Author Topic: FINALLY - the reason DEMS tax more  (Read 18314 times)

War-Horse

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 6490
Re: FINALLY - the reason DEMS tax more
« Reply #150 on: March 13, 2008, 06:56:14 PM »
Every soldier ive talked to is praying he doesnt have to go back.  They are exhausted and most have been on 2 tours or more.
Their kids are growing up without them, and they dont see the point......stretched beyond belief ........exhausted.

OzmO

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 22729
  • Drink enough Kool-aid and you'll think its healthy
Re: FINALLY - the reason DEMS tax more
« Reply #151 on: March 13, 2008, 07:37:25 PM »
Every soldier ive talked to is praying he doesnt have to go back.  They are exhausted and most have been on 2 tours or more.
Their kids are growing up without them, and they dont see the point......stretched beyond belief ........exhausted.

Those are lib soldiers who have no back bone to do what's needed to be done.   ;) ;D


War-Horse

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 6490
Re: FINALLY - the reason DEMS tax more
« Reply #152 on: March 13, 2008, 07:40:58 PM »
Those are lib soldiers who have no back bone to do what's needed to be done.




True. I called em a bunch of pussies, kicked em in the head and said get the fvck outa here you cryin bitch.. 8)

gtbro1

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 6893
Re: FINALLY - the reason DEMS tax more
« Reply #153 on: March 15, 2008, 04:08:27 AM »
  Since it is obvious that nothing will change anyone's opinion on this issue...I will now resort to the classic getbig debating style....

 
   George Bush sucks cock.  :)

Deicide

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 22921
  • Reapers...
Re: FINALLY - the reason DEMS tax more
« Reply #154 on: March 15, 2008, 04:25:11 AM »
Kids, you know it's time for.....................! ;D The USA is FUCKING AWESOME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! AWESOME DOLLAR!!!!!!!!!!!!!! YEAAHHHHHHH!

                                                     
I hate the State.

Brixtonbulldog

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 4884
  • TAKE YO FUCKING JACKET WIT YA
Re: FINALLY - the reason DEMS tax more
« Reply #155 on: March 15, 2008, 08:50:20 AM »
My information isn't form the media.   Try again.  My information is from the military.   But that's easy to dismiss as hear say from your point of view that's why i brought up statement by the generals themselves.


http://www.stripes.com/article.asp?section=104&article=15875&archive=true

Like I said.  Depends on who you talk to.  And, of course, only one side of this argument recieves any media attention.  A good cross section of the military greatly disagree about this.


Who ever your friends are they are meat-heads or classic "yes" men disguised as officers sucking some other Generals nut sack above them.

Lol.. when you say things like this you prove everything I've said about you.. hilarious!!


So now you've settled for "ineffective?"   OK, again in hindsight, that's easy to say.  But i can agree with it only form the point of view of hindsight.

Ok.. I'll live with that.  But in "hindsight" where might the world and Iraq have been in another 20 years with Saddam in power and stronger than ever?


You inferred it by asking the question.  Please let's not get into the tedious nature of your childish attempts at trapping me.

Stand by what you said.

My assertion is valid.  you are confusing the 2 issues and applying the conclusion to your bias.

Ok since you don't want to clarify this and expose your bias..


LMAO.   You don't have the mental capacity to see past your emotions. 

It took them 4 years to figure out they needed an additional 20k. ::)

With people like yourself fighting them when they realized we DID need it.  Hard to call out someone else when you're part of the problem, isn't it? 


Don't have the integrity to stand by your statement i see.

I don't have the patience to repeat myself to someone unable to grasp it.


they didn't have Iraq to begin with.  They can't lose something they don't have.  The only they can lose is the opportunity to create in Iraq.  And opportunity we gave them.

They never "had" Iraq although they were there in a greater capacity and role than what most believe.  That's not what my point is.  We we defeat terrorism in Iraq we will have a solid opportunity to destroy middle east terror and possibly even radical islam in a big way.  We become hugely more dangerous to them.  This is what they know and this is why they fight there.


It is not such a priority that they cannot divert a few dozen men for operations in the USA. 

It take one man to commit a terrorist act.  It takes thousands to fight conduct an insurgency.
What you think and what you know are so loud i can't hear what you are saying.  It doesn't take long reading how you come up with your conclusions and how your beliefs are formed to see how naive and manipulated you are.

Your childish insults do not mask the fact that you are 100% wrong.  A great deal has been done to prevent another terrorist attack although there is still more to be done.  Bush has made it much harder on them to hit us hard but you will continue to argue otherwise.  You will see.. In another few years the fruits of our efforts will be more evident. 

lol  what are you inferring I'm from the inner city?  That's funny. 

Nope, they don't, not in this country with HS and the FBI.   

Considering how vulnerable you say we are I find it hard to accept that even you believe that.  By the way, who started HS?  hmm..

I wasn't saying you live in the city.  I was saying that if you did you would see how easy it is for foreigners to get by unnoticed in this country without assimilatiing.


We have wide open borders and our airports are vulnerable to terrorists attacks and it hasn't happened.   It's not becuase we are in Iraq. 

Like i said, you lack the courage to find out.  Keep trying to deflect.   ::)

Please share with my why it HASN'T happened?

It might not be completely because we are in Iraq or other places but combine our efforts world wide with those here at home and we start lessening the likelyhood a great deal.  And Bush was the man behind it.


Really?   Like in lebanon where 234 marines died and he didn't do jack shit other than invade Grenada to distract the public.

 ::)  What a soft ass pacifist.

Completely agree.. I guess terrorism won in that instance and Wienberger under Reagan didn't do thier job.  I don't believe Bush would have reacted so ineffectively.


Oh so now you've change your statement  ::)

So what should have we done then Brix, who should have we invaded?

I'm not going to know the full extent of what Clinton should have done but it is obvious (especially now) that he didn't do jack shit compared to what had been needed.

I certainly would have had a better opinion if he would have sent our military into Afghanistan during his term after we were attacked on his watch.



It's a fact.  We are in serious trouble if another major conflict comes up.  Our troops are being told TOD's last longer, Generals are making statements, budgets are cut all over the military, there are shortages, etc...   Only an ostrich wouldn't think other wise.

 

We'll just have to wait and see.  Until then I suggest you seek out some servicemembers with other viewpoints to get an idea of the opposing issues.

OzmO

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 22729
  • Drink enough Kool-aid and you'll think its healthy
Re: FINALLY - the reason DEMS tax more
« Reply #156 on: March 15, 2008, 03:57:40 PM »
http://www.stripes.com/article.asp?section=104&article=15875&archive=true

Like I said.  Depends on who you talk to.  And, of course, only one side of this argument recieves any media attention.  A good cross section of the military greatly disagree about this.


Wow an article form the Stars and Stripes.   ::)   
Quote
"Depends on who you talk to"

And then you offer up an article from the news paper the US milatary publishes?   

You are really a stupid person.  And I'm not trying to insult you.  Really.  If you don't think so i can link you to a web site managed by me that has an article in it saying I'm not insulting you.

Quote
Lol.. when you say things like this you prove everything I've said about you.. hilarious!!

It is what it is.   The idea of you even talking to a general is funny anyway.  combined that with your reasoning in all the posts in this thread including this thing with the Stripes and i'd say i was dead on.   Classic yes men.  The Military is full of them.  How else do you get promoted?  By going against the grain?  lol.   So we have the "yes" men and fools who follow them.

Quote
Ok since you don't want to clarify this and expose your bias..

You don't even know what we are talking about here do you?

Quote
Oh ok Roll Eyes

Are you saying Americans were not victems of terrorism before 9/11?  Bush was given the chance and took terrorism seriously and head on.  Clinton pissed away his.

If you really think i was saying that then you are a danger to the public becuase you are so stupid you are likely to harm someone becuase of your ignorance.  Or it was just basic stupid attempt to put words in my mouth, (trapping)

Quote
With people like yourself fighting them when they realized we DID need it.  Hard to call out someone else when you're part of the problem, isn't it?


Part of the problem?  I've maintain since i've been on this board they needed to more troops.  I've maintained that the plan was arrogant and over confident.  At what point did the brilliant "yes" men think there was a problem that warranted a surge in troops?   When the Iraqi's were ripping down the infrastructure?   when IED's were every where?   when suicide bombers were killing hundreds in public markets?

You are such a blind little obedient pawn that you lack the courage or sight to fault anything by your masters.

