On Sat, 30 Apr 2011 15:41:25 -0700, wrote:

On Sat, 30 Apr 2011 10:55:51 -0700, "Califbill"
wrote:

"wf3h" wrote in message ...

really? oh. i forgot. you right wingers have your myths and you dont
let evidence interfere with your delusions that the rich are the best
thing that's ever happened to the US.

well, there's always this:

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa...36&emailView=1

aw, damn, it shows the bush tax cuts are driving the deficit

that's a shame, right wnger, isn't it?

you say 'overspending' 'cuz you heard that on rush. it doesnt mean
anything but he said it so it MUST be true, right?



For someone who claims someone else is stupid, you're the one who
thinks Obama is the one who cuts spending. Last I checked its
Congress' job.

You are not part of the problem... you are the problem.


yeah the right wing is pretty stupid

uh...what happens to a bill the pres doesnt like, genius? any idea??

"wf3h" wrote in message ...

On Sat, 30 Apr 2011 15:41:25 -0700, wrote:

On Sat, 30 Apr 2011 10:55:51 -0700, "Califbill"
wrote:

"wf3h" wrote in message
. ..

really? oh. i forgot. you right wingers have your myths and you dont
let evidence interfere with your delusions that the rich are the best
thing that's ever happened to the US.

well, there's always this:

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa...36&emailView=1

aw, damn, it shows the bush tax cuts are driving the deficit

that's a shame, right wnger, isn't it?

you say 'overspending' 'cuz you heard that on rush. it doesnt mean
anything but he said it so it MUST be true, right?



For someone who claims someone else is stupid, you're the one who
thinks Obama is the one who cuts spending. Last I checked its
Congress' job.

You are not part of the problem... you are the problem.


yeah the right wing is pretty stupid

uh...what happens to a bill the pres doesnt like, genius? any idea??


VETO the ****er!!! Then Congress has to show how bad they are to override
the veto. Bush signed almost all the spending bills he received and those
he should have vetoed he signed with some statement of memorandum. He was
almost as F'ed up as Obama. I am giving the most F'ed award to Obama, as he
came in saying he was going to fix the problems. Got us in to another
couple wars, did not get us out of wars he said he would, and has been a
cheerleader for overspending.

On Sat, 30 Apr 2011 21:40:23 -0700, "Califbill"
wrote:

"wf3h" wrote in message ...



yeah the right wing is pretty stupid

uh...what happens to a bill the pres doesnt like, genius? any idea??


VETO the ****er!!! Then Congress has to show how bad they are to override
the veto. Bush signed almost all the spending bills he received and those
he should have vetoed he signed with some statement of memorandum. He was
almost as F'ed up as Obama. I am giving the most F'ed award to Obama, as he
came in saying he was going to fix the problems. Got us in to another
couple wars, did not get us out of wars he said he would, and has been a
cheerleader for overspending.

he HAS ended our role in iraq. less than 50K soldiers there...about as
many as in germany.

it took 11 years to end the depression of 29. even obama cant end the
damage the right did to the US in 2 years.

and he's involved us in no wars. sorry

wrote:
On Sun, 01 May 2011 01:17:19 -0400, wrote:

he HAS ended our role in iraq. less than 50K soldiers there...about as
many as in germany.


How many road side bombs do they have in Germany?

Granted we are down to one or two dead GIs in Iraq every month but
that is one or two too many.

What about Afghanistan?

The ironic thing is Iraq will probably be seen as the successful war.
We may actually come out of that one with a functional government.
In 50 years Afghanistan will still be a corrupt collection of war
lords and tribal areas.

Ira may be annexed by Iran. If a Republican is back in the White House,
he might take the proceeds and give them to the contras.

wrote:
On Sun, 01 May 2011 12:11:26 -0400,
wrote:

wrote:
On Sun, 01 May 2011 01:17:19 -0400, wrote:

he HAS ended our role in iraq. less than 50K soldiers there...about as
many as in germany.

How many road side bombs do they have in Germany?

Granted we are down to one or two dead GIs in Iraq every month but
that is one or two too many.

What about Afghanistan?

The ironic thing is Iraq will probably be seen as the successful war.
We may actually come out of that one with a functional government.
In 50 years Afghanistan will still be a corrupt collection of war
lords and tribal areas.
Iraq may be annexed by Iran. If a Republican is back in the White House,
he might take the proceeds and give them to the contras.

That might be an issue if they were both Sunni or Shi'a but it would
be a civil war if the Shi'a tried to take over Iraq.

BTW I was wrong about the current death toll in Iraq. It was 9 in
April as of the 28th.
"Combat troops" is a meaningless term when the main cause of death is
the road side bomb.


What? Another civil war?

On Sun, 01 May 2011 12:09:00 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 01 May 2011 01:17:19 -0400, wf3h wrote:

he HAS ended our role in iraq. less than 50K soldiers there...about as
many as in germany.


