|
'Bama killing more civilians.
"nom=de=plume" wrote in message ... So, when a group makes an error and admits it, that means it's ok for the group that perpetrated the hoax to get off the hook. Quoting from Wiki: The Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 is a United States Congressional statement of policy calling for regime change in Iraq.[ It was signed into law by President Bill Clinton. The Act found that between 1980 and 1998 Iraq had: 1.. committed various and significant violations of International Law, 2.. had failed to comply with the obligations to which it had agreed following the Gulf War and 3.. further had ignored Resolutions of the United Nations Security Council. "He will then conclude that he can go right on and do more to rebuild an arsenal of devastating destruction. And some day, some way, I guarantee you he'll use the arsenal.... President Clinton ~ 1998" Bush lied? Eisboch |
'Bama killing more civilians.
On Sun, 14 Feb 2010 18:22:13 -0800, "nom=de=plume" wrote:
"John H" wrote in message .. . On Sun, 14 Feb 2010 17:29:09 -0800, "nom=de=plume" wrote: "John H" wrote in message ... On Sun, 14 Feb 2010 16:39:00 -0700, Canuck57 wrote: On 14/02/2010 3:20 PM, nom=de=plume wrote: wrote in message ... On 14/02/2010 12:38 PM, nom=de=plume wrote: "John wrote in message ... http://tinyurl.com/yhsqavk -- *I never thought the greatest threat to the American way of life would be our President!* John H And I'm sure there are those here who remember you marching on DC when Bush invaded Iraq for no reason.... You are a hypocrite. What part of the democrat involvement that you choose to forget? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Resolution Don't worry, liberal-democrats do have short memories. Even Hillary was FOR the resultion. Go figure. So, when a group makes an error and admits it, that means it's ok for the group that perpetrated the hoax to get off the hook. Not at all. But democrat liberals will be saying it was Bush;s fault in 100 years from now. And it wasn't Bush that did the last years debt spend and corruption bailouts. It was Obama that did. Doesn't mater how you cut it, democrats provided the cash via congress, and a democrat president is signing the checks. But really does not mater, just finished reading how congress quietly passed a bill to prevent the US government from going into debt default, turns out some of the US federal debt is coming up and no one is lending them money any more. So congress has raised the ponzip fiat money debt limit to $14.5 trillion. And many economists believe this is the break point for the US. The break point is where it can no longer be expected that the debt will ever be paid off and still ahve a working government. Which means be it this year or 5 years from now, the US currency will melt down. And government owing $14.5 trillion can't afford 10% interest rates so in fact, hyper-stagflation and a worthless greenback is looking more like probability than possibility. US will be like Greece today, beggars. Nor was it Bush's fault that Clinton railed about Saddam and his weapons of mass destruction. Liberal selective memory, or mammary in nindepoop's case. -- *I never thought the greatest threat to the American way of life would be our President!* John H Another lie from a moron. No mammaries? Sorry. -- *I never thought the greatest threat to the American way of life would be our President!* John H I thought you plonked me. Yet another lie. Did you learn that from Rush or Palin? Do you think plonking must be permanent? Everyone likes a good laugh, and you, nincdepoop, provide the best. Maybe I'll talk to you again next month. Don't hold that lovely breath though! LOL! -- *I never thought the greatest threat to the American way of life would be our President!* John H |
'Bama killing more civilians.
On Sun, 14 Feb 2010 21:44:12 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote:
"nom=de=plume" wrote in message ... So, when a group makes an error and admits it, that means it's ok for the group that perpetrated the hoax to get off the hook. Quoting from Wiki: The Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 is a United States Congressional statement of policy calling for regime change in Iraq.[ It was signed into law by President Bill Clinton. The Act found that between 1980 and 1998 Iraq had: 1.. committed various and significant violations of International Law, 2.. had failed to comply with the obligations to which it had agreed following the Gulf War and 3.. further had ignored Resolutions of the United Nations Security Council. "He will then conclude that he can go right on and do more to rebuild an arsenal of devastating destruction. And some day, some way, I guarantee you he'll use the arsenal.... President Clinton ~ 1998" Bush lied? yeah. because he was president AFTER clinton and he had evidence...which he disregarded...that there were NO WMD's in iraq. clinton sent ZERO troops into iraq. you right wingers....so let's summarize what you believe: -obama's been president for 9 years -clinton invaded iraq amazing what you'll believe |
'Bama killing more civilians.
"bpuharic" wrote in message ... On Sun, 14 Feb 2010 21:44:12 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote: "nom=de=plume" wrote in message ... So, when a group makes an error and admits it, that means it's ok for the group that perpetrated the hoax to get off the hook. Quoting from Wiki: The Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 is a United States Congressional statement of policy calling for regime change in Iraq.[ It was signed into law by President Bill Clinton. The Act found that between 1980 and 1998 Iraq had: 1.. committed various and significant violations of International Law, 2.. had failed to comply with the obligations to which it had agreed following the Gulf War and 3.. further had ignored Resolutions of the United Nations Security Council. "He will then conclude that he can go right on and do more to rebuild an arsenal of devastating destruction. And some day, some way, I guarantee you he'll use the arsenal.... President Clinton ~ 1998" Bush lied? yeah. because he was president AFTER clinton and he had evidence...which he disregarded...that there were NO WMD's in iraq. clinton sent ZERO troops into iraq. you right wingers....so let's summarize what you believe: -obama's been president for 9 years -clinton invaded iraq amazing what you'll believe *I* believe that it's time for most of you lefties to pull your head out of the sand and get a eyeful of reality. Obama is. Eisboch |
'Bama killing more civilians.
On Sun, 14 Feb 2010 22:20:42 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote:
"bpuharic" wrote in message .. . On Sun, 14 Feb 2010 21:44:12 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote: amazing what you'll believe *I* believe that it's time for most of you lefties to pull your head out of the sand and get a eyeful of reality. oh. you mean you want us to quit looking at the real world and believe the fairy tales you think rush tells you are true. sorry sport. i like to think for myself |
'Bama killing more civilians.
