kerry was in the White House?

troll's picture
Offline
Joined: 2004-11-29
troll's picture
Offline
Joined: 2004-11-29

Devil'sAdvocate wrote:
Ashland wrote:
If Gore had not had the election stolen from him in 2000

Whenever you read something like that you know, instantly, that the speaker is an idiot.
True that, because Gore didn't have the election stolen from him, the American People had it stolen from US. No matter how many times you ditto heads echo the talking points, the fact remains that the Florida "election" was rigored, jiggered, disfigured and configured to be deniggered. The number of legal, law abiding black americans that showed up at the polls, only to be told that LeRoy Johnson's name had been taken off the voting rolls due to a felony conviction ("But I'm not that LeRoy Johnson", "Take it up with the election board, tomorrow, but you are not voting today!") was far above the additional number needed to have carried the state for Gore
True Gore did not carry Tennessee, but since when did that backwater determine who gets to be president?   
The reason we are in Iraq is because we are fighting terrorism--and Iraq was a terror state.
WRONG! Iraq IS a terror state, Iraq "was" not a terror state. Aggressive? Yes. Warlike? An adversary to its neighbors? Yes. A state run by a terrible person? Yes. A state that terrorized its own population? Yes. A terrorist state? No.
It's funny that the only people who still hold this view are the people whoes main news source is Fox News.
Iraq is now a terrorist state.
Iraq occupies a land area that is key to controlling the threat of terror.  A basic military technique is "Divide and Conquor" and a pro-West Iraq would separate Syria from Iran--stopping the free flow of weapons.
And so the best way to make people "pro west" is to bomb the living sh*t out of them! RIGHT! There is no logic to this, it's like the old saying "Fighting for peace is like f**king for chastity!"
The despicable set in this country--the whiners--are fond of saying that the markets perform better under Democrats, "on average."
Read a book wouldja please! Here's one you might be interested in http://www.amazon.com/Wealth-Democracy-Political-History-Ame rican/dp/0767905342/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/103-5750818-5432622?ie=U TF8&s=books&qid=1185200573&sr=1-1  You'll find out that Republicans weren't always the "Party of the rich" and that,historically it is quite the contrary.
As they say, figures never lie but liars always figure.
Blah Blah Blah On his [FDR's] watch it went up hundreds of percentage points--hundreds of them.
Why was that? Because he managed to keep the country, which was past the brink of falling apart, together. Why do you think the McCarthy hearings were so busy? Because there were plenty of people who had joined the comunist party. Why? Because this capitalist system favored by the growing American Aristocracy had utterly and completely failed. Please, if you're going to be in this business, understand its history.
But numbers are misleading.  Going from 50 to 500 is a 1000% gain but dropping from 500 to 50 is not a 1000 percent loss.  In other words the first two numbers used in this nonsense comparison set it up.
Hoover's number is minus about 90% while Roosevelt's number is a huge positive number, yet much of what happened was little more than recovering.  I'm not bothering to look up the actual numbers, simply demonstrating the techniques used by the despicable people to support their lying.
The reality is that there have been two "golden ages" in the US economy since the Great Depression.  The first was the post war period of the 1950s--while Eisenhower was in office.
The second was in the 1980s when Reagan was in office.
The Clinton years were good too--but that is because of the Gingrich revolution and the fact that the GOP controlled the House for the first time since 1933 and they kept President Clinton's natural instinct to tax and spend in check.
HOLY CHRIST! Phillips himself (the guy after whom the screwdriver design is named, not the author) didn't spin as much as you do!
Don't even try to make a case for good times when the House, Senate and White House are all controlled by Democrats.  For that example take a look at the Carter years.
A sample of 13 is too small but a sample of one is just ipsy pipsy!
Carter, who inherited a huge deficit from Nixon/Ford and the VietNam war. Who had to contend with the Kissingerization of the Middle east as he (Kissinger) encouraged the Middle Eastern nations to buy US warplanes (which we weren't buying in such numbers anymore because of the end of the war) using money they made by nationalizing the oil fields and forming a strong oil cartel.
Carter, the President who worked against his own political interest when he appointed Paul Volker as head of the fed. Paul Volker, whom the economic world sees as the man who broke the back of inflation. He cost Carter his presidency, but for their pains, they (again) saved the nation. "And all the thanks he gets from you is 'look at all that poo poo in the yard!'"
When you hear Whiners such as this Ashland child spout nonsense like he just did remember that they're using only 13 numbers--and two of them are -90% for Hoover and +2,500% for Roosevelt.
And the 90% downdraft had nothing to do with Hoover, and the + 2500 had nothing to do with FDR's policies and the cleaning up of the banking and investment industries. It would have happened anyway according to you!
As I said, figures never lie but liars always figure.
So am I to understand that all figurers are liars? Go Figure!