Quote
I don't have the patience to repeat myself to someone unable to grasp it.

only ignorant people or cowards are unwilling to test their beliefs.

Quote
They never "had" Iraq although they were there in a greater capacity and role than what most believe. 

You get that one form the stars and stripes or from the recent pentagon report?   ::)

Quote
We we defeat terrorism in Iraq we will have a solid opportunity to destroy middle east terror and possibly even radical islam in a big way.  We become hugely more dangerous to them.  This is what they know and this is why they fight there.

If they weren't Iraq to begin with there was no need to for us to be there.  We were already in Afganistan.  What other countries were they in?  By your thinking we should have gone those coutries where we were sure they were.  We should have destroyed them in tora bora.

Quote

Your childish insults do not mask the fact that you are 100% wrong.  A great deal has been done to prevent another terrorist attack although there is still more to be done.  Bush has made it much harder on them to hit us hard but you will continue to argue otherwise.  You will see.. In another few years the fruits of our efforts will be more evident.

Still not addressing your ignorant statement about anyone fighting in Iraq has the skills to infiltrate and conduct terrorist operatiions in the USA. 

Meanwhile, you are resorting to the "you'll see" tactic.....What's next calling me un-American?   ::)

 
Quote
Considering how vulnerable you say we are I find it hard to accept that even you believe that.  By the way, who started HS?  hmm..

I wasn't saying you live in the city.  I was saying that if you did you would see how easy it is for foreigners to get by unnoticed in this country without assimilatiing.

There is much more to it than that.  Otherwise all we would need is local police.  And yes, HS was started, out of necessity and response.  Not a very remarkable thing considering the rivalry each agency has had with each other since the beginning of time so to speak.

Quote
Please share with my why it HASN'T happened?

It might not be completely because we are in Iraq or other places but combine our efforts world wide with those here at home and we start lessening the likelyhood a great deal.  And Bush was the man behind it.

It is not because we are in Iraq at all, which is what i've been telling you.  That's a different animal fighting there.   It hasn't for 2 reasons:

1.  We've done a great job fighting them.  Hat's off to special ops and intelligence.
2.  Because of that the threat isn't what's it's still made out to be.  (not that we need to stop any of our efforts including strengthening security here.)

Quote
Completely agree.. I guess terrorism won in that instance and Wienberger under Reagan didn't do thier job.  I don't believe Bush would have reacted so ineffectively.

So basically, we got one republican president who acted appropriately in your eyes?  Reagan is a pacifist, Clinton was weak and did nothing, Bush Sr. couldn't finish the job, Carter was a wussy for letting Iran get away with it, since the Vietnam war the only guy that has done what you think would be done is BUSH.

Why don't you just admit it right now.   You are war monger.   

Quote
I'm not going to know the full extent of what Clinton should have done but it is obvious (especially now) that he didn't do jack shit compared to what had been needed.

I certainly would have had a better opinion if he would have sent our military into Afghanistan during his term after we were attacked on his watch.

So you think he should have invaded Afghanistan after the cole was attacked?  So we invade every country that has people in it that attacked us? 

Quote
We'll just have to wait and see.  Until then I suggest you seek out some servicemembers with other viewpoints to get an idea of the opposing issues.

I don't need to ask a service man.   I only need to ask a person who is involved in logistics at high level.     ;)


 



Brixtonbulldog

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 4884
  • TAKE YO FUCKING JACKET WIT YA
Re: FINALLY - the reason DEMS tax more
« Reply #157 on: March 15, 2008, 06:39:32 PM »
Wow an article form the Stars and Stripes.   ::)   
And then you offer up an article from the news paper the US milatary publishes?   
Straight from the horses mouth my friend.  Just goes to prove that not only are there two very large sides to this opinion but only one of them has been recieving attention.  Of course, you ate that up without batting an eye.


You are really a stupid person.  And I'm not trying to insult you.  Really.  If you don't think so i can link you to a web site managed by me that has an article in it saying I'm not insulting you.

Lol.. Next you'll be telling me you hate me while slowely enlarging your font size and typing in all caps.  :D


It is what it is.   The idea of you even talking to a general is funny anyway.  combined that with your reasoning in all the posts in this thread including this thing with the Stripes and i'd say i was dead on.   Classic yes men.  The Military is full of them.  How else do you get promoted?  By going against the grain?  lol.   So we have the "yes" men and fools who follow them.

Yeah, there you go buddy!  Because if you took that fact that I've done my homework and know who I've been talking to seriously you might actually have to deal with it.  Don't be so afraid to be wrong Ozmo.   

You don't even know what we are talking about here do you?

Sure do.. you accused me of applying the same standard to our pre versus post 9/11 stituations regarding how we rate and combat the threat of terror, specifically in regard to the presidents actions.  Something you would like to add to that?

If you really think i was saying that then you are a danger to the public becuase you are so stupid you are likely to harm someone becuase of your ignorance.  Or it was just basic stupid attempt to put words in my mouth, (trapping)

I didn't.. I was using it as a example to prove a point... that we have examples to go on regarding how a previous president dealt with terrorist action against americans.  You seem to see them as different entirely while I regard them as smaller previews of what was to come.

Part of the problem?  I've maintain since i've been on this board they needed to more troops.  I've maintained that the plan was arrogant and over confident.  At what point did the brilliant "yes" men think there was a problem that warranted a surge in troops?   When the Iraqi's were ripping down the infrastructure?   when IED's were every where?   when suicide bombers were killing hundreds in public markets?

You are such a blind little obedient pawn that you lack the courage or sight to fault anything by your masters.

Even if they had more troops in the beginning you would be here saying Bush is oh so awful for any number of other reasons you want to believe.  In fact the entire point of this is not who's right about the war and terror and who isn't but simply that you and those like you on this board have such a personal vendetta against Bush that you will never accept the good things that will result from his presidency (or the conservatism he respresents for that matter).  You're just another angry, hateful, liberal who buys directly into the media portrayal of people on the other side of the isle.  (Your last sentance is one of many examples of this, btw.) 

Minimal American casualties, astronomical enemy dead, Saddam and his regime destroyed, first Iraqi elections, a war we are going to eventually win, a stronger and more influential US, and the world will be better off for it. 

only ignorant people or cowards are unwilling to test their beliefs.

Why, because you can't get it the first three times I say something?  Hardly..

You get that one form the stars and stripes or from the recent pentagon report?   ::)

No, but my clearance got me into the room with that information long before that.

If they weren't Iraq to begin with there was no need to for us to be there.  We were already in Afganistan.  What other countries were they in?  By your thinking we should have gone those coutries where we were sure they were.  We should have destroyed them in tora bora.

They were.  And aside from the fact that Bush used that information to sell the war (which he should not have) he had more than enough reasons to march on Baghdad. 

The other countries AQ is in may very well become our targets when we get far enough in Iraq to start redeploying.  We'll see.  It will depend on how much is there and what those countries gov'ts do about it.

Still not addressing your ignorant statement about anyone fighting in Iraq has the skills to infiltrate and conduct terrorist operatiions in the USA. 

Meanwhile, you are resorting to the "you'll see" tactic.....What's next calling me un-American?   ::)

Ok, I'll go into that.  The same guys being used in Iraq could easily be used in the USA.  Flight training isn't a requirement if mass murder is the objective.  I already pointed out where they could find a haven.  Immigrants in the city aren't so far from the third world hell hole they left weeks or months ago and they even manage to eek out a living.  Much less is involved if you simply want to bomb a busy place here in the US using your body as the vehicle.  And since any of thier targets will be crowded and busy it is even more likely for them to hold up in NYC, LA, Miami, or DC. 

And I don't know if you are anti american or not but you're not exactly an impressive example of anti terrorism either.   

There is much more to it than that.  Otherwise all we would need is local police.  And yes, HS was started, out of necessity and response.  Not a very remarkable thing considering the rivalry each agency has had with each other since the beginning of time so to speak.

Ok, now I KNOW you don't live in the city.  Local police in the inner portions of any major city are SWAMPED and could in no way take on the extra responsibility of terror investigations.

At least give Bush credit for HS.  The inter agency problems have been an issue for decades and could hardly be placed at the feet of any one president.

It is not because we are in Iraq at all, which is what i've been telling you.  That's a different animal fighting there.   It hasn't for 2 reasons:

1.  We've done a great job fighting them.  Hat's off to special ops and intelligence.
2.  Because of that the threat isn't what's it's still made out to be.  (not that we need to stop any of our efforts including strengthening security here.)