"John H" wrote in message
... On Sun, 14 Feb 2010 18:22:13 -0800, "nom=de=plume" wrote: "John H" wrote in message . .. On Sun, 14 Feb 2010 17:29:09 -0800, "nom=de=plume" wrote: "John H" wrote in message m... On Sun, 14 Feb 2010 16:39:00 -0700, Canuck57 wrote: On 14/02/2010 3:20 PM, nom=de=plume wrote: wrote in message ... On 14/02/2010 12:38 PM, nom=de=plume wrote: "John wrote in message ... http://tinyurl.com/yhsqavk -- *I never thought the greatest threat to the American way of life would be our President!* John H And I'm sure there are those here who remember you marching on DC when Bush invaded Iraq for no reason.... You are a hypocrite. What part of the democrat involvement that you choose to forget? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Resolution Don't worry, liberal-democrats do have short memories. Even Hillary was FOR the resultion. Go figure. So, when a group makes an error and admits it, that means it's ok for the group that perpetrated the hoax to get off the hook. Not at all. But democrat liberals will be saying it was Bush;s fault in 100 years from now. And it wasn't Bush that did the last years debt spend and corruption bailouts. It was Obama that did. Doesn't mater how you cut it, democrats provided the cash via congress, and a democrat president is signing the checks. But really does not mater, just finished reading how congress quietly passed a bill to prevent the US government from going into debt default, turns out some of the US federal debt is coming up and no one is lending them money any more. So congress has raised the ponzip fiat money debt limit to $14.5 trillion. And many economists believe this is the break point for the US. The break point is where it can no longer be expected that the debt will ever be paid off and still ahve a working government. Which means be it this year or 5 years from now, the US currency will melt down. And government owing $14.5 trillion can't afford 10% interest rates so in fact, hyper-stagflation and a worthless greenback is looking more like probability than possibility. US will be like Greece today, beggars. Nor was it Bush's fault that Clinton railed about Saddam and his weapons of mass destruction. Liberal selective memory, or mammary in nindepoop's case. -- *I never thought the greatest threat to the American way of life would be our President!* John H Another lie from a moron. No mammaries? Sorry. -- *I never thought the greatest threat to the American way of life would be our President!* John H I thought you plonked me. Yet another lie. Did you learn that from Rush or Palin? Do you think plonking must be permanent? Everyone likes a good laugh, and you, nincdepoop, provide the best. Maybe I'll talk to you again next month. Don't hold that lovely breath though! LOL! -- *I never thought the greatest threat to the American way of life would be our President!* John H Basically, then, you're a liar. Got it. -- Nom=de=Plume |
'Bama killing more civilians.
"Eisboch" wrote in message
... "nom=de=plume" wrote in message ... So, when a group makes an error and admits it, that means it's ok for the group that perpetrated the hoax to get off the hook. Quoting from Wiki: The Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 is a United States Congressional statement of policy calling for regime change in Iraq.[ It was signed into law by President Bill Clinton. The Act found that between 1980 and 1998 Iraq had: 1.. committed various and significant violations of International Law, 2.. had failed to comply with the obligations to which it had agreed following the Gulf War and 3.. further had ignored Resolutions of the United Nations Security Council. "He will then conclude that he can go right on and do more to rebuild an arsenal of devastating destruction. And some day, some way, I guarantee you he'll use the arsenal.... President Clinton ~ 1998" Bush lied? Eisboch And, Clinton invaded Iraq when? And, Bush claimed that WMDs where where? Bush listened to Clinton about anything??? Keep defending Bush. You're doing so well! -- Nom=de=Plume |
'Bama killing more civilians.
"Eisboch" wrote in message
... "bpuharic" wrote in message ... On Sun, 14 Feb 2010 21:44:12 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote: "nom=de=plume" wrote in message ... So, when a group makes an error and admits it, that means it's ok for the group that perpetrated the hoax to get off the hook. Quoting from Wiki: The Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 is a United States Congressional statement of policy calling for regime change in Iraq.[ It was signed into law by President Bill Clinton. The Act found that between 1980 and 1998 Iraq had: 1.. committed various and significant violations of International Law, 2.. had failed to comply with the obligations to which it had agreed following the Gulf War and 3.. further had ignored Resolutions of the United Nations Security Council. "He will then conclude that he can go right on and do more to rebuild an arsenal of devastating destruction. And some day, some way, I guarantee you he'll use the arsenal.... President Clinton ~ 1998" Bush lied? yeah. because he was president AFTER clinton and he had evidence...which he disregarded...that there were NO WMD's in iraq. clinton sent ZERO troops into iraq. you right wingers....so let's summarize what you believe: -obama's been president for 9 years -clinton invaded iraq amazing what you'll believe *I* believe that it's time for most of you lefties to pull your head out of the sand and get a eyeful of reality. Obama is. Eisboch Basically, you have no argument other than "it was Clinton's fault." Keep trying. -- Nom=de=Plume |
'Bama killing more civilians.
On Sun, 14 Feb 2010 21:44:12 -0500, Eisboch wrote:
Quoting from Wiki: The Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 is a United States Congressional statement of policy calling for regime change in Iraq.[ It was signed into law by President Bill Clinton. The Act found that between 1980 and 1998 Iraq had: 1.. committed various and significant violations of International Law, 2.. had failed to comply with the obligations to which it had agreed following the Gulf War and 3.. further had ignored Resolutions of the United Nations Security Council. "He will then conclude that he can go right on and do more to rebuild an arsenal of devastating destruction. And some day, some way, I guarantee you he'll use the arsenal.... President Clinton ~ 1998" Bush lied? Bush invaded Iraq in 1998? If he had, his argument about WMD might of been accurate. The question remains, did Saddam have WMD in 2003? As it was, in 1998, when Clinton bombed Iraq in Operation Desert Fox, Republicans were claiming it was to distract the country from Clinton's impeachment trial. Remember Wag the Dog? |
'Bama killing more civilians.
On Sun, 14 Feb 2010 20:25:23 -0500, bpuharic wrote:
On Sun, 14 Feb 2010 20:04:28 -0500, John H wrote: On Sun, 14 Feb 2010 16:36:18 -0800, jps wrote: FREEDOM!!! Don't ya know? We're spreading Freedom!!! Is that what 'Bama's spreading. Who'da known. It must be hell seeing your messiah doing the same things you bitched about when Bush was president. I'd feel like **** in your shoes also. really? number of marines withdrawn by bush: zero number by obama: all of them. hmmmm....seems the right winger can't count. Herring... Bitches and moans about how bad the government is but never left their employ. Went from one gov't tit to another. Ended up teaching math to our kids. No wonder the US' arithmetic skills are dropping into the toilet. Son of a bitch can't think straight. |
'Bama killing more civilians.
