BoatBanter.com - 2nd Kook Seeks GOP Nomination

On Tue, 17 May 2011 15:46:05 -0400, wrote:

On Tue, 17 May 2011 10:34:15 -0700, wrote:

On Tue, 17 May 2011 01:52:10 -0400, wrote:

On Mon, 16 May 2011 21:54:45 -0700, wrote:

On Mon, 16 May 2011 23:45:55 -0400, wrote:

I do not see the Dems telling anyone to shove it. They are the same to
me when it comes to Wall Street. You saw where the money went in 08.

Obama is doing exactly what the GOP would do and so did Clinton. That
is why the big money didn't take a serious swing at either of them.
Come on. MCain/Palin? Dole/Kemp?
That is a party that didn't want it very bad.

Really? Exactly the same? Wow. That's shockingly narrow-minded and
total BS.

In regard to the industries I listed in this thread (this note and
others), what is the difference?
Obama brought GW Bush's economic team and his financial policy over
virtually unchanged. The Democratic Senate gave us a health care bill
that was little more than a gift to the insurance and health care
provider corporations. The military industrial complex is still
chugging along unchecked.
All you have to do is look who gave the dems their money in 2008 to
see why.

You're going to claim it was the Dems fault that the less than perfect
healthcare bill was passed? It was fought tooth and nail by the
Republicans, who received the lion's share of the lobbying money.

Two wrong statements does not make it right

The Dems got more of the health care money in 2008
From the top 100 Amount Dem Rep
Blue Cross/Blue Shield $3,847,104 49% 51%
American Hospital Assn $2,797,733 61% 39%
American Dental Assn $2,562,690 53% 47%
Pfizer Inc $2,338,950 51% 49%
American Medical Assn $1,921,047 56% 44%

and the GOP was not even in the room when Baucus wrote the bill that
was passed by the senate. The dems knew they were going to pass it
without any GOP votes so I am not sure how they were relevant.

Firstly, it seems pretty evenly divided in 2008. Secondly, the
Republicans "not in the room" is load of hogwash. They got lots of
input and many of their suggestions were incorporated. That's right
wing nonsense.

Obama replaced many of the senior people at Treasury and in his
cabinet. Too bad reality hurts. Obama continued what Bush started re
not letting the US/World economies collapse, sure.

The top guys are still Wall Street insiders.
You are just parroting Paulson about the world collapsing if we did
not bail out Goldman Sachs. There were plenty of other ways we could
have spent 3/4ths of a trillion dollars and not making those rich
people you hate richer. Most millionaires are in finance and they are
really the only ones who made out in the bail out.

Yet, being a WS insider is not the same thing as keeping the same
people. So, you just made it up. Paulson, despite his poor
performance, was right, and Bush was right to listen to him.

Yeah, everyone is dumb and/or corrupt except you.

Gates has struggled to end many of the military industrial complex
projects, e.g., the new air force fighter.

Yet he still defends 3 bad wars

Nope. He didn't. Which 3? Oh, you must mean Libya. Another right wing
fantasy that we're going in next week. Never mind.

Clinton was the best "big business" president since Herbert Hoover but
Obama is catching up to him pretty fast. That leaves the GOP with
nothing but a few emotional issues to run on.

Pretty different situation though isn't it. The economy was actually
doing pretty well under Clinton. Obama is definitely pro business or
is he a Marxist? It's hard to tell when you listen to your right wing
friends. So, either he's so pro business that he's ruining the economy
or he's such a leftist that he's ruining the economy. Basically,
that's your argument.

The economy looked pretty vibrant but it was based on corporate
"profits" that turned out to actually be because of downsizing,
selling off capital assets and a huge amount of simple fraud.
During that time Clinton was overseeing the gutting of financial
regulations and the exporting of our industry and our jobs.
Herbert Hoover would be proud.

Sure. Except employment was up, business was booming, everything was
going smoothly. Therefore, it's all Clinton's fault because he got a
blow job.

I am not running from anything. There were plenty of neocon democrats
who were eager to have a war with Iraq.
\
how many were president?

oh. zero.

Congress has to pay for those wars and there are some war resolutions
I can go look up if you really need the votes.

and how many would have done so if bush hadn't LIED??

Clinton, Schumer and Lieberman were right behind him cheering him on.
You have plenty of neocons on your side.

Total BS.

Do you want me to go get the Iraq war resolution vote? I could get the
congressional record transcripts of the debate.
I won't even charge you $350
I just bet you would change the subject.