Both good points but they are directly ties to Iraq.  Maybe not completely but it has had a major impact from day one whether you want to admit it or not.

So basically, we got one republican president who acted appropriately in your eyes?  Reagan is a pacifist, Clinton was weak and did nothing, Bush Sr. couldn't finish the job, Carter was a wussy for letting Iran get away with it, since the Vietnam war the only guy that has done what you think would be done is BUSH.

Why don't you just admit it right now.   You are war monger.   

I am not.  But I know that would be one more thing for you to cry about so I don't need to try and convince you otherwise.

I think Reagan was an outstanding president from what I have learned about him.  (I was only born in 1984)  Like any president he had his shortcomings and his action, or lack of, in Lebanon is a perfect example.


So you think he should have invaded Afghanistan after the cole was attacked?  So we invade every country that has people in it that attacked us? 

Depends on whether or not it would have had the impact similar to our invasion post 9/11.  IMO I think it would have achieved similar results and the benefit of that happening 5 or so years earlier could have been huge.

I don't need to ask a service man.   I only need to ask a person who is involved in logistics at high level.     ;)

Suit yourself.

You should guard against becoming so emotional in your posts.. I might be inclined to listen to what you have to say..

.. but I doubt it.  ;D

War-Horse

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 6490
Re: FINALLY - the reason DEMS tax more
« Reply #158 on: March 16, 2008, 02:08:26 PM »
LOL at brix.   Youthful internet knowledge.  One day youll sit at the adults table at thanksgiving.

OzmO

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 22729
  • Drink enough Kool-aid and you'll think its healthy
Re: FINALLY - the reason DEMS tax more
« Reply #159 on: March 16, 2008, 02:56:36 PM »
Straight from the horses mouth my friend.  Just goes to prove that not only are there two very large sides to this opinion but only one of them has been recieving attention.  Of course, you ate that up without batting an eye.


What's funny about this is that you take what the newspaper published by the US military as a valid side of an issue.

Quote
Lol.. Next you'll be telling me you hate me while slowely enlarging your font size and typing in all caps.  Cheesy

You are what you are.  The truth will sett you free.  No need to caps things up.

Quote
Yeah, there you go buddy!  Because if you took that fact that I've done my homework and know who I've been talking to seriously you might actually have to deal with it.  Don't be so afraid to be wrong Ozmo.


You've done your homework?   ::)  This from the same guy who sights the Stars and Stripe as a valid source regarding our over extended army?

Also, who ever you are talking to are just as a stupid as you are.  Birds of a feather flock together.  You are like the guy on the Carls Jr. Commercial.   Standing there there looking a vegetables not knowing what to do.

Quote
Sure do.. you accused me of applying the same standard to our pre versus post 9/11 stituations regarding how we rate and combat the threat of terror, specifically in regard to the presidents actions.  Something you would like to add to that?

Of which you tried to accuse me or Clinton of thinking Americans were not attacked.  Which again highlights the lies you need to make yourself believe in order to keep you other stupid believes intact.

Quote
Even if they had more troops in the beginning you would be here saying Bush is oh so awful for any number of other reasons you want to believe.  In fact the entire point of this is not who's right about the war and terror and who isn't but simply that you and those like you on this board have such a personal vendetta against Bush that you will never accept the good things that will result from his presidency (or the conservatism he respresents for that matter).  You're just another angry, hateful, liberal who buys directly into the media portrayal of people on the other side of the isle.  (Your last sentance is one of many examples of this, btw.)

Minimal American casualties, astronomical enemy dead, Saddam and his regime destroyed, first Iraqi elections, a war we are going to eventually win, a stronger and more influential US, and the world will be better off for it.

The good things?  (aside from the stupid move of Iraq)  Like gas?  Like home values ?  Like unemployment?     Yes, he did right by Afghanistan.

Even if BUSH had done it right in Iraq in the beginning I still would have been against the war a the time simply because it was a stupid move.  But BUSH as stupid as he is did it anyway and sent in too few troops.  He is quite possibly just as stupid as you.

At some point in your life you need to deal with truth or you can just go on avoiding it like a scared a little boy and not ask the questions to people you consider libs.

The fact is, I'm pretty sure now, is that any answer they give you is far too complicated for you to understand because chances are it will above playground rules for fighting.

Quote
No, but my clearance got me into the room with that information long before that.

Oh so because you went into a secure room you know the entire defense posture both tactically and logistically fo the united states?    ::) ::) ::) ::) ::),  go tell that to some dumb shit friend of yours who is too stupid not to be impressed.

Quote
Ok, I'll go into that.  The same guys being used in Iraq could easily be used in the USA.  Flight training isn't a requirement if mass murder is the objective.  I already pointed out where they could find a haven.  Immigrants in the city aren't so far from the third world hell hole they left weeks or months ago and they even manage to eek out a living.  Much less is involved if you simply want to bomb a busy place here in the US using your body as the vehicle.  And since any of thier targets will be crowded and busy it is even more likely for them to hold up in NYC, LA, Miami, or DC.

And I don't know if you are anti american or not but you're not exactly an impressive example of anti terrorism either.   

There you go again thinking in simple terms thinking it is that easy......   


BTW:  You think i might not be anti-terrorist only because i don't agree to the answers you've accepted from your masters. 

If you went back and read everything I've posted on this board regarding terrorism you'd think other wise.  The thing is, BUSH is an idiot when it comes to doing what needs to be done.  You can't accept that because your whole world would crumble and your hero might be shown to be perhaps the dumbest president we've ever had. 

Quote
Ok, now I KNOW you don't live in the city.  Local police in the inner portions of any major city are SWAMPED and could in no way take on the extra responsibility of terror investigations.

At least give Bush credit for HS.  The inter agency problems have been an issue for decades and could hardly be placed at the feet of any one president.

I'm not blaming Bush for inter agency issues.... ::)  I'm only saying that HS was created out of necessity and politics.

So it's no big thing as who ever was pres would have done it.
Quote
Depends on whether or not it would have had the impact similar to our invasion post 9/11.  IMO I think it would have achieved similar results and the benefit of that happening 5 or so years earlier could have been huge.

Answer the question.  The second one.  (Again your answer is based on Hindsight....)

Quote
Suit yourself.

You should guard against becoming so emotional in your posts.. I might be inclined to listen to what you have to say..

.. but I doubt it.  Grin

Nothing emotional about it.  At some point while talking with you here, your lacking and absence of the desire to see the real truth beyond the propaganda your extreme alignment feeds you and molds you every day, just becomes too evident.  I pity you.  You are not inclined to listen to anything anyone says.  You've proved that already when you refuse to ask a liberal those questions on this board. 







Brixtonbulldog

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 4884
  • TAKE YO FUCKING JACKET WIT YA
Re: FINALLY - the reason DEMS tax more
« Reply #160 on: March 17, 2008, 06:59:18 PM »
What's funny about this is that you take what the newspaper published by the US military as a valid side of an issue.

So its not a valid side unless the brass in question disagree with the presidents policies and agree with you, huh?  Please..

You've done your homework?   ::)  This from the same guy who sights the Stars and Stripe as a valid source regarding our over extended army?
Also, who ever you are talking to are just as a stupid as you are.  Birds of a feather flock together.  You are like the guy on the Carls Jr. Commercial.   Standing there there looking a vegetables not knowing what to do.

So whoever I talk to must be stupid, general or not!!.. rrriiiiiggghhhhtttttt.  ::)

Of which you tried to accuse me or Clinton of thinking Americans were not attacked.  Which again highlights the lies you need to make yourself believe in order to keep you other stupid believes intact.

No, actually I pointed out that Clinton did jack shit even AFTER americans were very publicly attacked.  Read it ten more times if you have to.  No lies, no misinformation, and no spin about it... sorry :P

The good things?  (aside from the stupid move of Iraq)  Like gas?  Like home values ?  Like unemployment?     Yes, he did right by Afghanistan.
Even if BUSH had done it right in Iraq in the beginning I still would have been against the war a the time simply because it was a stupid move.  But BUSH as stupid as he is did it anyway and sent in too few troops.  He is quite possibly just as stupid as you.
At some point in your life you need to deal with truth or you can just go on avoiding it like a scared a little boy and not ask the questions to people you consider libs.
The fact is, I'm pretty sure now, is that any answer they give you is far too complicated for you to understand because chances are it will above playground rules for fighting.