"nom=de=plume" wrote in message ... "Eisboch" wrote in message ... "bpuharic" wrote in message ... On Sun, 14 Feb 2010 21:44:12 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote: "nom=de=plume" wrote in message ... So, when a group makes an error and admits it, that means it's ok for the group that perpetrated the hoax to get off the hook. Quoting from Wiki: The Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 is a United States Congressional statement of policy calling for regime change in Iraq.[ It was signed into law by President Bill Clinton. The Act found that between 1980 and 1998 Iraq had: 1.. committed various and significant violations of International Law, 2.. had failed to comply with the obligations to which it had agreed following the Gulf War and 3.. further had ignored Resolutions of the United Nations Security Council. "He will then conclude that he can go right on and do more to rebuild an arsenal of devastating destruction. And some day, some way, I guarantee you he'll use the arsenal.... President Clinton ~ 1998" Bush lied? yeah. because he was president AFTER clinton and he had evidence...which he disregarded...that there were NO WMD's in iraq. clinton sent ZERO troops into iraq. you right wingers....so let's summarize what you believe: -obama's been president for 9 years -clinton invaded iraq amazing what you'll believe *I* believe that it's time for most of you lefties to pull your head out of the sand and get a eyeful of reality. Obama is. Eisboch Basically, you have no argument other than "it was Clinton's fault." Keep trying. I made no such argument. All I did was quote Wiki as to the origins of US policy for regime change in Iraq. It did not start with Bush. He just happened to carry out the unanimously approved policy by the Senate and signed by his predecessor, Bill Clinton. Eisboch |
'Bama killing more civilians.
"nom=de=plume" wrote in message ... And, Clinton invaded Iraq when? And, Bush claimed that WMDs where where? Bush listened to Clinton about anything??? Keep defending Bush. You're doing so well! Please read previous response. Why do people like yourself automatically jump to the conclusion that a statement of fact that may illuminate a broader influence on a controversial subject means that the author of that statement is a "rightie" or Bush supporter? This is exactly the type of current political animosity that has divided this country. Now-a-days you are either left or right apparently. There's no middle ground anymore. I have never "defended" Bush without reservation. I have, on occasion, expressed support for some of Obama's initiatives. I don't agree with much of how he is trying to accomplish them however. The first step to getting this country back on track is to stop the stupid finger pointing. Eisboch |
'Bama killing more civilians.
"thunder" wrote in message t... On Sun, 14 Feb 2010 21:44:12 -0500, Eisboch wrote: Quoting from Wiki: The Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 is a United States Congressional statement of policy calling for regime change in Iraq.[ It was signed into law by President Bill Clinton. The Act found that between 1980 and 1998 Iraq had: 1.. committed various and significant violations of International Law, 2.. had failed to comply with the obligations to which it had agreed following the Gulf War and 3.. further had ignored Resolutions of the United Nations Security Council. "He will then conclude that he can go right on and do more to rebuild an arsenal of devastating destruction. And some day, some way, I guarantee you he'll use the arsenal.... President Clinton ~ 1998" Bush lied? Bush invaded Iraq in 1998? If he had, his argument about WMD might of been accurate. The question remains, did Saddam have WMD in 2003? As it was, in 1998, when Clinton bombed Iraq in Operation Desert Fox, Republicans were claiming it was to distract the country from Clinton's impeachment trial. Remember Wag the Dog? Yes I do. I have some strong opinions/conclusions in my mind about how we ended up in Iraq, but they aren't important to anyone other than me. I think there is an incredibly strong push from both political sides to simplify a complex issue into a ****ing contest for votes. It's sickening, and the influence has spread to affect many people's thinking. Or non-thinking. It serves to do nothing but divide the country into a simple "left" or "right" persuasion. I've never seen anything like it in my 60 years on this planet. It's why I strum guitars now. Eisboch |
'Bama killing more civilians.
|
'Bama killing more civilians.
On 14/02/2010 6:30 PM, nom=de=plume wrote:
wrote in message ... On 14/02/2010 2:56 PM, bpuharic wrote: On Sun, 14 Feb 2010 14:53:20 -0700, wrote: On 14/02/2010 12:50 PM, bpuharic wrote: On Sun, 14 Feb 2010 14:30:11 -0500, John H wrote: http://tinyurl.com/yhsqavk actually he's not. US troops are entering an area where terrorists are hiding behind civilians and no one killed more civilians than bush. look at the hundreds of thousands dead in iraq So is it OK that Obama does it because he is black or is it democrat? LMAO...liberals are pathetic at rationalization. and right wingers are great at cowardice. they murder hundreds of thousands in a useless war then complain about a president who IS trying to protect america. figures I would say if I was Osama Bin Laden, I would put the quiet word out to leave Obama alone, he is doing the work of Islam by taking down the affluent infidels of America. He is doing more damage than we could ever do. Obama's economic advice is obviously tainted by a toxic liberal-statism big government. Quite predictable actually. With a study of Obama, the fast track boy appealed to democrat, liberal statists and shot to the top without ever having been to a baseball game before the age of 12. Yet people fail to see correlations in the corruption and mesiah madness. The same crap Adolph Hitler pulled in the earlier years, Obama is doing today. Good at deflecting blame for alterior motives. But if I was an American, I would seriously question the deterioration of values of the US government itself. Go ahead, be a good little sheeple and follow Obama to hell. The road to hell is paved with good intentions and you will have lots of company. Because as much as I don't like the idea, I can't see this depression ending soon and even if it abates for a bit, it will not last long. Bad debtors always go down, the only question is how many good people it takes with it. You just love the terrorists don't you. Why not just say it. It'll make you feel better. Have a better explanation for why all of a sudden the government can spend it's way out of debt to prosperity? What economic theory is this? Bankruptcy? Think about the logic of Obama's policy, how insane it is. Debt-spend to prosperity. I can assure you that if you are in debt and have problems with debt, the last thing you do to fix it is borrow more and spend it on ****. But will admit Obama be like the Pied Piper. Has a good talk and sings a song. When are you ordering the jack boots? |
'Bama killing more civilians.
On Mon, 15 Feb 2010 02:40:05 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote:
I made no such argument. All I did was quote Wiki as to the origins of US policy for regime change in Iraq. It did not start with Bush. He just happened to carry out the unanimously approved policy by the Senate and signed by his predecessor, Bill Clinton. Eisboch and yet clinton sent precisely zero troops to iraq. go figure |
'Bama killing more civilians.
On Mon, 15 Feb 2010 06:50:15 -0500, I am Tosk
wrote: You can tell the pink army that forever, they know, it's just not productive for them to tell the truth in matters like this. They have seen the videos, they have read the reports, they just can't bring themselves to have an honest debate. how many troops did you say clinton sent to iraq? |
'Bama killing more civilians.