troll's picture
Offline
Joined: 2004-11-29

Anybody who classifies all people with a contrary opinion to their own as "Obvious Idiots" is ... well, you know.

troll's picture
Offline
Joined: 2004-11-29

Whomitmayconcer wrote:
Blah Blah Blah On his [FDR's] watch it went up hundreds of percentage points--hundreds of them.
Why was that? Because he managed to keep the country, which was past the brink of falling apart, together. Why do you think the McCarthy hearings were so busy? Because there were plenty of people who had joined the comunist party. Why? Because this capitalist system favored by the growing American Aristocracy had utterly and completely failed. Please, if you're going to be in this business, understand its history.

The reason the economy did well during the thirteen years of the Roosevelt administration was because the nation geared up to fight a war and every man in the country had a job in the military.
I'm not sure what the McCarthy hearings have to do with anything--including the Roosevelt years since they occurred during the Eisenhower years.
If you're a fan of Communism you're going to become very frustrated by working on Wall Street.  Perhaps you should resign now, before you make a fool of yourself and/or cost your client's their retirements.
Fools like you are dangerous.

Mandoman's picture
Offline
Joined: 2007-03-07

anonymous wrote:Mandoman, Do you believe that our country would be safer if Gore or Kerry was in the White House?
No. 
I think we would be safer today if we put efforts into securing our borders and ports, as well as if we initiated some of the other suggestions of the 9/11 Report.
I'm not sure that we are safer by being in Iraq with our troops.  I think we would be safer had we put our efforts into getting Bin Laden rather than Sadaam.  Perhaps Iraq wouldn't even had become an issue had the first Gulf War been carried out with a more specific mission.
I think we would be safer today by use of better diplomacy throughout the world.  The most recent example that comes to mind is back in the Nixon era with China.  (Some will argue Reagan with Russia, but that was happening with or without US involvement.  Some will say Carter is the man when it comes to diplomacy.)
Unfortunately, the current candidacy on both sides of the isle is somewhat limited, IMO.  I don't believe anyone would want that job "for the people," but only for their own ego/empire building.
Unlike some here, I don't have all of the answers, but I don't believe that asking questions or even having a differing opinion makes someone an idiot.

troll's picture
Offline
Joined: 2004-11-29

Nobody said otherwise in re the reason the economy surged during Roosevelt's administration. Please try to stick to what is presented and not your flights of remembered rhetoric.
The FACT is that when Roosevelt took office this nation was starting to revolt. The class warfare had reached a boiling point that most assuredly would have resulted in armed anarchy (which the masses would not necessesarilly have won. Have you ever read The Grapes of Wrath do you know why the Fair Labor Standards act was singned into law (in both cases the issue was reverse auctioning of labor in that the employers were using child labor to force adult labor to accept lower and lower wages. In TGOW, it (the reverse auction) was achieved by the farmers of California advertising high wage jobs so as to flood their market with labor that would then have to compete with a rigged supply and demand equation).
Futher, when FDR started implimenting his reforms, the industrialists tried to buy the army to effect a coup d e'tat (Roosevelt was informed of this by one of the generals who saw his duty clear).
The country was shattered and it was Roosevelt's first hundred days that saved the union (albeit in a different form than what it was before).
Of course you're not sure what McCarthy has to do with it, because nobody has prepared you for questions about him before.
The fact is that while the US economy was going down the tubes, the Russian economy, under the newly created "Communism" was growning at 9% per year. To Americas huddled masses, that looked like a viable alternative to the failed system they were starving under. And so the communist party was strong in the USA (I use this as evidence for you that the country was in the begining stage of dissolution and revolution when Roosevelt came in.
Years later, after the threat had passed and the fear of Communism as a common foe (much like "terrorism" is now the common fear today and will one day be looked at as a popular hysteria) McCarthy had his hearings and ruined the lives of people who were only looking out for the common man.
"Fan of Communism" Again with the Pavlovian responses (whip your chin, you're drooling again!)  I understand lots of things that I'm not a fan of. You for example, I understand you, but I'm not at all fond of you.
Here's one thing about you that I understand, when someone calls themself the "Devil'sAdvocate" and then toe's the party line, they are a person who's brain processes aren't worth the toilet paper they're "written " on.