So you will blame a sitting president for ALL factors of the free market, even ones that are consumer driven such as the irrisponsible home buyers who signed adj rate mortgages not thinking that if the market changes they won't be able to afford their homes. 

Way to go buddy!! ::)

Oh so because you went into a secure room you know the entire defense posture both tactically and logistically fo the united states?    ::) ::) ::) ::) ::),  go tell that to some dumb shit friend of yours who is too stupid not to be impressed.

Did I say that?  NOPE, lol. 

I said I saw SOME information about CERTAIN subj which clearly showed things about ONE area of the world.  I never claimed to be the friggin director of central intelligence, numnuts!! ah hahahahah!!.. wow. 

Aw.. I know it hurts to realize that there are some things the american public won't know for a few years. 

There you go again thinking in simple terms thinking it is that easy......   
BTW:  You think i might not be anti-terrorist only because i don't agree to the answers you've accepted from your masters. 
If you went back and read everything I've posted on this board regarding terrorism you'd think other wise.  The thing is, BUSH is an idiot when it comes to doing what needs to be done.  You can't accept that because your whole world would crumble and your hero might be shown to be perhaps the dumbest president we've ever had. 

I have masters?  Is that like how you're information is from NY Times, Wash Post, CNN, MoveON, CBS/NBC etc. and you take it as gospel without even considering how biased and agenda driven to one side those sources are?  Cause that's what it sounds like.

And the same goes for me having enough common sense not to look for acceptance or a fair judgement from a bunch of leftist, emotional, vengeful, and hate filled getbiggers who have gotten pretty good at ignoring facts and reason.

I'm not blaming Bush for inter agency issues.... ::)  I'm only saying that HS was created out of necessity and politics.
So it's no big thing as who ever was pres would have done it.

Ha!  Sure they would have. ::)  Judging by the way Clinton handled the terror situation from his actions in office it's fair to say that only a liberal with a bone to pick with the next president would make that assumption.

..It would really suck to have to give Bush ANY credit for that, wouldn't it? ;D


Answer the question.  The second one.  (Again your answer is based on Hindsight....)

I did:

Q: So we invade every country that has people in it that attacked us? 

A: Depends on whether or not it would have had the impact similar to our invasion post 9/11.  IMO I think it would have achieved similar results and the benefit of that happening 5 or so years earlier could have been huge.

Say, for example, Syria had a similar concentration of a terror group or groups and recent activity supporting and harboring terror.. then absolutely.  But again it depends on how similar every element of the situation is to Afghanistan, including our probably casualty rate, otherwise we couldn't expect similar positive results as we did from Afg.


Nothing emotional about it.  At some point while talking with you here, your lacking and absence of the desire to see the real truth beyond the propaganda your extreme alignment feeds you and molds you every day, just becomes too evident.  I pity you.  You are not inclined to listen to anything anyone says.  You've proved that already when you refuse to ask a liberal those questions on this board. 


Your posts have gone from a fairly straight forward and rational statement of opinion (however wrong or misled) to outright hate, insults, and immaturity.. hilarious!!!

Brixtonbulldog

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 4884
  • TAKE YO FUCKING JACKET WIT YA
Re: FINALLY - the reason DEMS tax more
« Reply #161 on: March 17, 2008, 07:00:17 PM »
Were you saying something about the good things Bush has done? ;D

Abortion & Traditional Values

1. Banned Partial Birth Abortion — by far the most significant roll-back of abortion on demand since Roe v. Wade.

2. Reversed Clinton's move to strike Reagan's anti-abortion Mexico Policy.

3. By Executive Order (EO), reversed Clinton's policy of not requiring parental consent for abortions under the Medical Privacy Act.

4. By EO, prohibited federal funds for international family planning groups that provide abortions and related services.

5. Upheld the ban on abortions at military hospitals.

6. Made $33 million available for abstinence education programs in 2004.

7. Supports the Defense of Marriage Act — and a Constitutional amendment saying marriage is between one man and one woman.

8. Requires states to conduct criminal background checks on prospective foster and adoptive parents.

9. Requires districts to let students transfer out of dangerous schools.

10. Requires schools to have a zero-tolerance policy for classroom disruption (reintroducing discipline into classrooms).

11. Signed the Teacher Protection Act, which protects teachers from lawsuits related to student discipline.

12. Expanded the role of faith-based and community organizations in after-school programs.

Budget, Taxes & Economy

1. Signed two income tax cuts, one of which was the largest dollar-value tax cut in world history.

2. Supports permanent elimination of the death tax.

3. Turned around an inherited economy that was in recession, and deeply shocked as a result of the 9/11 attacks.

4. Is seeking legislation to amend the Constitution to give the president line-item veto authority.

5. In process of permanently eliminating IRS marriage penalty.

6. Increased small business incentives to expand and to hire new people.

7. Initiated discussion on privatizing Social Security and individual investment accounts.

8. Killed Clinton's "ergonomic" rules that OSHA was about to implement; rules would have shut down every home business in America.

9. Passed tough new laws to hold corporate criminals to account as a result of corporate scandals.

10. Reduced taxes on dividends and capital gains.

11. Signed trade promotion authority.

12. Reduced and is working to ultimately eliminate the estate tax for family farms and ranches.

13. Fight Europe's ban on importing biotech crops from the United States.

14. Exempt food from unilateral trade sanctions and embargoes.

15. Provided $20 million to states to help people with disabilities work from home.

16. Created a fund to encourage technologies that help the disabled.

17. Increased the annual contribution limit on Education IRA's from $500 to $2,000 per child.

18. Make permanent the $5,000 adoption tax credit and provide $1 billion over five years to increase the credit to $10,000.

19. Grant a complete tax exemption for prepaid or college tuition savings plans.

20. Reduced H1B visas from a high of 195,000 per year to 66,000 per year.

Character & Conduct as President

1. Changed the tone in the White House, restoring HONOR and DIGNITY to the presidency.

2. Has reintroduced the mention of God and faith into public discourse.

3. Handled himself with enormous courage, dignity, grace, determination, and leadership in the aftermath of the September 11, 2001 hijackings and anthrax attacks. He almost single-handedly held this country together during those searing days:

Just three days after the attacks, in his address at the National Cathedral, the President reassured the nation when he said: "War has been waged against us by stealth and deceit and murder. This nation is peaceful, but fierce when stirred to anger. This conflict was begun on the timing and terms of others. It will end in a way, and at an hour, of our choosing."

On Friday, September 14, 2001, President Bush visited Ground Zero. Standing on a crushed and burned fire engine atop the smoldering pile at Ground Zero, he put his arm around a retired firefighter who had volunteered to help, and began speaking to the crowd. Rescue workers shouted that they could not hear him. Someone handed him a small American flag and bullhorn. The President spontaneously shouted: "I can hear you. The rest of the world hears you. And the people who knocked these buildings down will hear all of us soon." The crowd roared with cheers and chants of "USA! USA! USA!" Then he raised that American flag and rallied a nation.

Education & Employment Training

1. Signed the No Child Left Behind Act, delivering the most dramatic education reforms in a generation (challenging the soft bigotry of low expectations). The very liberal California Teachers union is currently running radio ads against the accountability provisions of this Act.

2. Announced "Jobs for the 21st Century," a comprehensive plan to better prepare workers for jobs in the new millennium by strengthening post-secondary education and job training, and by improving high school education.

3. Is working to provide vouchers to low-income students in persistently failing schools to help with costs of attending private schools. (Blocked in the Senate.)

4. Requires annual reading and math tests in grades three through eight.

5. Requires states to participate in the National Assessment of Education Progress, or an equivalent program, to establish a national benchmark for academic performance.

6. Requires school-by-school accountability report cards.

7. Established a $2.4 billion fund to help states implement teacher accountability systems.

8. Increased funding for the Troops-to-Teachers program, which recruits former military personnel to become teachers.

Environment & Energy

1. Killed the Kyoto Global Warming Treaty.

2. Submitted a comprehensive Energy Plan (awaits Congressional action). The plan works to develop cleaner technology, produce more natural gas here at home, make America less dependent on foreign sources of energy, improve national grid, etc.

3. Established a $10 million grant program to promote private conservation initiatives.

4. Significantly eased field-testing controls of genetically engineered crops.

5. Changed parts of the Forestry Management Act to allow necessary cleanup of the national forests in order to reduce fire danger.