On Mon, 15 Feb 2010 02:54:56 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote:
"nom=de=plume" wrote in message ... And, Clinton invaded Iraq when? And, Bush claimed that WMDs where where? Bush listened to Clinton about anything??? Keep defending Bush. You're doing so well! Please read previous response. Why do people like yourself automatically jump to the conclusion that a statement of fact that may illuminate a broader influence on a controversial subject means that the author of that statement is a "rightie" or Bush supporter? This is exactly the type of current political animosity that has divided this country. Now-a-days you are either left or right apparently. There's no middle ground anymore. because it's an obvious distortion. no one cares what clinton thought because he didn't invade iraq. and he may have been WRONG but bush LIED. so you guys just keep ignoring the FACTS and SPIN them to make it look like bush was nothing more than some guy who worked for clinton. |
'Bama killing more civilians.
On Mon, 15 Feb 2010 06:16:23 -0700, Canuck57
wrote: Have a better explanation for why all of a sudden the government can spend it's way out of debt to prosperity? What economic theory is this? Bankruptcy? it's called 'keynesian' economics. and it's on pretty solid foundations. and our debt service after ALL the money is spent over the next 10 years? 3.4% debt burden under george bush the first? 3.4% gee. i guess canuck doesn't know that 3.4=3.4. Think about the logic of Obama's policy, how insane it is. Debt-spend to prosperity. yeah. let's go back to the policies in the 1930's when we had 25% unemployment, right? I can assure you that if you are in debt and have problems with debt, the last thing you do to fix it is borrow more and spend it on ****. But will admit Obama be like the Pied Piper. Has a good talk and sings a song. When are you ordering the jack boots? jack boots? i love it when the right forgets that bush arrested and tortured american citzens on american soil , and wanted to suspend habeas corpus THEN calls obama a fascist socialist...however that works |
'Bama killing more civilians.
"bpuharic" wrote in message ... On Mon, 15 Feb 2010 02:54:56 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote: "nom=de=plume" wrote in message ... And, Clinton invaded Iraq when? And, Bush claimed that WMDs where where? Bush listened to Clinton about anything??? Keep defending Bush. You're doing so well! Please read previous response. Why do people like yourself automatically jump to the conclusion that a statement of fact that may illuminate a broader influence on a controversial subject means that the author of that statement is a "rightie" or Bush supporter? This is exactly the type of current political animosity that has divided this country. Now-a-days you are either left or right apparently. There's no middle ground anymore. because it's an obvious distortion. no one cares what clinton thought because he didn't invade iraq. and he may have been WRONG but bush LIED. so you guys just keep ignoring the FACTS and SPIN them to make it look like bush was nothing more than some guy who worked for clinton. That's a really strange and weird interpretation of what I said however it furthers my point. This place has gone to hell in a handbasket. No point in further discussion. Eisboch |
'Bama killing more civilians.
On 15/02/2010 7:05 AM, bpuharic wrote:
On Mon, 15 Feb 2010 06:16:23 -0700, wrote: Have a better explanation for why all of a sudden the government can spend it's way out of debt to prosperity? What economic theory is this? Bankruptcy? it's called 'keynesian' economics. and it's on pretty solid foundations. Lets see. Iceland tried it, fell flat on its ass. Socialist Greece tried it, and to fund it now looks like they mistated their real debt levels and is failing real bad. Socialist Spain tried it, not fairing too well. Japan tried it and hasn't seen valued growth in 2 decades. Show me where in history I can find that it worked? I can't see any. Even Roman times tried it and resulted in the disbandment of the Roman Empire. and our debt service after ALL the money is spent over the next 10 years? 3.4% That is amost $500 billion a year every year for nothing of value. Or about a perpetual debt payment of $3770 per worker every year and no return. Given the currency float has also been diluted, that is a wildly optimistic number too. Reality is much worse as inflation will force rates up or the currency will devalue like a rock. debt burden under george bush the first? 3.4% gee. i guess canuck doesn't know that 3.4=3.4. Does not mater at this point who you blame really. Even if you choose to forget Obama's 3.5 trillion 18% increase in just 2 years, debt-corruption spend at the end of 2010, the debt of $14.5 trillion isn't far off. Each worker now supports about $108,000 in federal debt. And it adds ZERO value to their lives. Taxation enslavement. Permanent wealth rob. Money not spent so it can't create jobs. Liberal debt borrowing, liberal ponzi currency management is bringing down the United States to it's financial knees. Get over it. Probably too late to stop it too, and no politicial vision and will too either as DC **** fests the taxpayers with corporate corruption bailouts - certain long term doom for the US economy. As in essence, Congress just expanded the administration debt mongering capabilities to $14.5 to prevent the US federal government from going into default for non-payment. Since they can't borrow, they create. A fancy way to say United States of America itself is NOT paying it's debts and debt is now out of control just like Greece. Ever heard the investment term, "Dead cat a falling..."? Just about where we are right now. |
'Bama killing more civilians.
On Mon, 15 Feb 2010 10:39:23 -0700, Canuck57
wrote: On 15/02/2010 7:05 AM, bpuharic wrote: On Mon, 15 Feb 2010 06:16:23 -0700, wrote: Have a better explanation for why all of a sudden the government can spend it's way out of debt to prosperity? What economic theory is this? Bankruptcy? it's called 'keynesian' economics. and it's on pretty solid foundations. Lets see. Iceland tried it, fell flat on its ass. gee. hows' the US doing today under the chicago school? Middle class doing alright? unemployment at 4%? Socialist Greece tried it, and to fund it now looks like they mistated their real debt levels and is failing real bad. guess you dont know how keynesian economics works. and guess who blew greece's economy? wall street. it was goldman sachs who advised them on debt restructuring Socialist Spain tried it, not fairing too well. keynesianism has zip to do with socialism. more paranoia from the ultra far right. Japan tried it and hasn't seen valued growth in 2 decades. japan had a variety of mercantilism. again you don't know what keynesianism. so far you've accused wall street, socialists etc of being keynesians.... which would come as a shock to keynes so tell us...how's the US economy doing under your socialism for the rich? Show me where in history I can find that it worked? I can't see any. Even Roman times tried it and resulted in the disbandment of the Roman Empire. it's working now. unemployment? dropped 10% in the last year. guess you right whiners don't pay attention to the news. and our debt service after ALL the money is spent over the next 10 years? 3.4% That is amost $500 billion a year every year for nothing of value. Or about a perpetual debt payment of $3770 per worker every year and no return. nothing of value? you'd prefer 25% unemployment? i guess you right wingers dont consider middle class workers to be of value. and what did george bush get us for HIS 3.4% of GDP spent on tax cuts for the rich? it got us where we are today. Given the currency float has also been diluted, that is a wildly optimistic number too. Reality is much worse as inflation will force rates up or the currency will devalue like a rock. too late sport. your wall street buddies already destroyed the economy. your only bitch is that they didn't steal ALL the money from teh middle class that's why you want unemployment at 25%....drain every last drop from the middle class debt burden under george bush the first? 3.4% gee. i guess canuck doesn't know that 3.4=3.4. Does not mater at this point who you blame really. Even if you choose to forget Obama's 3.5 trillion 18% increase in just 2 years, debt-corruption spend at the end of 2010, the debt of $14.5 trillion isn't far off. ROFLMAO!! it doesnt matter who you blame THEN you blame obama??? do you realize you contrradicted yourself in teh same PARAGRAPH? Each worker now supports about $108,000 in federal debt. And it adds ZERO value to their lives. Taxation enslavement. Permanent wealth rob. Money not spent so it can't create jobs. fine. what you gonna cut? why not mothball all US aircraft carriers? shut down the US marines? tell old people not to bother about healthcare that what you got in mind? Liberal debt borrowing, liberal ponzi currency management is bringing down the United States to it's financial knees. Get over it. Probably too late to stop it too, and no politicial vision and will too either as DC **** fests the taxpayers with corporate corruption bailouts - certain long term doom for the US economy. i love it. liberal borrowing...when right wingers have had control of the US govt for 22 of the last 30 years...when the biiggest spenders in history were ronald reagan and george bush who spent a trillion dollars on a useless war. you right wingers just dont understand history OR economics, do you? you guys think obama's been president for 30 years. |
'Bama killing more civilians.