troll's picture
Offline
Joined: 2004-11-29

Mandoman wrote:
Unfortunately, the current candidacy on both sides of the isle is somewhat limited, IMO.  I don't believe anyone would want that job "for the people," but only for their own ego/empire building.
Unlike some here, I don't have all of the answers, but I don't believe that asking questions or even having a differing opinion makes someone an idiot.

What isle is it, genius?

Mandoman's picture
Offline
Joined: 2007-03-07

Aisle.
Thanks for doing the spell check.

troll's picture
Offline
Joined: 2004-11-29

How many of you plan to make a career out of hating capitalism and working for "the common man?"

troll's picture
Offline
Joined: 2004-11-29

Whomitmayconcer wrote:True that, because Gore didn't have the election stolen from him, the American People had it stolen from US.
See? What a wonderful time saver the "stolen election" test is. You could tell from the opening line there was no reason to read further. Now, find something useful to do with the time you saved. 

troll's picture
Offline
Joined: 2004-11-29

Devil'sAdvocate wrote:How many of you plan to make a career out of hating capitalism and working for "the common man?"
What a sh*thead you are.

troll's picture
Offline
Joined: 2004-11-29

mikebutler222 wrote:
Whomitmayconcer wrote:True that, because Gore didn't have the election stolen from him, the American People had it stolen from US.
See? What a wonderful time saver the "stolen election" test is. You could tell from the opening line there was no reason to read further. Now, find something useful to do with the time you saved. 

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ...............

troll's picture
Offline
Joined: 2004-11-29

Whomitmayconcer wrote:Anybody who classifies all people with a contrary opinion to their own as "Obvious Idiots" is ... well, you know.
 
They're astute observers of humanity when the subject they're using as a basis to call others "obvious idiots" is the "stolen election". Or the Illuminati, or Chemtrails, or how 9/11 was an inside job. You see, an opposing point of view doesn't have value just because it's an opposing point of view. There has to be some factual, rational basis for it, and the "stolen election" has none.

troll's picture
Offline
Joined: 2004-11-29

Whomitmayconcer wrote:
Futher, when FDR started implimenting his reforms, the industrialists tried to buy the army to effect a coup d e'tat (Roosevelt was informed of this by one of the generals who saw his duty clear).
 
Got a source for this?
Whomitmayconcer wrote:
Years later, after the threat had passed and the fear of Communism as a common foe (much like "terrorism" is now the common fear today and will one day be looked at as a popular hysteria) McCarthy had his hearings and ruined the lives of people who were only looking out for the common man.
I'm not sure which is funnier, the idea that opposition to Communism then, and terrorism today is "popular hysteria" (check that hole where the WTC used to be for details) of the idea that people who joined the Stalin funded US Communist party were "looking out for the common man"....
 
Whomitmayconcer wrote:Here's one thing about you that I understand, when someone calls themself the "Devil'sAdvocate" and then toe's the party line, they are a person who's brain processes aren't worth the toilet paper they're "written " on.