6. Part of national forests cleanup: Restricted judicial challenges (based on the Endangered Species Act and other challenges), and removed the need for an Environmental Impact Statement before removing fuels/logging to reduce fire danger.

7. Killed Clinton's CO2 rules that were choking off all of the electricity surplus to California.

8. Provided matching grants for state programs that help private landowners protect rare species.

Defense & Foreign Policy

1. Successfully executed two wars in the aftermath of 9/11/01: Afghanistan and Iraq. 50 million people who had lived under tyrannical regimes now live in freedom.

2. Saddam Hussein is now in prison. His two murderous sons are dead. All but a handful of the regime's senior members were killed or captured.

3. Leader by leader and member by member, al Maida is being hunted down in dozens of countries around the world. Of the senior al Qaeda leaders, operational managers, and key facilitators the U.S. Government has been tracking, nearly two-thirds have been taken into custody or killed. The detentions or deaths of senior al Qaeda leaders, including Khalid Shaykh Muhammad, the mastermind of 9/11, and Muhammad Atef, Osama bin Laden's second-in-command until his death in late 2001, have been important in the War on Terror.

4. Disarmed Libya of its chemical, nuclear and biological WMD's without bribes or bloodshed.

5. Continues to execute the War On Terror, getting worldwide cooperation to track funds/terrorists. Has cut off much of the terrorists' funding, and captured or killed many key leaders of the al Qaeda network.

6. Initiated a comprehensive review of our military, which was completed just prior to 9/11/01, and which accurately reported that ASYMMETRICAL WARFARE capabilities were critical in the 21st Century.

7. Killed the old US/Soviet Union ABM Treaty that was preventing the U.S. from deploying our ABM defenses.

8. Has been one of the strongest, if not THE strongest friend Israel has ever hand in the U.S. presidency.

9. Part of the coalition for an Israeli/Palestinian "Roadmap to Peace," along with Great Britain, Russia and the EU.

10. Pushed through THREE raises for our military. Increased military pay by more than $1 billion a year.

11. Signed the LARGEST nuclear arms reduction in world history with Russia.

12. Started withdrawing our troops from Bosnia, and has announced withdrawal of our troops from Germany and the Korean DMZ.

13. Prohibited putting U.S. troops under U.N. command.

14. Paid back UN dues only in return for reforms and reduction of U.S. share of the costs.

15. Earmarked at least 20 percent of the Defense procurement budget for next-generation weaponry.

16. Increased defense research and development spending by at least $20 billion from fiscal 2002 to 2006.

17. Ordered a comprehensive review of military weapons and strategy.

18. Ordered a review of overseas deployments.

19. Ordered renovation of military housing. The military has already upgraded about 10 percent of its inventory and expects to modernize 76,000 additional homes this year.

20. Is working to tighten restrictions on military-technology exports.

21. Brought back our EP-3 intel plane and crew from China without any bribes or bloodshed.

Globalization & Internationalism

1. Challenged the United Nations to live up to their responsibilities and not become another League of Nations (in other words, showed the UN to be completely irrelevant).

2. Killed U.S. involvement in the International Criminal Court.

3. Told the United Nations we weren't interested in their plans for gun control (i.e., the International Ban on Small Arms Trafficking Treaty).

4. The only President since the founding of the UN to essentially tell that organization it is irrelevant. He said: "The conduct of the Iraqi regime is a threat to the authority of the United Nations, and a threat to peace. Iraq has answered a decade of UN demands with a decade of defiance. All the world now faces a test, and the United Nations a difficult and defining moment. Are Security Council resolutions to be honored and enforced, or cast aside without consequence? Will the United Nations serve the purpose of its founding, or will it be irrelevant?" We all know the outcome and the answer.

5. Told the Congress and the world, "America will never seek a permission slip to defend the security of our country."

Government Reform

1. Improved government efficiency by putting hundreds of thousands of jobs put up for bid. This weakens public-sector unions and cuts undeserved pay raises.

2. Initiated review of all federal agencies with the goal of eliminating federal jobs (completed September 2003) in an effort to reduce the size of the federal government while increasing private sector jobs.

3. Led the most extensive reorganization the Federal bureaucracy in over 50 years: After 9/11, condensed 20+ overlapping agencies and their intelligence sectors into one agency, the Department of Homeland Security.

4. Ordered each agency to draft a five-year plan to restructure itself, with fewer managers.

5. Converted federal service contracts to performance-based contracts wherever possible so that the contractor has measurable performance goals.

Health

1. Strengthen the National Health Service Corps to put more physicians in the neediest areas, and make its scholarship funds tax-free.

2. Double the research budget of the National Institutes of Health.

3. Signed Medicare Reform, which includes:

A 10-year privatization option.

Prescription drug benefits: Prior to this reform, Medicare paid for extended hospital stays for ulcer surgery, for example, at a cost of about $28,000 per patient. Yet Medicare would not pay for the drugs that eliminate the cause of most ulcers, drugs that cost about $500 a year. Now, drug coverage under Medicare will allow seniors to replace more expensive surgeries and hospitalizations with less expensive prescription medicine.

More health care choices: As President Bush stated, "…when seniors have the ability to make choices, health care plans within Medicare will have to compete for their business by offering higher quality service [at lower cost]. For the seniors of America, more choices and more control will mean better health care. These are the kinds of health care options we give to the members of Congress and federal employees. What's good for members of Congress is also good for seniors.

New Health Savings Accounts: Effective January 1, 2004, Americans can set aside up to $4,500 every year, tax free, to save for medical expenses. Depending on your tax bracket, that means you'll save between 10 to 35 percent on any costs covered by money in your account. Every year, the money not spent would stay in the account and gain interest tax-free, just like an IRA. These accounts will be good for small business owners, and employees. More businesses can focus on covering workers for major medical problems, such as hospitalization for an injury or illness. At the same time, employees and their families will use these accounts to cover doctors visits, or lab tests, or other smaller costs. Some employers will contribute to employee health accounts. This will help more American families get the health care they need at the price they can afford.

Homeland Security, Border Enforcement & Immigration

1. *See Government Reform above. Under President Bush's leadership, America has made an unprecedented commitment to homeland security.

2. Has CONSTRUCTION in process on the first 10 ABM silos in Alaska so that America will have a defense against North Korean nukes. Has ordered national and theater ballistic missile defenses to be deployed by 2004.

3. Announced a 9.7% increase in government-wide homeland security funding in his FY 2005 budget, nearly tripling the FY 2001 levels (excluding the Department of Defense and Project BioShield).

4. Before DHS was created, there were inspectors from three different agencies of the Federal Government and Border Patrol officers protecting our borders. Through DHS, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) now consolidates all border activities into a single agency to create "one face at the border." This not only better secures the borders of the United States, but it also eliminates many of the inefficiencies that occurred under the old system. With over 18,000 CBP inspectors and 11,000 Border Patrol agents, CBP has 29,000 uniformed officers on our borders.

5. The Border Patrol is continuing installation of monitoring devices along the borders to detect illegal activity.

6. Launched Operation Tarmac to investigate businesses and workers in the secure areas of domestic airports and ensure immigration law compliance. Since 9/11, DHS has audited 3,640 businesses, examined 259,037 employee records, arrested 1,030 unauthorized workers, and participated in the criminal indictment of 774 individuals.

7. Since September 11, 2001, the Coast Guard has conducted more than 124,000 port security patrols, 13,000 air patrols, boarded more than 92,000 vessels, interdicted over 14,000 individuals attempting to enter the United States illegally, and created and maintained more than 90 Maritime Security Zones.

8. Announced the Student and Exchange Visitor Information System (SEVIS), an internet-based system that is improving America's ability to track and monitor foreign students and exchange visitors. Over 870,000 students are registered in SEVIS. Of 285 completed field investigations, 71 aliens were arrested.

9. This week, the US-VISIT program began to digitally collect biometric identifiers to record the entry and exit of aliens who travel into the U.S on a visa. Together with the standard information, this new program will confirm compliance with visa and immigration policies.

10. Eliminated INS bureaucratic redundancies and lack of accountability.

11. Split the Immigration and Naturalization Service into two agencies: one to protect the border and interior, the other to deal with naturalization.