"Eisboch" wrote in message
... "nom=de=plume" wrote in message ... "Eisboch" wrote in message ... "bpuharic" wrote in message ... On Sun, 14 Feb 2010 21:44:12 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote: "nom=de=plume" wrote in message ... So, when a group makes an error and admits it, that means it's ok for the group that perpetrated the hoax to get off the hook. Quoting from Wiki: The Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 is a United States Congressional statement of policy calling for regime change in Iraq.[ It was signed into law by President Bill Clinton. The Act found that between 1980 and 1998 Iraq had: 1.. committed various and significant violations of International Law, 2.. had failed to comply with the obligations to which it had agreed following the Gulf War and 3.. further had ignored Resolutions of the United Nations Security Council. "He will then conclude that he can go right on and do more to rebuild an arsenal of devastating destruction. And some day, some way, I guarantee you he'll use the arsenal.... President Clinton ~ 1998" Bush lied? yeah. because he was president AFTER clinton and he had evidence...which he disregarded...that there were NO WMD's in iraq. clinton sent ZERO troops into iraq. you right wingers....so let's summarize what you believe: -obama's been president for 9 years -clinton invaded iraq amazing what you'll believe *I* believe that it's time for most of you lefties to pull your head out of the sand and get a eyeful of reality. Obama is. Eisboch Basically, you have no argument other than "it was Clinton's fault." Keep trying. I made no such argument. All I did was quote Wiki as to the origins of US policy for regime change in Iraq. It did not start with Bush. He just happened to carry out the unanimously approved policy by the Senate and signed by his predecessor, Bill Clinton. Eisboch Your intent was pretty clear. The fact that Clinton was concerned about Iraq in no way justified Bush's illegal and immoral actions. -- Nom=de=Plume |
'Bama killing more civilians.
"Eisboch" wrote in message
... "nom=de=plume" wrote in message ... And, Clinton invaded Iraq when? And, Bush claimed that WMDs where where? Bush listened to Clinton about anything??? Keep defending Bush. You're doing so well! Please read previous response. Why do people like yourself automatically jump to the conclusion that a statement of fact that may illuminate a broader influence on a controversial subject means that the author of that statement is a "rightie" or Bush supporter? This is exactly the type of current political animosity that has divided this country. Now-a-days you are either left or right apparently. There's no middle ground anymore. I have never "defended" Bush without reservation. I have, on occasion, expressed support for some of Obama's initiatives. I don't agree with much of how he is trying to accomplish them however. The first step to getting this country back on track is to stop the stupid finger pointing. Eisboch If that's the case, why bring up something that was always obvious. I notice you didn't mention Bush the First's invasion either. Or, Rumsfeld's or Cheney's previous involvement with Saddam. You didn't mention the British establishing Iraq to begin with either. The first step to getting this country back on track is to be intellectually honest. -- Nom=de=Plume |
'Bama killing more civilians.
"Eisboch" wrote in message
... "bpuharic" wrote in message ... On Mon, 15 Feb 2010 02:54:56 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote: "nom=de=plume" wrote in message ... And, Clinton invaded Iraq when? And, Bush claimed that WMDs where where? Bush listened to Clinton about anything??? Keep defending Bush. You're doing so well! Please read previous response. Why do people like yourself automatically jump to the conclusion that a statement of fact that may illuminate a broader influence on a controversial subject means that the author of that statement is a "rightie" or Bush supporter? This is exactly the type of current political animosity that has divided this country. Now-a-days you are either left or right apparently. There's no middle ground anymore. because it's an obvious distortion. no one cares what clinton thought because he didn't invade iraq. and he may have been WRONG but bush LIED. so you guys just keep ignoring the FACTS and SPIN them to make it look like bush was nothing more than some guy who worked for clinton. That's a really strange and weird interpretation of what I said however it furthers my point. This place has gone to hell in a handbasket. No point in further discussion. Eisboch Which is the point. Bush let it, actually forced it out of control with the invasion. Obama is attempting to put the pieces back together. Feel free to skedaddle from the conversation. -- Nom=de=Plume |
'Bama killing more civilians.