How many road side bombs do they have in Germany?

Granted we are down to one or two dead GIs in Iraq every month but
that is one or two too many.

What about Afghanistan?

afghanistan remains a real threat.


The ironic thing is Iraq will probably be seen as the successful war.
We may actually come out of that one with a functional government.
In 50 years Afghanistan will still be a corrupt collection of war
lords and tribal areas.

yep. i think nation bulidng there is a recipe for losing money. it may
be a case of just keeping a special forces base there and occasionally
running a killing mission against the taliban.

On Mon, 02 May 2011 01:21:15 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 01 May 2011 13:08:51 -0400, wf3h wrote:

The ironic thing is Iraq will probably be seen as the successful war.
We may actually come out of that one with a functional government.
In 50 years Afghanistan will still be a corrupt collection of war
lords and tribal areas.

yep. i think nation bulidng there is a recipe for losing money. it may
be a case of just keeping a special forces base there and occasionally
running a killing mission against the taliban.

That was the flawed policy we had in Vietnam and it really never
accomplished much of anything.
It is like stepping on ants. It may make you feel like you are doing
something but it does not do much to cut down on the ant population.

Now that OBL is dead I am not sure how we justify staying there. Are
we going to admit OBL was not really that important to our mission?

Now that OBL is dead, the rest of the organization is in even more
chaos. This isn't the time to cut and run.

On Sun, 01 May 2011 12:09:00 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 01 May 2011 01:17:19 -0400, wf3h wrote:

he HAS ended our role in iraq. less than 50K soldiers there...about as
many as in germany.


How many road side bombs do they have in Germany?

Granted we are down to one or two dead GIs in Iraq every month but
that is one or two too many.

What about Afghanistan?

The ironic thing is Iraq will probably be seen as the successful war.
We may actually come out of that one with a functional government.
In 50 years Afghanistan will still be a corrupt collection of war
lords and tribal areas.

According to your nonsense, we should just pack our bags and leave
Germany and all other places tomorrow. A bunch of hooey.

You just can't accept the fact that Obama is doing what he can to
extricate us from Iraq. You can't accept the fact that Obama had to do
something in Afg.

On Mon, 02 May 2011 01:31:19 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 01 May 2011 15:01:36 -0700, wrote:

On Sun, 01 May 2011 12:09:00 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 01 May 2011 01:17:19 -0400, wf3h wrote:

he HAS ended our role in iraq. less than 50K soldiers there...about as
many as in germany.


How many road side bombs do they have in Germany?

Granted we are down to one or two dead GIs in Iraq every month but
that is one or two too many.

What about Afghanistan?

The ironic thing is Iraq will probably be seen as the successful war.
We may actually come out of that one with a functional government.
In 50 years Afghanistan will still be a corrupt collection of war
lords and tribal areas.

According to your nonsense, we should just pack our bags and leave
Germany and all other places tomorrow. A bunch of hooey.

Yes I do think we should pull the troops out of Germany. What is our
national interest there?
We are not saving the world from the Soviets and I doubt the Nazis are
coming back.
I can say the same thing about Japan.

You just can't accept the fact that Obama is doing what he can to
extricate us from Iraq. You can't accept the fact that Obama had to do
something in Afg.

We did what we were supposed to do in Afghanistan and like I have been
saying all along, it was one small special Ops team running a small
operation in Pakistan, not an army of 150,000 men in Afghanistan.

Amen.

On Mon, 02 May 2011 11:32:11 -0400, John H
wrote:

On Mon, 02 May 2011 01:31:19 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 01 May 2011 15:01:36 -0700, wrote:

On Sun, 01 May 2011 12:09:00 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 01 May 2011 01:17:19 -0400, wf3h wrote:

he HAS ended our role in iraq. less than 50K soldiers there...about as
many as in germany.


How many road side bombs do they have in Germany?

Granted we are down to one or two dead GIs in Iraq every month but
that is one or two too many.

What about Afghanistan?

The ironic thing is Iraq will probably be seen as the successful war.
We may actually come out of that one with a functional government.
In 50 years Afghanistan will still be a corrupt collection of war
lords and tribal areas.

According to your nonsense, we should just pack our bags and leave
Germany and all other places tomorrow. A bunch of hooey.

Yes I do think we should pull the troops out of Germany. What is our
national interest there?
We are not saving the world from the Soviets and I doubt the Nazis are
coming back.
I can say the same thing about Japan.

You just can't accept the fact that Obama is doing what he can to
extricate us from Iraq. You can't accept the fact that Obama had to do
something in Afg.

We did what we were supposed to do in Afghanistan and like I have been
saying all along, it was one small special Ops team running a small
operation in Pakistan, not an army of 150,000 men in Afghanistan.

Amen.

Ah..men... they are mostly short-sighted and think with their penises.