12. Signed the workplace verification bill to prevent hiring of illegal aliens.

13. Established a six-month deadline for processing immigration applications.

14. Information regarding nearly 100% of all containerized cargo is carefully screened by DHS before it arrives in the United States. Higher risk shipments are physically inspected for terrorist weapons and contraband prior to being released from the port of entry. Advanced technologies are being deployed to identify warning signs of chemical, biological, or radiological attacks. Since September 11, 2001, hundreds of thousands of first responders across America have been trained to recognize and respond to the effects of a WMD attack.

Judiciary & Tort Reform

1. Is urging federal liability reform to eliminate frivolous lawsuits.

2. Killed the liberal ABA's unconstitutional role in vetting federal judges. The Senate is supposed to advise and consent, not the ABA.

3. Is nominating strong, conservative judges to the judiciary.

4. Supports class action reform bill which limits lawyer fees so that more settlement money goes to victims.

Politics

1. His leadership resulted in Republican gains in the House and Senate, solidifying Republican control of both houses of Congress and the presidency.

2. Signed an EO enforcing the Supreme Court's Beck decision regarding union dues being used for political campaigns against individual's wishes.

Second Amendment

1. Ordered Attorney General Ashcroft to formally notify the Supreme Court that the OFFICIAL U.S. government position on the 2nd Amendment is that it supports INDIVIDUAL rights to own firearms, and is NOT a Leftist-imagined "collective" right.

2. Signed TWO bills into law that arm our pilots with handguns in the cockpit.

3. Currently pushing for full immunity from lawsuits for our national gun manufacturers.

4. *See Globalization & Internationalism.

Traditional Values, Compassion & Volunteerism

1. Endorses and promotes "The Responsibility Era." President Bush often speaks of the necessity of personal responsibility and civic volunteerism. He said, "In a compassionate society, people respect one another and take responsibility for the decisions they make in life. My hope is to change the culture from one that has said, if it feels good, do it; if you've got a problem, blame somebody else — to one in which every single American understands that he or she is responsible for the decisions that you make; you're responsible for loving your children with all your heart and all your soul; you're responsible for being involved with the quality of the education of your children; you're responsible for making sure the community in which you live is safe; you're responsible for loving your neighbor, just like you would like to be loved yourself."

2. Started the USA Freedom Corps, the most comprehensive clearinghouse of volunteer opportunities ever offered. For the first time in history, Americans can enter geographic information about where they want to get involved, such as state or zip code, as well as areas of interest ranging from education to the environment, and they can access volunteer opportunities offered by more than 50,000 organizations across the country and around the world.

3. Established the The White House Office and the Centers for the Faith-Based and Community Initiative — located in seven Federal agencies. The faith-based initiative supports the essential work of these important organizations. The goal is to make sure that grassroots leaders can compete on an equal footing for federal dollars, receive greater private support, and face fewer bureaucratic barriers. Work focuses on at-risk youth, ex-offenders, the homeless and hungry, substance abusers, those with HIV/AIDS, and welfare-to-work families.

4. The White House released a guidebook fully describing the Administration's belief that faith-based groups have a Constitutionally-protected right to maintain their religious identity through hiring — even when Federal funds are involved.

5. Issued an EO implementing the Supreme Court's Olmstead ruling, which requires moving disabled people from institutions to community-based facilities when possible.

6.Increased funding for low-interest loan programs to help people with disabilities purchase devices to assist them.

7. Revised the Department of Housing and Urban Development's Section 8 rent subsidies to disabled people, permitting them to use up to a year's worth of vouchers to finance down payments on homes. HUD has started pilot programs in 11 states.

8. Committed US funds to purchase medicine for millions of men, women and children now suffering with AIDS in Africa.

9. Heeding the words of our own Declaration of Independence, the president laid out the non-negotiable demands of human dignity for all people everywhere. On January 29, 2002, he said, "No nation owns these aspirations, and no nation is exempt from them. We have no intention of imposing our culture. But America will always stand firm for the non-negotiable demands of human dignity." As stated by the President, they are a virtual manifesto of conservative principles:

Equal Justice Freedom of Speech Limited Government Power Private Property Rights Religious Tolerance Respect for Women Rule of Law



Decker

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 5782
Re: FINALLY - the reason DEMS tax more
« Reply #162 on: March 18, 2008, 08:08:23 AM »
No offense but many of those accomplishments are what's ruining this country.

OzmO

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 22729
  • Drink enough Kool-aid and you'll think its healthy
Re: FINALLY - the reason DEMS tax more
« Reply #163 on: March 18, 2008, 08:54:18 AM »
Nice cut and paste job.  You must be proud of yourself.   I bet deep down you think that's quite a list and no other democratic president can match it.   

So its not a valid side unless the brass in question disagree with the presidents policies and agree with you, huh?  Please..

So whoever I talk to must be stupid, general or not!!.. rrriiiiiggghhhhtttttt.  Roll Eyes

I don't know how many more ways i can explain it to you.  but then again that's the problem with stupid people, they are too stupid to see how stupid they are.

But I'll try again.

Stars and stripes is a military publication.  It's like the New England Patriots telling you about video taping.   They won't acknowledge it unless they absolutely have to.   Same with the military sponsored paper.   What don't you get about that?   Can you imagine the moral problems it would cause if the Stars and Stripes came  out and said "we are close to being or are over extended"?  Wait a second you can't think that deep.

The General.  You really think a General is going to tell some E-3 what's really going on?  Like i said, tell that garbage to your dumb ass friends.

Quote
No, actually I pointed out that Clinton did jack shit even AFTER americans were very publicly attacked.  Read it ten more times if you have to.  No lies, no misinformation, and no spin about it... sorry Tongue

No.  He didn't do what you thought he should, in hindsight, and you or I don't know everything he did do.

Quote
So you will blame a sitting president for ALL factors of the free market, even ones that are consumer driven such as the irrisponsible home buyers who signed adj rate mortgages not thinking that if the market changes they won't be able to afford their homes.

Way to go buddy!! Roll Eyes

When we are spending 12 billion a week on an unneeded war and problems  stack up domestically, yes, i will blame the man in charge.

That's the difference between you and me, you support BUSH in the face of all this incompetence becuase not to do so would make you a liberal in your eyes.  For me.  It doesn't matter who's in office, if they stink they stink.

Additionally,  i don't use hindsight to gauge the effectiveness of a president's actions the way you do with Clinton regarding OBL and then translating that conclusion to blaming Clinton for 9/11.   That's just ignorance.
Quote
Did I say that?  NOPE, lol.

I said I saw SOME information about CERTAIN subj which clearly showed things about ONE area of the world.  I never claimed to be the friggin director of central intelligence, numnuts!! ah hahahahah!!.. wow.

Aw.. I know it hurts to realize that there are some things the american public won't know for a few years. 

So now, you have some General telling you things are ok combined with the Stars and Stripes and SOME info you saw.... and this is why you said:

"We are no where near over extended"

 ::)
Quote
I have masters?  Is that like how you're information is from NY Times, Wash Post, CNN, MoveON, CBS/NBC etc. and you take it as gospel without even considering how biased and agenda driven to one side those sources are?  Cause that's what it sounds like.

And the same goes for me having enough common sense not to look for acceptance or a fair judgement from a bunch of leftist, emotional, vengeful, and hate filled getbiggers who have gotten pretty good at ignoring facts and reason.

I take statements from Generals, the fact that ToD's have been extended for nearly everyone at one point or another, Personal high level contacts involved logistics, and the media.  I could dig up much more.  What's funny however is your comments about the media bias and you using Stars and Stripes as you sole publication example.  You really have highlighted your stupidity and brainwashing  there.

Fact is, we'd probably be at war with Iran right now, but we don't have the capability to do it safely. 
Quote
Ha!  Sure they would have. Roll Eyes  Judging by the way Clinton handled the terror situation from his actions in office it's fair to say that only a liberal with a bone to pick with the next president would make that assumption.

..It would really suck to have to give Bush ANY credit for that, wouldn't it? Grin


So you are suggesting a dem president wouldn't have created the HS after 9/11?    ::)

More brain washing.

Quote
I did:

Q: So we invade every country that has people in it that attacked us?

A: Depends on whether or not it would have had the impact similar to our invasion post 9/11.  IMO I think it would have achieved similar results and the benefit of that happening 5 or so years earlier could have been huge.

Say, for example, Syria had a similar concentration of a terror group or groups and recent activity supporting and harboring terror.. then absolutely.  But again it depends on how similar every element of the situation is to Afghanistan, including our probably casualty rate, otherwise we couldn't expect similar positive results as we did from Afg.