 
Hmm, and what do we say of someone who toes the party line while decrying someone else "toeing the party line"?

troll's picture
Offline
Joined: 2004-11-29

Mandoman wrote:
I think we would be safer today if we put efforts into securing our borders and ports, as well as if we initiated some of the other suggestions of the 9/11 Report. [q/uote]
Could you tell us what recommendations of the 9/11 Commission haven't already been put in place?
Mandoman wrote:
I think we would be safer today by use of better diplomacy throughout the world. 
Could you tell us what sort of diplomacy could stop the Jihadists that have been attacking US interests around the world since 1980 or so?

pretzelhead's picture
Offline
Joined: 2007-03-23

mikebutler222 wrote:
Whomitmayconcer wrote:True that, because Gore didn't have the election stolen from him, the American People had it stolen from US.
See? What a wonderful time saver the "stolen election" test is. You could tell from the opening line there was no reason to read further. Now, find something useful to do with the time you saved. 

Yep, because we would never want to know all the facts before making an informed decision.  We can just watch Faux News and get the "facts" fed to us, right?

Dust Bunny's picture
Offline
Joined: 2007-05-07

mikebutler222 wrote:Mandoman wrote:
I think we would be safer today if we put efforts into securing our borders and ports, as well as if we initiated some of the other suggestions of the 9/11 Report. [q/uote]
Could you tell us what recommendations of the 9/11 Commission haven't already been put in place?
Mandoman wrote:
I think we would be safer today by use of better diplomacy throughout the world. 
Could you tell us what sort of diplomacy could stop the Jihadists that have been attacking US interests around the world since 1980 or so?

I think we were supposed to say pretty please and Muhammad may I while bending over to kiss our butts goodbye.....   At least that seems to be the Left's idea of being diplomatic.

Ashland's picture
Offline
Joined: 2007-03-07

You'll focused on a tree when I asked a forest of questions. Let's try again...

If you had $380 Billion to spend - let's call it half than that - $190 Billion. Let's assume that we spent the other $190 Billion obliterating Al Qaeda. Would you have put the money towards

- Alternatives to oil dependency
- Finding cures to cancer
- Funding social security.
- Pushing problems with Medicare off.
- Provide universal pre-school for each child(which economists say has a positive economic result & payoff period of less than 20 yrs.)
- What else?

Why do you think if Bush hadn't won & hadn't gone out of his way to make a case for war in Iraq that we'd be in a worse place than we are now?

troll's picture
Offline
Joined: 2004-11-29

pretzelhead wrote:mikebutler222 wrote:
Whomitmayconcer wrote:True that, because Gore didn't have the election stolen from him, the American People had it stolen from US.
See? What a wonderful time saver the "stolen election" test is. You could tell from the opening line there was no reason to read further. Now, find something useful to do with the time you saved. 

Yep, because we would never want to know all the facts before making an informed decision.  We can just watch Faux News and get the "facts" fed to us, right?

 
Hey, thanks for that. We were dicussing time saver #1, the "stolen election". You've done us a great favor by bringing up time saver #2, the "Faux News" gambit. It's often used when the speaker has no other ammuniton left. 

anonymous's picture
Offline
Joined: 2005-09-29

 - Provide universal pre-school for each child(which economists say has a positive economic result & payoff period of less than 20 yrs.)
Why don't we just let the government start raising our kids at birth?
 

troll's picture
Offline
Joined: 2004-11-29

Dust Bunny wrote:mikebutler222 wrote:Mandoman wrote:
I think we would be safer today if we put efforts into securing our borders and ports, as well as if we initiated some of the other suggestions of the 9/11 Report. [q/uote]
Could you tell us what recommendations of the 9/11 Commission haven't already been put in place?
Mandoman wrote:
I think we would be safer today by use of better diplomacy throughout the world. 
Could you tell us what sort of diplomacy could stop the Jihadists that have been attacking US interests around the world since 1980 or so?

I think we were supposed to say pretty please and Muhammad may I while bending over to kiss our butts goodbye.....   At least that seems to be the Left's idea of being diplomatic.