After being lied to by Bush/Cheney.... interesting how you forget that
part when it's convenient.

Hillary and Chuck were on the Senate intelligence committee. They saw
the same reports as Bush did.
Did they lie too?

Yep, right after Cheney's 5000 visit to Langley.

Yeah the technical detain is OBL was in Pakistan and it was not a
150,000 man army that got him., It was a small team of special ops
people. That is what we should have been doing all along.

and obama has been moving in that direction as well, which is why the
number of these operations has increased, along with increased drone
strikes. but you dont just cut and run

How many GIs have to die before you decide it is a waste of capital.

how many new yorkers have to die before you decide it wasnt?

You are waging a war on people who had nothing to do with it.
Bin Laden was in Afghanistan but he left almost 10 years ago.
As far as we know Karzai was covering for him too and we are backing
Karzai.

So, you're claiming the Taliban didn't harbor OBL and was never
involved in terrorism... wow.

No I am saying the same government we are currently propping up
probably had as much to do with OBL being there as this nebulous
concept of the taliban.
If harboring OBL is a crime worth us spending $400 billion and a 10
year occupation why are we letting Pakistan off the hook?

Feel free to give Sec. Clinton a call and let her know. I'm sure she'd
appreciate your advice.

I suppose she is the one who released the report that is on CNN as we
speak. It says the Al Qaeda people OBL was talking to are in Yemen,
not Afghanistan.
We have 150,000 people chasing terrorists who are 1500 miles away.

I guess you never heard that AQ is not a centrally located
organization.

You sound like Nixon now. Do we want "Peace with Honor"?
That cost us about 30,000 guys and we still lost.

gee. i just missed being drafted for vietnam. i got over vietnam
syndrome

you havent

Pity. The people who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it.
and yet if we dont stablize afghanistan, the taliban will return, they
will set up operations with al qaida and we'll have pakistin and
afghanistan to deal with

The taliban is going to return. We have no way to stop them.

sure we do. we set up a dictatorship that's a ruthless killer. it's
been done before

how much luck did al qaida have in iraq?

none.

So now you are saying you like brutal dictatorships? Nice.
Maybe we should have backed Mubarak and we should be backing Qdaffy.
I guess we should have dusted off Saddam, made him promise to be good
and put him back in the palace.

No, we should have attacked him for being absolutely no threat to us
or our allies.

... except he was giving the family of any suicide bomber who
attacked Israel $25,000

Except that Israel was doing just fine. Feel free to keep justifying a
war of choice and lying to the American people (and the world).

Afghanistan was a war of choice too. I have been telling you for a
year, if we just want to kill OBL and other terrorist leaders, covert
operation is a lot more effective than a 150,000 troop, $400 billion
dollar war with Islam.

No it wasn't. You know that, but you're still defending Bush's failed
policy of ignoring that country in pursuit of Saddam.

You keep acting like I supported the Iraq war. You are either not
paying attention or you are just ignoring it because it interferes
with you ranting about the only thing you have.

Feel free to defend Bush any way you want.

The Taliban had nothing to do with 9-11. Most of them still have never
even heard of it.

sure they did. in fact, you lost all credibility when you made that
statement

OBL was living in kabul on 9/11. when mullah omar was ordered by the
US to turn over OBL, he refused, saying OBL was a guest in afghanist

so your statement is wrong. and it's like saying the japanese had no
responsibility for hte attack on pearl harbor

That is total bull****. The japs were flying the planes that attacked
Pear Harbor. There were ZERO Taliban guys on the planes on 9-11, nor
were they really involved in the plot at all. To use your logic, we
should declare war on Pakistan today

now let's see

OBL was living in afghanistan

he planned the attack from there with his conspirators

you DO know that, if you are engaged in a conspiracy you are as guilty
if you PLAN it as those who carry it out....that's the law.

so you're an appeaser. you're the only moron ive seen who loves the
taliban
The Taliban is in Pakistan too, as was OBL. Do you want to attack them
too?

Sounds like you do. Are you even aware of the nuanced situation?
Sounds like you aren't.

There is not much nuance when you have 150,000 occupiers in a country
for no good reason

Some day soon Obama will tell you this and you will believe it ... I
hope.

Umm... we're in Afg. not Pakistan. Try to keep up.

The terrorists OBL was working with are in Yemen. You are the one who
is not keeping up.

Sounds like you're changing the subject. First it was Afg., then
Pakistan, now you're all hot in the head about Yemen. Whatever.