So basically you'd just invade them all?

War monger.  Just admit you are.  It's cool.  No need to hide it.
Quote
Your posts have gone from a fairly straight forward and rational statement of opinion (however wrong or misled) to outright hate, insults, and immaturity.. hilarious!!!

Just a statement of fact Brix.  It's only viewed as an insult to you becuase you don't agree or cannot recognize your stupidity.  The truth shouldn't hurt you it should enlighten you.   I mean look at the things you said:

We are no where near over exteneded

We could have decimated AQ years ago

A General told me.....

The Stars and Stripes.....

9/11 is Clinton's fault

You living in your own little "conservative" dream world where the evil libs are trying to wake you up from it.  Awe poor guy.



War-Horse

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 6490
Re: FINALLY - the reason DEMS tax more
« Reply #164 on: March 18, 2008, 10:36:28 AM »
Ozmo.  You have obliterated this lil boy.  He is lying in a pool of his own blood while protecting his president (as hes kicked in the head repeatadly, by bush himself).......

Sadly, we must move on, for this pony wont drink water.... :'(

Brixtonbulldog

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 4884
  • TAKE YO FUCKING JACKET WIT YA
Re: FINALLY - the reason DEMS tax more
« Reply #165 on: March 18, 2008, 05:01:52 PM »
Nice cut and paste job.  You must be proud of yourself.   I bet deep down you think that's quite a list and no other democratic president can match it.   


You asked what good things Bush has done.  From the conservative perspective that list is pretty complete.

Quote from: OzmO on Today at 11:54:18

I don't know how many more ways i can explain it to you.  but then again that's the problem with stupid people, they are too stupid to see how stupid they are.

But I'll try again.

Stars and stripes is a military publication.  It's like the New England Patriots telling you about video taping.   They won't acknowledge it unless they absolutely have to.   Same with the military sponsored paper.   What don't you get about that?   Can you imagine the moral problems it would cause if the Stars and Stripes came  out and said "we are close to being or are over extended"?  Wait a second you can't think that deep.

The General.  You really think a General is going to tell some E-3 what's really going on?  Like i said, tell that garbage to your dumb ass friends.


First off, I left the service as an E-5.

Second, it doesn't matter what rank I was because the 0-7 I talked to was a friend of the family and would have talked to me anyway much like all of the other officers my family is in contact with. 

The point of posting the S & S article was not to change your mind since no matter where it came from you would just ignore it and insult me just like your response to every other point I've made.  The point was to illustrate the opposing story and one you rarely hear since it isn't in the interest of YOUR sources to present both sides of the issues.  Most of the talk of our military being over extended refers to the unwillingness of troops to serve more time in Iraq (which I can understand).  That does NOT mean our military capabilities our over extended anywhere in the world and that is precisely why we aren't near it.. because we can still accomplish any of the missions we are currently engaged in and could take on somewhat more if absolutely necessary.


Quote from: OzmO on Today at 11:54:18

No.  He didn't do what you thought he should, in hindsight, and you or I don't know everything he did do.



Well based on what I DO know I have to say he didn't do enough... hindsight or not.


Quote from: OzmO on Today at 11:54:18

When we are spending 12 billion a week on an unneeded war and problems  stack up domestically, yes, i will blame the man in charge.

That's the difference between you and me, you support BUSH in the face of all this incompetence becuase not to do so would make you a liberal in your eyes.  For me.  It doesn't matter who's in office, if they stink they stink.

Additionally,  i don't use hindsight to gauge the effectiveness of a president's actions the way you do with Clinton regarding OBL and then translating that conclusion to blaming Clinton for 9/11.   That's just ignorance.



Complete BS.. you just hate Bush and you are determined to place as much blame on him as possible, plain and simple.

I didn't place the entirety of blame from 9/11 on Clinton.  I stated that there were things he should have done and he didn't do them.  There is a difference to objective people like myself but liberals like you with an agenda to paint like to twist everything slightly to support your opinion.  Very low, Ozmo.



Quote from: OzmO on Today at 11:54:18

So now, you have some General telling you things are ok combined with the Stars and Stripes and SOME info you saw.... and this is why you said:

"We are no where near over extended"

 ::)



Actually I was referring to the information I was exposed to while in the military and I was talking about the terrorist involment in Iraq before our invasion... pay attention to the order of my posts.  Do I need to slow down for you to follow this?

Quote from: OzmO on Today at 11:54:18

I take statements from Generals, the fact that ToD's have been extended for nearly everyone at one point or another, Personal high level contacts involved logistics, and the media.  I could dig up much more.  What's funny however is your comments about the media bias and you using Stars and Stripes as you sole publication example.  You really have highlighted your stupidity and brainwashing  there.

Fact is, we'd probably be at war with Iran right now, but we don't have the capability to do it safely. 



Once again.. the "media" you use for sources only illustrates one side.  Without searching the net for an hour I only wanted to find an article which shows an ACCURATE assessment of how over extended or not we are.  S & S hit the nail on the head.


Quote from: OzmO on Today at 11:54:18

So you are suggesting a dem president wouldn't have created the HS after 9/11?    ::)

More brain washing.



I doubt Kerry would have and Clinton might have had a 50/50 chance of doing something along those lines.  Any conservative is far more likely to take terror and Nat'l security more seriously. 


Quote from: OzmO on Today at 11:54:18

So basically you'd just invade them all?

War monger.  Just admit you are.  It's cool.  No need to hide it.


"WAAHH!!! WAAAHHH!!! WAR ISN'T THE ANSWER, GOSH DARN IT!!!!  WAAAHHH!!!"

Hahahahahahahahaha!!!!!!   Oh man.. Actually I am not, but you've proven that you don't really pay attention to facts and logic so you can go on believing whatever you want.


Quote from: OzmO on Today at 11:54:18

Just a statement of fact Brix.  It's only viewed as an insult to you becuase you don't agree or cannot recognize your stupidity.  The truth shouldn't hurt you it should enlighten you.   I mean look at the things you said:

We are no where near over exteneded

We could have decimated AQ years ago

A General told me.....

The Stars and Stripes.....

9/11 is Clinton's fault

You living in your own little "conservative" dream world where the evil libs are trying to wake you up from it.  Awe poor guy.

We could have decimated AQ years ago Yep.. or close to it.  But your guy thought it would be better to leave it for the next guy.

A General told me..... You must really hate that I know what I'm talking about.

The Stars and Stripes..... .. was right.

9/11 is Clinton's fault More spin?  Not surprised.

240 is Back

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 102396
  • Complete website for only $300- www.300website.com
Re: FINALLY - the reason DEMS tax more
« Reply #166 on: March 18, 2008, 05:17:04 PM »
Brix...

can you and Ozmo have this argument without the patnetic use of labels?

Lib, spin, words like that.  I listen to glen beck and rush almost daily... I'm well aware that these words are used to demonize a group, not dissect their position.  When you yell "you're a lib using spin", you might as well say "you're evil using evil" or other nonsense.  It's vague, and it is a poor substitute for a well-supported argument.

Instead of using 'lib', 'spin', and 'the media', please cite specifics and give us real evidence.  Otherwise you just sound like another brainwashed fool, and both the far right and left have enough of those.  Don't be one.

Deicide

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 22921
  • Reapers...
Re: FINALLY - the reason DEMS tax more
« Reply #167 on: March 18, 2008, 07:09:18 PM »
I am tired of both Democrats and Republicans. I am neither. We have a shit two party system.

How about an individual and unique independent or a libertarian?

Not going to happen because most Americans like American idol too much to pay attention to subtlety.  ::)
I hate the State.

OzmO

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 22729
  • Drink enough Kool-aid and you'll think its healthy
Re: FINALLY - the reason DEMS tax more
« Reply #168 on: March 18, 2008, 08:59:42 PM »
 
You asked what good things Bush has done.  From the conservative perspective that list is pretty complete.

Well good for you.  unfortunately, our country gets to live with his bad decisions and well as his good ones.  I wouldn't expect a president to only making bad ones even Carter.  but, in this instance we are dealing with a president who has quite probably made the worse foreign policy decision in the history fo the office.


Second, it doesn't matter what rank I was because the 0-7 I talked to was a friend of the family and would have talked to me anyway much like all of the other officers my family is in contact with. 