It is rather amusing to watch members of the Left use their pet <?:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" />US foreign policy grievance list as if it’s the motivating force behind Jihadists. It’s almost as if the facts surrounding the religious motivations of the terrorists is just too much for them to understand, so, in order to grasp the situation, they try to overlay their own agenda. <?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

troll's picture
Offline
Joined: 2004-11-29

Ashland wrote:You'll focused on a tree when I asked a forest of questions. Let's try again...
 
No, what happened is you asked a foolish question and then had your head handed to you, so you want to change the question, and this time with a clairvoyant spin, like “What if Bush knew in advance that every intelligence agency in the world was wrong and that Saddam wasn’t hiding WMDs? What would you do with the money saved?”.<?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />
Well, if you’re interested in “what ifs”, here’s one for you. What if Kerry or Gore were president and they ignored what the CIA had told them about why Saddam refused to allow the weapons inspections he’d interfered with for 12 years?  Saddam was about to buy his way out of sanctions (see the UN oil for palaces scandal). THEN what would have happened?
If he hadn’t been already producing and hiding WMDs before sanctions ended, do you honestly believe he wouldn’t have returned to that endeavor? Are you willing to bet massive civilian casualties in the <?:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" />US your faith that;
1) The CIA and every other intel agency had it wrong (see both Kerry and Gore’s comments about what THEY thought Saddam was up to dating back to 1998, they sure thought he had them).
2) That post sanctions Saddam wouldn’t have provided newly made WMDs to his terrorist allies? We already know the “Saddam would never work with Al Qaeda because the two were sworn enemies” thing to be fiction based intelligence gained post invasion  from Saddam’s government’s files.
 

farotech's picture
Offline
Joined: 2007-01-05

Ashland wrote:You'll focused on a tree when I asked a forest of questions. Let's try again...
Sounds pretty patronizing.
 

Mandoman's picture
Offline
Joined: 2007-03-07

mikebutler222 wrote:Mandoman wrote:
I think we would be safer today if we put efforts into securing our borders and ports, as well as if we initiated some of the other suggestions of the 9/11 Report. [q/uote]
Could you tell us what recommendations of the 9/11 Commission haven't already been put in place?
Mandoman wrote:
I think we would be safer today by use of better diplomacy throughout the world. 
Could you tell us what sort of diplomacy could stop the Jihadists that have been attacking US interests around the world since 1980 or so?

No.  If it was that easy, then we probably wouldn't be in the mess that we are in at this time. 
However, we might consider reserving the "Bring them on!" comments as a start.  Arrogance is not getting us anywhere.

Indyone's picture
Offline
Joined: 2005-05-31

Dust Bunny wrote:I think we were supposed to say pretty please and Muhammad may I while bending over to kiss our butts goodbye.....   At least that seems to be the Left's idea of being diplomatic.
...that's pretty catchy...not very politically correct, but catchy nonetheless...

troll's picture
Offline
Joined: 2004-11-29

Mandoman wrote:mikebutler222 wrote:Mandoman wrote:
I think we would be safer today if we put efforts into securing our borders and ports, as well as if we initiated some of the other suggestions of the 9/11 Report. [q/uote]
Could you tell us what recommendations of the 9/11 Commission haven't already been put in place?
Mandoman wrote:
I think we would be safer today by use of better diplomacy throughout the world. 
Could you tell us what sort of diplomacy could stop the Jihadists that have been attacking US interests around the world since 1980 or so?

No.  If it was that easy, then we probably wouldn't be in the mess that we are in at this time. 
However, we might consider reserving the "Bring them on!" comments as a start.  Arrogance is not getting us anywhere.

I'm sorry to be the one bringing you the bad news, but the Jihadi's really don't care about your views on US foreign policy, they don't care about diplomacy, they don't care about what you call arrogance. All they care about is their twisted version of Islam, reestablishing it, Islamic government and Shir’a law across the old Caliphate map, and killing non-believers. They’re not just a group of misunderstood “Patriots” who happen to have every view in common with the average NPR listener except the how to change the course of US policies.<?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />
You don't have to believe me, simply read what they've said themselves. And, if after you're read their words, if it still bothers you to accept the world as it is, please have the courtesy to step aside and let others who don’t shrink back from the grisly nature of our enemy do what needs to be done keep you and the other sheep safe from it.
No offense.