"Canuck57" wrote in message
... On 14/02/2010 6:30 PM, nom=de=plume wrote: wrote in message ... On 14/02/2010 2:56 PM, bpuharic wrote: On Sun, 14 Feb 2010 14:53:20 -0700, wrote: On 14/02/2010 12:50 PM, bpuharic wrote: On Sun, 14 Feb 2010 14:30:11 -0500, John H wrote: http://tinyurl.com/yhsqavk actually he's not. US troops are entering an area where terrorists are hiding behind civilians and no one killed more civilians than bush. look at the hundreds of thousands dead in iraq So is it OK that Obama does it because he is black or is it democrat? LMAO...liberals are pathetic at rationalization. and right wingers are great at cowardice. they murder hundreds of thousands in a useless war then complain about a president who IS trying to protect america. figures I would say if I was Osama Bin Laden, I would put the quiet word out to leave Obama alone, he is doing the work of Islam by taking down the affluent infidels of America. He is doing more damage than we could ever do. Obama's economic advice is obviously tainted by a toxic liberal-statism big government. Quite predictable actually. With a study of Obama, the fast track boy appealed to democrat, liberal statists and shot to the top without ever having been to a baseball game before the age of 12. Yet people fail to see correlations in the corruption and mesiah madness. The same crap Adolph Hitler pulled in the earlier years, Obama is doing today. Good at deflecting blame for alterior motives. But if I was an American, I would seriously question the deterioration of values of the US government itself. Go ahead, be a good little sheeple and follow Obama to hell. The road to hell is paved with good intentions and you will have lots of company. Because as much as I don't like the idea, I can't see this depression ending soon and even if it abates for a bit, it will not last long. Bad debtors always go down, the only question is how many good people it takes with it. You just love the terrorists don't you. Why not just say it. It'll make you feel better. Have a better explanation for why all of a sudden the government can spend it's way out of debt to prosperity? What economic theory is this? Bankruptcy? It's basic economics, and it's not about "spending it's way out of debt." That's your foolish twist. You don't cut back spending during a financial crisis. Hoover did it and we know what happened. Think about the logic of Obama's policy, how insane it is. Debt-spend to prosperity. See previous. I can assure you that if you are in debt and have problems with debt, the last thing you do to fix it is borrow more and spend it on ****. I am not a government responsible for more than 300m people. But will admit Obama be like the Pied Piper. Has a good talk and sings a song. When are you ordering the jack boots? Like I said, I'm sure you feel fine calling him a nazi or stalinist or similar. Go for it. -- Nom=de=Plume |
'Bama killing more civilians.
"Canuck57" wrote in message
... On 15/02/2010 7:05 AM, bpuharic wrote: On Mon, 15 Feb 2010 06:16:23 -0700, wrote: Have a better explanation for why all of a sudden the government can spend it's way out of debt to prosperity? What economic theory is this? Bankruptcy? it's called 'keynesian' economics. and it's on pretty solid foundations. Lets see. Iceland tried it, fell flat on its ass. Socialist Greece tried it, and to fund it now looks like they mistated their real debt levels and is failing real bad. Socialist Spain tried it, not fairing too well. Japan tried it and hasn't seen valued growth in 2 decades. Show me where in history I can find that it worked? I can't see any. Even Roman times tried it and resulted in the disbandment of the Roman Empire. and our debt service after ALL the money is spent over the next 10 years? 3.4% That is amost $500 billion a year every year for nothing of value. Or about a perpetual debt payment of $3770 per worker every year and no return. Given the currency float has also been diluted, that is a wildly optimistic number too. Reality is much worse as inflation will force rates up or the currency will devalue like a rock. debt burden under george bush the first? 3.4% gee. i guess canuck doesn't know that 3.4=3.4. Does not mater at this point who you blame really. Even if you choose to forget Obama's 3.5 trillion 18% increase in just 2 years, debt-corruption spend at the end of 2010, the debt of $14.5 trillion isn't far off. Each worker now supports about $108,000 in federal debt. And it adds ZERO value to their lives. Taxation enslavement. Permanent wealth rob. Money not spent so it can't create jobs. Liberal debt borrowing, liberal ponzi currency management is bringing down the United States to it's financial knees. Get over it. Probably too late to stop it too, and no politicial vision and will too either as DC **** fests the taxpayers with corporate corruption bailouts - certain long term doom for the US economy. As in essence, Congress just expanded the administration debt mongering capabilities to $14.5 to prevent the US federal government from going into default for non-payment. Since they can't borrow, they create. A fancy way to say United States of America itself is NOT paying it's debts and debt is now out of control just like Greece. Ever heard the investment term, "Dead cat a falling..."? Just about where we are right now. You're just daft. Take an econ class and get back to us. -- Nom=de=Plume |
'Bama killing more civilians.
On Sun, 14 Feb 2010 21:57:16 -0500, bpuharic wrote:
On Sun, 14 Feb 2010 21:44:12 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote: "nom=de=plume" wrote in message ... So, when a group makes an error and admits it, that means it's ok for the group that perpetrated the hoax to get off the hook. Quoting from Wiki: The Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 is a United States Congressional statement of policy calling for regime change in Iraq.[ It was signed into law by President Bill Clinton. The Act found that between 1980 and 1998 Iraq had: 1.. committed various and significant violations of International Law, 2.. had failed to comply with the obligations to which it had agreed following the Gulf War and 3.. further had ignored Resolutions of the United Nations Security Council. "He will then conclude that he can go right on and do more to rebuild an arsenal of devastating destruction. And some day, some way, I guarantee you he'll use the arsenal.... President Clinton ~ 1998" Bush lied? yeah. because he was president AFTER clinton and he had evidence...which he disregarded...that there were NO WMD's in iraq. clinton sent ZERO troops into iraq. you right wingers....so let's summarize what you believe: -obama's been president for 9 years -clinton invaded iraq amazing what you'll believe You just gotta love 'negative evidence'! -- ***Are you better off than you were FOUR TRILLION DOLLARS ago?*** John H |
'Bama killing more civilians.
On Mon, 15 Feb 2010 09:45:36 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote:
"bpuharic" wrote in message .. . On Mon, 15 Feb 2010 02:54:56 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote: "nom=de=plume" wrote in message ... And, Clinton invaded Iraq when? And, Bush claimed that WMDs where where? Bush listened to Clinton about anything??? Keep defending Bush. You're doing so well! Please read previous response. Why do people like yourself automatically jump to the conclusion that a statement of fact that may illuminate a broader influence on a controversial subject means that the author of that statement is a "rightie" or Bush supporter? This is exactly the type of current political animosity that has divided this country. Now-a-days you are either left or right apparently. There's no middle ground anymore. because it's an obvious distortion. no one cares what clinton thought because he didn't invade iraq. and he may have been WRONG but bush LIED. so you guys just keep ignoring the FACTS and SPIN them to make it look like bush was nothing more than some guy who worked for clinton. That's a really strange and weird interpretation of what I said however it furthers my point. This place has gone to hell in a handbasket. No point in further discussion. Eisboch You, sir, are a fast learner. -- ***Are you better off than you were FOUR TRILLION DOLLARS ago?*** John H |
'Bama killing more civilians.
|
'Bama killing more civilians.