The point of posting the S & S article was not to change your mind since no matter where it came from you would just ignore it and insult me just like your response to every other point I've made.  The point was to illustrate the opposing story and one you rarely hear since it isn't in the interest of YOUR sources to present both sides of the issues.  Most of the talk of our military being over extended refers to the unwillingness of troops to serve more time in Iraq (which I can understand).  That does NOT mean our military capabilities our over extended anywhere in the world and that is precisely why we aren't near it.. because we can still accomplish any of the missions we are currently engaged in and could take on somewhat more if absolutely necessary.

We are over extended in that another major conflict would cause serious problems.  I'm not suggesting any current mission isn't being accomplished.  for you say we are no where near over extended is false becuase of the things I've brought up.   If another major conflict can put us in a problem situtation then that's over extended.  That being said, it is so bad in our military that budgets across the board have been cut, people have been let go (DoD & civilian employees), departments have been downsized etc...  Brix, if there wasn't problems they wouldn't have imposed extended duty for troops that are there.  And generals more than one like your "friend"  ::), have come out and said there are problems and we will have big problems if we get engaged in another conflict.   This is one of the reasons BUSH's decision making is in question.  He ran into Iraq with a plate full of assumptions and it got thrown in his face.

Stars and Stripes.  I understand you are citing it as part of another view point or source.  what you fail to consider the credibility of the source in regard to the issue.  Imagine the S&S saying in a headline:  "The US military dangerously close to being over extended and may not be able to adequately respond to another major conflict."  Thge S&S will not say anything that would damage the military unless to was force to do so.  that's why your offering of the S&S is juvenile at best.


Well based on what I DO know I have to say he didn't do enough... hindsight or not.

Based on your display of thinking, what you think you do know is laced with your personal bias against anything non-Bush.  So basically it's meaningless.




Complete BS.. you just hate Bush and you are determined to place as much blame on him as possible, plain and simple.

I didn't place the entirety of blame from 9/11 on Clinton.  I stated that there were things he should have done and he didn't do them.  There is a difference to objective people like myself but liberals like you with an agenda to paint like to twist everything slightly to support your opinion.  Very low, Ozmo.

You've never said 9/11 was Clinton's fault?  You just think he let it happen but it's not his fault it happened?

Actually I was referring to the information I was exposed to while in the military and I was talking about the terrorist involment in Iraq before our invasion... pay attention to the order of my posts.  Do I need to slow down for you to follow this?

doesn't change the lack of evidence and reason to go in there all of which has been pretty much brought out in the open


Once again.. the "media" you use for sources only illustrates one side.  Without searching the net for an hour I only wanted to find an article which shows an ACCURATE assessment of how over extended or not we are.  S & S hit the nail on the head.


refer to above on the S&S thing.  I predict however that you will still not get it.

I doubt Kerry would have and Clinton might have had a 50/50 chance of doing something along those lines.  Any conservative is far more likely to take terror and Nat'l security more seriously. 

If that isn't an ignorant bias belief i don't know what is.   ::)


"WAAHH!!! WAAAHHH!!! WAR ISN'T THE ANSWER, GOSH DARN IT!!!!  WAAAHHH!!!"

Hahahahahahahahaha!!!!!!   Oh man.. Actually I am not, but you've proven that you don't really pay attention to facts and logic so you can go on believing whatever you want.

Hey, it's ok that you graduated form the WWF school of problem solving.



War-Horse

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 6490
Re: FINALLY - the reason DEMS tax more
« Reply #169 on: March 18, 2008, 11:31:20 PM »
Hey its day 1,801 of "Mission accomplished" in Iraq.... :D

OzmO

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 22729
  • Drink enough Kool-aid and you'll think its healthy
Re: FINALLY - the reason DEMS tax more
« Reply #170 on: March 19, 2008, 06:42:59 AM »
Brix...

can you and Ozmo have this argument without the patnetic use of labels?

Lib, spin, words like that.  I listen to glen beck and rush almost daily... I'm well aware that these words are used to demonize a group, not dissect their position.  When you yell "you're a lib using spin", you might as well say "you're evil using evil" or other nonsense.  It's vague, and it is a poor substitute for a well-supported argument.

Instead of using 'lib', 'spin', and 'the media', please cite specifics and give us real evidence.  Otherwise you just sound like another brainwashed fool, and both the far right and left have enough of those.  Don't be one.

What spin stereo types and labels have i been using?

Brixtonbulldog

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 4884
  • TAKE YO FUCKING JACKET WIT YA
Re: FINALLY - the reason DEMS tax more
« Reply #171 on: March 19, 2008, 07:11:12 PM »
Brix...

can you and Ozmo have this argument without the patnetic use of labels?

Lib, spin, words like that.  I listen to glen beck and rush almost daily... I'm well aware that these words are used to demonize a group, not dissect their position.  When you yell "you're a lib using spin", you might as well say "you're evil using evil" or other nonsense.  It's vague, and it is a poor substitute for a well-supported argument.

Instead of using 'lib', 'spin', and 'the media', please cite specifics and give us real evidence.  Otherwise you just sound like another brainwashed fool, and both the far right and left have enough of those.  Don't be one.

Sure..

Does that mean you are done doing the same as well?  Are you saying the word "neocon" has left your table?  I doubt it.

One example would be claiming that I blame the entirety of 9/11 on Bill Clinton.  That's not what I said.. it's an example of "spin" to twist my points and paint a more negative light of my position.  This is a common liberal tactic and exactly why I made a point to mention it whenever things like that are used against me.  I haven't yet needed to twist anyone's words in order to argue.

Becoming emotional, angry, belligerent and immature are also poor substitutes for a well supported argument, OZ.  hint hint.

240 is Back

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 102396
  • Complete website for only $300- www.300website.com
Re: FINALLY - the reason DEMS tax more
« Reply #172 on: March 19, 2008, 07:15:25 PM »
Sure..

Does that mean you are done doing the same as well?  Are you saying the word "neocon" has left your table?  I doubt it.

One example would be claiming that I blame the entirety of 9/11 on Bill Clinton.  That's not what I said.. it's an example of "spin" to twist my points and paint a more negative light of my position.  This is a common liberal tactic and exactly why I made a point to mention it whenever things like that are used against me.  I haven't yet needed to twist anyone's words in order to argue.

Becoming emotional, angry, belligerent and immature are also poor substitutes for a well supported argument, OZ.  hint hint.

I'm continually developing my opinion.

i've voted lifetime repub.
I was upset when the 911 commissioners came out and said the investigation was a sham, and when WMD turned out to be not there.
Then I heard Bush and cheney admit it's about the oil.
And I grew up a little bit and realized lies are necessary for getting the tough stuff done.

I'm a realist.   I don't like the neocon borrowing, but the aggressive US action, I'm okay with.  Just so long as it doesn't cripple the economy.  So yeah, I've been emotional in the past, but I'm starting to figure out things.

Weird that in the 2008 election, we have 3 liberals running.  What can I do?  Stay home on election day? 

Brixtonbulldog

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 4884
  • TAKE YO FUCKING JACKET WIT YA
Re: FINALLY - the reason DEMS tax more
« Reply #173 on: March 19, 2008, 07:28:22 PM »
I don't like the neocon borrowing

I'll take that as a "no."

I suggest you either vote for McCain and hope he takes to the conservative element a bit more once in office or vote for Hillary just to avoid the uber liberal Obama from gaining more influence and destroying the country faster than any Clinton.

But then again I'm just a brainwashed neoconservative dimwitted baby war monger.. ;D :P

240 is Back

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 102396
  • Complete website for only $300- www.300website.com
Re: FINALLY - the reason DEMS tax more
« Reply #174 on: March 19, 2008, 07:32:14 PM »
I'll take that as a "no."

I suggest you either vote for McCain and hope he takes to the conservative element a bit more once in office or vote for Hillary just to avoid the uber liberal Obama from gaining more influence and destroying the country faster than any Clinton.

But then again I'm just a brainwashed neoconservative dimwitted baby war monger.. ;D :P

LOL... it has to be mccain or hilary.

Comparing their military positions - very similar.  I think hilary would bomb a villiage a tad faster than Mccain would.  her decision making power and cut-throat coldness - that's an awesome thing.  Mccain is great but just seems out of it sometimes.  Right now, things aren't stressful for him yet - he's just visiting and hanging out - and making these mistakes.  I worry the job might be tough for him.  Hilary, as much as I dislike her, will be one organized, cold, direct and focused leader.  Take no shit.