 

Mandoman's picture
Offline
Joined: 2007-03-07

mikebutler222 wrote:
I'm sorry to be the one bringing you the bad news, but the Jihadi's really don't care about your views on US foreign policy, they don't care about diplomacy, they don't care about what you call arrogance. All they care about is their twisted version of Islam, reestablishing it, Islamic government and Shir’a law across the old Caliphate map, and killing non-believers. They’re not just a group of misunderstood “Patriots” who happen to have every view in common with the average NPR listener except the how to change the course of US policies.<?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />
You don't have to believe me, simply read what they've said themselves. And, if after you're read their words, if it still bothers you to accept the world as it is, please have the courtesy to step aside and let others who don’t shrink back from the grisly nature of our enemy do what needs to be done keep you and the other sheep safe from it.
No offense.

 

You asked, so I answered.  You asked and Jihadi's don't care what I think.... So, how long have you been a Jihadi?
What does the Natural Products Report (NPR) have to do with any of this????  You Jihadis are very confusing, always diverting attention elsewhere.
Was Sadaam a Jihadi?  I thought he was a cultural nationalist.
Let me be the first to inform you, we are working on kicking your Jihadi ass.  Eventually, you will come to the table.

troll's picture
Offline
Joined: 2004-11-29

Again, apparently, we will have to limit our discussions to what Mikebutler222 already thinks he knows about
Here mikie, here's a link to information about the plot to overthrow FDR and install a Fascict regime

The Plot to Overthrow FDR
The Plot to Overthrow FDR. 43 min - Sep 20, 2006. video ...
<>

Watch video - 43 min - video.google.com/videoplay?docid=628728631767818729
 

Indyone's picture
Offline
Joined: 2005-05-31

Indyone wrote:Dust Bunny wrote:I think we were supposed to say pretty please and Muhammad may I while bending over to kiss our butts goodbye.....   At least that seems to be the Left's idea of being diplomatic.
...that's pretty catchy...not very politically correct, but catchy nonetheless...
...had another thought....Mullah, may I?

troll's picture
Offline
Joined: 2004-11-29

Mandoman wrote:
No.  If it was that easy, then we probably wouldn't be in the mess that we are in at this time. 
However, we might consider reserving the "Bring them on!" comments as a start.  Arrogance is not getting us anywhere.

We're not in a "mess."  We're fighting a war, and by definition that means people get killed and things get broken.  This war as been fought masterfully--we've lost less than 4,000 troops over a matter of years.  In real wars that many guys get killed in a single day.
You really should stop whining about such a small death toll.
As for whining about arrogance.  To those of you without a spine something appears arrogant--but to those of us with spines it appears to be confidence.
Why should the strongest nation on earth not challenge anybody to wage a war against us?
Why do those of your ilk not want to win the war?  Why are you wanting to surrender?

Dust Bunny's picture
Offline
Joined: 2007-05-07

Indyone wrote:Indyone wrote:Dust Bunny wrote:I think we were supposed to say pretty please and Muhammad may I while bending over to kiss our butts goodbye.....   At least that seems to be the Left's idea of being diplomatic.
...that's pretty catchy...not very politically correct, but catchy nonetheless...
...had another thought....Mullah, may I?

  Thanks, I've never been accused of being overly sensitive or politically correct. 

Mandoman's picture
Offline
Joined: 2007-03-07

Devil'sAdvocate wrote:
We're not in a "mess."  We're fighting a war, and by definition that means people get killed and things get broken.  This war as been fought masterfully--we've lost less than 4,000 troops over a matter of years.  In real wars that many guys get killed in a single day.
You really should stop whining about such a small death toll.  Tell that to my sister who lost her son in Iraq.  Personal loss is not whining, it is pure pain.
As for whining about arrogance.  To those of you without a spine something appears arrogant--but to those of us with spines it appears to be confidence.  That is a great argument!
Why should the strongest nation on earth not challenge anybody to wage a war against us?  Are you implying that we, as a country, should fight for the sake of fighting?
Why do those of your ilk not want to win the war?  Why are you wanting to surrender?  Hmmph, not sure how you got to this.
Winning a war is when all of the clear objectives are accomplished.  Losing a war is being emboiled in one where there are no clear objectives, objectives are changed to suit the political climate, or when the objectives are actually of a non-politcal nature, such as if someone was gaining personally by the war action.
So, how close are we to achieving our objectives?  Excuse my admitted ignorance, but what are the objectives?