"nom=de=plume" wrote in message ... "Eisboch" wrote in message ... Please read previous response. Why do people like yourself automatically jump to the conclusion that a statement of fact that may illuminate a broader influence on a controversial subject means that the author of that statement is a "rightie" or Bush supporter? This is exactly the type of current political animosity that has divided this country. Now-a-days you are either left or right apparently. There's no middle ground anymore. I have never "defended" Bush without reservation. I have, on occasion, expressed support for some of Obama's initiatives. I don't agree with much of how he is trying to accomplish them however. The first step to getting this country back on track is to stop the stupid finger pointing. Eisboch If that's the case, why bring up something that was always obvious. I notice you didn't mention Bush the First's invasion either. Or, Rumsfeld's or Cheney's previous involvement with Saddam. You didn't mention the British establishing Iraq to begin with either. The first step to getting this country back on track is to be intellectually honest. Based on the few posts of yours that I have read, I would respectfully suggest that you lead the way. Eisboch |
'Bama killing more civilians.
|
'Bama killing more civilians.
"Eisboch" wrote in message
... "nom=de=plume" wrote in message ... "Eisboch" wrote in message ... Please read previous response. Why do people like yourself automatically jump to the conclusion that a statement of fact that may illuminate a broader influence on a controversial subject means that the author of that statement is a "rightie" or Bush supporter? This is exactly the type of current political animosity that has divided this country. Now-a-days you are either left or right apparently. There's no middle ground anymore. I have never "defended" Bush without reservation. I have, on occasion, expressed support for some of Obama's initiatives. I don't agree with much of how he is trying to accomplish them however. The first step to getting this country back on track is to stop the stupid finger pointing. Eisboch If that's the case, why bring up something that was always obvious. I notice you didn't mention Bush the First's invasion either. Or, Rumsfeld's or Cheney's previous involvement with Saddam. You didn't mention the British establishing Iraq to begin with either. The first step to getting this country back on track is to be intellectually honest. Based on the few posts of yours that I have read, I would respectfully suggest that you lead the way. Eisboch Really? Please show me where I've done finger pointing without cause. I've been vilified here for being female, not "beautiful", "vacuous", a "typical" liberal (which I'm not even), told I'm not a patent attorney, a liar, etc. I've hardly ever even responded to those posters, especially not at that level. -- Nom=de=Plume |
'Bama killing more civilians.
"nom=de=plume" wrote in message ... "Eisboch" wrote in message ... "nom=de=plume" wrote in message ... "Eisboch" wrote in message ... Please read previous response. Why do people like yourself automatically jump to the conclusion that a statement of fact that may illuminate a broader influence on a controversial subject means that the author of that statement is a "rightie" or Bush supporter? This is exactly the type of current political animosity that has divided this country. Now-a-days you are either left or right apparently. There's no middle ground anymore. I have never "defended" Bush without reservation. I have, on occasion, expressed support for some of Obama's initiatives. I don't agree with much of how he is trying to accomplish them however. The first step to getting this country back on track is to stop the stupid finger pointing. Eisboch If that's the case, why bring up something that was always obvious. I notice you didn't mention Bush the First's invasion either. Or, Rumsfeld's or Cheney's previous involvement with Saddam. You didn't mention the British establishing Iraq to begin with either. The first step to getting this country back on track is to be intellectually honest. Based on the few posts of yours that I have read, I would respectfully suggest that you lead the way. Eisboch Really? Please show me where I've done finger pointing without cause. I've been vilified here for being female, not "beautiful", "vacuous", a "typical" liberal (which I'm not even), told I'm not a patent attorney, a liar, etc. I've hardly ever even responded to those posters, especially not at that level. No offense, but I don't have a clue who you are, what you are professionally, what you look like or if you are male or female, nor to I care. I've only read a handful of your posts. My take is that your mind is pretty well made up about anything and everything. Maybe wrong, but that's the impression I have. Carry on. Didn't mean to interrupt. I have other things to do. Eisboch |
'Bama killing more civilians.
On 15/02/2010 11:08 AM, nom=de=plume wrote:
wrote in message ... On 15/02/2010 7:05 AM, bpuharic wrote: On Mon, 15 Feb 2010 06:16:23 -0700, wrote: Have a better explanation for why all of a sudden the government can spend it's way out of debt to prosperity? What economic theory is this? Bankruptcy? it's called 'keynesian' economics. and it's on pretty solid foundations. Lets see. Iceland tried it, fell flat on its ass. Socialist Greece tried it, and to fund it now looks like they mistated their real debt levels and is failing real bad. Socialist Spain tried it, not fairing too well. Japan tried it and hasn't seen valued growth in 2 decades. Show me where in history I can find that it worked? I can't see any. Even Roman times tried it and resulted in the disbandment of the Roman Empire. and our debt service after ALL the money is spent over the next 10 years? 3.4% That is amost $500 billion a year every year for nothing of value. Or about a perpetual debt payment of $3770 per worker every year and no return. Given the currency float has also been diluted, that is a wildly optimistic number too. Reality is much worse as inflation will force rates up or the currency will devalue like a rock. debt burden under george bush the first? 3.4% gee. i guess canuck doesn't know that 3.4=3.4. Does not mater at this point who you blame really. Even if you choose to forget Obama's 3.5 trillion 18% increase in just 2 years, debt-corruption spend at the end of 2010, the debt of $14.5 trillion isn't far off. Each worker now supports about $108,000 in federal debt. And it adds ZERO value to their lives. Taxation enslavement. Permanent wealth rob. Money not spent so it can't create jobs. Liberal debt borrowing, liberal ponzi currency management is bringing down the United States to it's financial knees. Get over it. Probably too late to stop it too, and no politicial vision and will too either as DC **** fests the taxpayers with corporate corruption bailouts - certain long term doom for the US economy. As in essence, Congress just expanded the administration debt mongering capabilities to $14.5 to prevent the US federal government from going into default for non-payment. Since they can't borrow, they create. A fancy way to say United States of America itself is NOT paying it's debts and debt is now out of control just like Greece. Ever heard the investment term, "Dead cat a falling..."? Just about where we are right now. You're just daft. Take an econ class and get back to us. Nope, don't want to polute my mind with liberalism. Prevents one from making money. |
'Bama killing more civilians.
On 15/02/2010 11:07 AM, nom=de=plume wrote:
Have a better explanation for why all of a sudden the government can spend it's way out of debt to prosperity? What economic theory is this? Bankruptcy? It's basic economics, and it's not about "spending it's way out of debt." That's your foolish twist. You don't cut back spending during a financial crisis. Hoover did it and we know what happened. Actually, Hoover was in office when 1929 hit, and too tried to spend out of it. But had to stop as the governemtn ran out of cash and mounting debt. Which forced the issue of pulling back on spending. Problem wasn't solved until the advent of WW II when people got cash paid to them for the war effort. Bottom line, people need money to spend to have an economy based on fiat currency. Think about the logic of Obama's policy, how insane it is. Debt-spend to prosperity. See previous. I could list the countries that have tried it, and none to date have managed to do it any more than individuals can. I can assure you that if you are in debt and have problems with debt, the last thing you do to fix it is borrow more and spend it on ****. I am not a government responsible for more than 300m people. But will admit Obama be like the Pied Piper. Has a good talk and sings a song. When are you ordering the jack boots? Like I said, I'm sure you feel fine calling him a nazi or stalinist or similar. Go for it. 1935 or so, all over again. As Obama deflects blame, he will pick on banks, Japanese, Chinese, even Euros... just does not want people at home looking too closely at the monumentious screw up of US politicial history. |
'Bama killing more civilians.