troll's picture
Offline
Joined: 2004-11-29

DA,
Your assumptions are way off, you need to recalibrate.
"Mess? What mess?" been to the gas station lately chum? Seen the dollar against foreign currencies lately? How about the debt? And what's going to happen to the people who are going to take it in the shorts because of that debt?
What mess? You mean the abject incompetance of the administration in every direction? That's not a mess, heck Al Gore would have probably err ummm....
Stop whining about such a small death toll and don't even bother to give that legless gimp a second look, he didn't die in the war so he's just a slacker, like the kid that Patton slapped! Stop whining about the death toll and let's watch the Jessica Lynch story again! Stop whining about the death toll, so what if on a per capita basis there are more people dead or injured in this war than others (just so you know I'm making that one up)? Stop whining about the death toll, so what if we've killed tens and tens of thousands of Iraqis to liberate them froma madman who killed tens of thousands. What a whiner!
Stupid presidents say things like "Bring it on" great presidents say things like "Speak softly and carry a big stick!"
How strong is "The strongest nation on Earth" if they can't even beat a rag tag collection of people that we had laid siege to for 12 years before attacking? We are made to look weak in the eyes of the world's "evildoers" not strong.
"Got ilk?" Surrender to whom? Surrender where? We won the war. "Mission Accomplished" Saddam is dead, he's going to stay that way. What are you talking about "surrender"?
Please stop talking in party line ese and think about what you are saying. 

pretzelhead's picture
Offline
Joined: 2007-03-23

Whomitmayconcer wrote:
DA,
Your assumptions are way off, you need to recalibrate.
"Mess? What mess?" been to the gas station lately chum? Seen the dollar against foreign currencies lately? How about the debt? And what's going to happen to the people who are going to take it in the shorts because of that debt?
What mess? You mean the abject incompetance of the administration in every direction? That's not a mess, heck Al Gore would have probably err ummm....
Stop whining about such a small death toll and don't even bother to give that legless gimp a second look, he didn't die in the war so he's just a slacker, like the kid that Patton slapped! Stop whining about the death toll and let's watch the Jessica Lynch story again! Stop whining about the death toll, so what if on a per capita basis there are more people dead or injured in this war than others (just so you know I'm making that one up)? Stop whining about the death toll, so what if we've killed tens and tens of thousands of Iraqis to liberate them froma madman who killed tens of thousands. What a whiner!
Stupid presidents say things like "Bring it on" great presidents say things like "Speak softly and carry a big stick!"
How strong is "The strongest nation on Earth" if they can't even beat a rag tag collection of people that we had laid siege to for 12 years before attacking? We are made to look weak in the eyes of the world's "evildoers" not strong.
"Got ilk?" Surrender to whom? Surrender where? We won the war. "Mission Accomplished" Saddam is dead, he's going to stay that way. What are you talking about "surrender"?
Please stop talking in party line ese and think about what you are saying. 

BondGuy's picture
Offline
Joined: 2006-09-21

Devil'sAdvocate wrote:
Mandoman wrote:
We're not in a "mess."  We're fighting a war, and by definition that means people get killed and things get broken.  This war as been fought masterfully--we've lost less than 4,000 troops over a matter of years.  In real wars that many guys get killed in a single day.
You really should stop whining about such a small death toll.
As for whining about arrogance.  To those of you without a spine something appears arrogant--but to those of us with spines it appears to be confidence.
Why should the strongest nation on earth not challenge anybody to wage a war against us?
Why do those of your ilk not want to win the war?  Why are you wanting to surrender?