On Mon, 15 Feb 2010 14:02:30 -0500, Don White wrote:
In article , says... "bpuharic" wrote in message ... On Mon, 15 Feb 2010 02:54:56 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote: "nom=de=plume" wrote in message ... And, Clinton invaded Iraq when? And, Bush claimed that WMDs where where? Bush listened to Clinton about anything??? Keep defending Bush. You're doing so well! Please read previous response. Why do people like yourself automatically jump to the conclusion that a statement of fact that may illuminate a broader influence on a controversial subject means that the author of that statement is a "rightie" or Bush supporter? This is exactly the type of current political animosity that has divided this country. Now-a-days you are either left or right apparently. There's no middle ground anymore. because it's an obvious distortion. no one cares what clinton thought because he didn't invade iraq. and he may have been WRONG but bush LIED. so you guys just keep ignoring the FACTS and SPIN them to make it look like bush was nothing more than some guy who worked for clinton. That's a really strange and weird interpretation of what I said however it furthers my point. This place has gone to hell in a handbasket. No point in further discussion. Eisboch It sure has! Herring does NOTHING here anymore but post political right wing extreme bull****. Oh, Loogy, cry a river, build a bridge, and get over it! -- ***Are you better off than you were FOUR TRILLION DOLLARS ago?*** John H |
'Bama killing more civilians.
On 15/02/2010 12:54 PM, nom=de=plume wrote:
wrote in message ... wrote in message ... wrote in message ... Please read previous response. Why do people like yourself automatically jump to the conclusion that a statement of fact that may illuminate a broader influence on a controversial subject means that the author of that statement is a "rightie" or Bush supporter? This is exactly the type of current political animosity that has divided this country. Now-a-days you are either left or right apparently. There's no middle ground anymore. I have never "defended" Bush without reservation. I have, on occasion, expressed support for some of Obama's initiatives. I don't agree with much of how he is trying to accomplish them however. The first step to getting this country back on track is to stop the stupid finger pointing. Eisboch If that's the case, why bring up something that was always obvious. I notice you didn't mention Bush the First's invasion either. Or, Rumsfeld's or Cheney's previous involvement with Saddam. You didn't mention the British establishing Iraq to begin with either. The first step to getting this country back on track is to be intellectually honest. Based on the few posts of yours that I have read, I would respectfully suggest that you lead the way. Eisboch Really? Please show me where I've done finger pointing without cause. I've been vilified here for being female, not "beautiful", "vacuous", a "typical" liberal (which I'm not even), told I'm not a patent attorney, a liar, etc. I've hardly ever even responded to those posters, especially not at that level. Cause is in the eye of the beholder. Your cause isn't neccessarily someone elses. |
'Bama killing more civilians.
"Eisboch" wrote in message
... "nom=de=plume" wrote in message ... "Eisboch" wrote in message ... "nom=de=plume" wrote in message ... "Eisboch" wrote in message ... Please read previous response. Why do people like yourself automatically jump to the conclusion that a statement of fact that may illuminate a broader influence on a controversial subject means that the author of that statement is a "rightie" or Bush supporter? This is exactly the type of current political animosity that has divided this country. Now-a-days you are either left or right apparently. There's no middle ground anymore. I have never "defended" Bush without reservation. I have, on occasion, expressed support for some of Obama's initiatives. I don't agree with much of how he is trying to accomplish them however. The first step to getting this country back on track is to stop the stupid finger pointing. Eisboch If that's the case, why bring up something that was always obvious. I notice you didn't mention Bush the First's invasion either. Or, Rumsfeld's or Cheney's previous involvement with Saddam. You didn't mention the British establishing Iraq to begin with either. The first step to getting this country back on track is to be intellectually honest. Based on the few posts of yours that I have read, I would respectfully suggest that you lead the way. Eisboch Really? Please show me where I've done finger pointing without cause. I've been vilified here for being female, not "beautiful", "vacuous", a "typical" liberal (which I'm not even), told I'm not a patent attorney, a liar, etc. I've hardly ever even responded to those posters, especially not at that level. No offense, but I don't have a clue who you are, what you are professionally, what you look like or if you are male or female, nor to I care. I've only read a handful of your posts. My take is that your mind is pretty well made up about anything and everything. Maybe wrong, but that's the impression I have. Carry on. Didn't mean to interrupt. I have other things to do. Eisboch So, basically, you're unwilling to admit that you don't have any supporting facts... just your "opinion" based on "a handful" of posts you won't identify. Typical. -- Nom=de=Plume |
'Bama killing more civilians.
"Canuck57" wrote in message
... On 15/02/2010 12:54 PM, nom=de=plume wrote: wrote in message ... wrote in message ... wrote in message ... Please read previous response. Why do people like yourself automatically jump to the conclusion that a statement of fact that may illuminate a broader influence on a controversial subject means that the author of that statement is a "rightie" or Bush supporter? This is exactly the type of current political animosity that has divided this country. Now-a-days you are either left or right apparently. There's no middle ground anymore. I have never "defended" Bush without reservation. I have, on occasion, expressed support for some of Obama's initiatives. I don't agree with much of how he is trying to accomplish them however. The first step to getting this country back on track is to stop the stupid finger pointing. Eisboch If that's the case, why bring up something that was always obvious. I notice you didn't mention Bush the First's invasion either. Or, Rumsfeld's or Cheney's previous involvement with Saddam. You didn't mention the British establishing Iraq to begin with either. The first step to getting this country back on track is to be intellectually honest. Based on the few posts of yours that I have read, I would respectfully suggest that you lead the way. Eisboch Really? Please show me where I've done finger pointing without cause. I've been vilified here for being female, not "beautiful", "vacuous", a "typical" liberal (which I'm not even), told I'm not a patent attorney, a liar, etc. I've hardly ever even responded to those posters, especially not at that level. Cause is in the eye of the beholder. Your cause isn't neccessarily someone elses. Stop acting so stupid. You're actually arguing with an adult. -- Nom=de=Plume |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:13 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com