Your kids aren't one of the lucky 4000 huh?
As for winning the war, we already did that. Our president, dressed in a flight suit, stood in front of a big banner exclaiming so. It was a great day and our troops were coming home in six months. He told us that too. Oh, wait, that was Cheney. Sorry.
Anyone who has taken the time to educate themselves on the subject knows Clinton took the correct course of action regarding Al-Qaeda. A missile strike killing Saudi royalty probably wouldn't have played well in Riyadh. The outcome of having had not one shot at Bin laden, but at least two and not taking them will be debated thru the ages. Only those who believe bin Laden's death would have stopped 9/11 hold Clinton responsible. Unfortunately, many of those people are the same people who believe Iraq attacked us on 9/11.
The current war has shown us that Bush1 took the correct action in the Gulf war, leaving Iraq's government in place. We are paying and will pay for years the price of Bush/Cheney not listening to the smartest guy in the room, Colin Powell, and moving forward with an ill conceived, ill planned ,ill executed plan for war.
We can debate endlessly who is responsible for 9/11 however, regardless of who's sitting in the oval office, the next attack is squarely on Bush. I fear that a next is not an if, only a when and where.

troll's picture
Offline
Joined: 2004-11-29

BondGuy wrote:
We can debate endlessly who is responsible for 9/11 however, regardless of who's sitting in the oval office, the next attack is squarely on Bush. I fear that a next is not an if, only a when and where.

Who was responsible for 9/11?  How about Islamic extremists?
Who will be responsible for the next attack?  How about Islamic extremists?
Why do those of your ilk want to blame the United States, when the blame is clearly on the shoulders of Islam?

troll's picture
Offline
Joined: 2004-11-29

Whomitmayconcer wrote:
Again, apparently, we will have to limit our discussions to what Mikebutler222 already thinks he knows about
Here mikie, here's a link to information about the plot to overthrow FDR and install a Fascict regime

The Plot to Overthrow FDR
The Plot to Overthrow FDR. 43 min - Sep 20, 2006. video ... <>
var mb4=Many.register('4',2,'DaGroyF7hA8J','','8596',21,'Watch video','Hide video')
// --> Watch video - 43 min - video.google.com/videoplay?docid=628728631767818729
 

 
mikebutler222 wrote:Whomitmayconcer wrote:
Futher, when FDR started implimenting his reforms, the industrialists tried to buy the army to effect a coup d e'tat (Roosevelt was informed of this by one of the generals who saw his duty clear).
 
You need to get your conspiracy theories straight. Gen. Butler never said anyone tried to "buy the Army", he claimed that a cabal of industrialists and Wall St types had approched him to lead an "army" of Vets upset with the government to raise a popular uprising that would topple FDR.

troll's picture
Offline
Joined: 2004-11-29

Mandoman wrote:mikebutler222 wrote:
I'm sorry to be the one bringing you the bad news, but the Jihadi's really don't care about your views on US foreign policy, they don't care about diplomacy, they don't care about what you call arrogance. All they care about is their twisted version of Islam, reestablishing it, Islamic government and Shir’a law across the old Caliphate map, and killing non-believers. They’re not just a group of misunderstood “Patriots” who happen to have every view in common with the average NPR listener except the how to change the course of US policies.<?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />
You don't have to believe me, simply read what they've said themselves. And, if after you're read their words, if it still bothers you to accept the world as it is, please have the courtesy to step aside and let others who don’t shrink back from the grisly nature of our enemy do what needs to be done keep you and the other sheep safe from it.
No offense.

 

You asked, so I answered.  You asked and Jihadi's don't care what I think.... So, how long have you been a Jihadi?
 
Yeah, that's it, I'm a Jihadi, and I've spent the last 15 years going deep cover in the securities industry. However, after all that work to dig myself in, I just can't help but post on an internet website about the plans.
 
OK, back from the Twilight Zone. I suggest you take a moment of two to actually read what the Jihadies themselves say their agenda's about. It has nothing to do with your issues with US foreign policy.

Please or Register to post comments.

Industry Newsletters
Investment Category Sponsor Links

 

Careers Category Sponsor Links

Sponsored Introduction Continue on to (or wait seconds) ×