On Sun, 15 May 2011 12:24:12 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 15 May 2011 11:06:17 -0400, wf3h wrote:


what i said was that obama had no choice. the right, again, gamed the
system to protect their interests to ensure that we chose the most
expensive way to get healthcare for everyone

which is what I said.

How did the republicans "game the system" when it was the senate that
wrote the bill (actually Max Baucus and 2 WellPoint lobbyists
according to Howard Dean) and it was passed without any GOP votes?

you know, when i see right wingers make this argument i wonder what
their SPO2 reading is because it's obvious they live in a vacuum

uh...the dems wrote the bill. it took them over a YEAR

why?

well because the right hemmed and hawed, shucked and jived...and the
GOP filibustered ANY single payer provision, ANY provision that would
enable terminal patients to get info on palliative care, etc. and
STILL...after ALL these concessions were made, the right STILL
wouldn't support it.

do you DENY obama wanted a SINGLE payer option? where is it?

oh. the right cut it out.

we got the bill that the right wanted, insofar as it still allows the
uninsured to get coverage. YOU GUYS...the RIGHT engineered this to
make it benefit the wealthy and to make it as inefficient as possible,
even while expanding coverage

cant help you dude. YOU guys did this. a SINGLE PAYER system would
have been MORE effective and MORE effiicient but the right blocked it.


This is a "mandate", in other words the government makes you go to
those insurance companies.

we already have mandates. i have no kids. but i have to pay higher
taxes than those who do. that's a mandate.

this is another urban myth of the right. you guys build your entire
ideology on myths

Again you are diverting the subject. This is the first time they have
made people buy health insurance.

how do they 'make' them?

oh. they dont. they simply pay a tax if they dont buy insurance

just like i pay an additional tax if i dont have kids.

so you're wrong.

That "tax" starts out being low but raises to the cost of buying
insurance.

GOAL POST MOVING

FIRST you denied there were 'mandates' prior to this situation

NOW you're bitching about the SIZE of 'mandates'. the FACT is
'mandates' have ALWAYS been in the tax code. THIS one is no different.

HAHAHAHA gee whiz where did i EVER say the dems were innocent? a
PLUTOCRACY, by DEFINITION, doesnt depend on parties.

So you agree with me, OK

so you agree with me. OK


not familiar with the term, are you?

it's the RIGHT that's dong so much to kill the US. regardless of
party.

and there's little choice. when the system is rigged, it really doesnt
matter what party is in power

the dems have MORE of an orientation for the middle class but their
effects are mitigated by right wing myths like those you believe

and which i have demonstrated are false.


They talk a good game but they act the same as the gop.

really?

what healthcare bill did the GOP propose?

oh. none.



Cite that.
I see this
http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus.php?ind=F07

sorry. part of your myth making is that you dont pay attention to the
news

http://gothamist.com/2010/02/08/wall...ates_to_re.php
http://mydd.com/2010/2/24/wall-streee


I do not see that 80% you cited but I agree it is not as much in 2011
as it was in 2008 but in 2008 the democrats were the ones getting
65-70%

MOVING THE GOALPOSTS

what i said was that

What you said was EIGHTY PERCENT.

what YOU said was 30%! so i was off by 10%

you were off by 30%

gee.


wall street decided to shift its money when the DEMS pushed regulation

it doesnt matter HOW much was given. that's really irrelevant

Then why pull a lie out of your ass.

says the guy who INSISTED the split was either MORE for the dems or an
even split.

golly.


the FACT is the GOP got the money from wall street because wall street
realized the right wing would help them continue destroying the US.

The reason they shifted to the GOP was because it was the GOP that was
opposing the bailout.

the GOP AUTHORED THE BAILOUT. it was DEVISED by HENRY PAULSON, bush's
treasury secretary

even some dems believe right wing mythology. you're not immune. no
reason there arent stupid democrats. we have LOTS here in PA.

Like I said look inside YOUR party.

like i said, look inside YOUR ideology



and iraq? a TRILLION spent there by the liar bush. 4400 US troops

between bush's WARS and his SPENDING and his TAX CUTS for the RICH HE
bankrupted us, NOT the black guy

sorry, right winger. the facts destroy your belief in MYTH


You didn't cite any facts, only a baseless tirade.

really?

bush didnt start the iraq war?

Again he did that with a lot of democrat votes, including the current
Sec of State.

HAHAHAHA

let's see...bush LIED about WMD's. and you IGNORE that!!

i love it when you right wingers RUN from your history!


bush didnt have 2 tax cuts, in 2001 and 2003?

That Obama just extended,. That is now the Obama tax cut along with an
additional 2% cut in FICA which insured SS would never see a surplus
again.

guess you FORGOT obama TRIED to have tax cuts ONLY for those making
LESS than 250K

but the RIGHT, with their urban myth of 'supply side' economics,
INSISTED it be extended to the rich or they wouldnt vote for it

why do RIGHT WINGERS ALWAYS RUN from their own history?



and under bush? oh. 150,000

gee. i guess if you're right wing

150,000 is the same as 50,000

Obama just moved them to another quagmire in Afghanistan

tell it to bin laden. he'd disagree

oh. wait...there's a technical detail...


uh...why? could the presence of US troops be a deterrent?

golly. go figure. and where is the taliban? ummmm...in pakistan.

so you want us to go to war with pakistan

if our troops can make it through the nukes.

You still have not said why we are at war with Afghanistan if all of
the enemies are in Pakistan

you have still not said why you think we should invade pakistan



Think Somalia,
Yemen and Eastern Libya. Egypt may end up being the economic center of
the terrorists since they are nuzzling up to Iran as we speak.

HAHAHAHAA

there are NO taliban in somalia. the taliban are PASHTUNS...about 40%
of afghanistan is pashtun.

somalia has al shabab...a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT group

I thought this was a war on terrorism. The taliban is only interested
in getting us out of Afghanistan

and you know that how?? they MURDERED 3000 americans and here you are
telling us what patriots they are!

not too familiar with current affairs, i see

Yeah I do watch current affairs. I assume you don't know a hot bead of
Al qaeda is Eastern Libya, the same people we are backing in that war.

so qaddhafi says

guess you dont know the BIGGEST threat to the US is AQAP.

bet you never even heard of it.


If you understand terrorism at all you will understand Afghanistan is
a very small part of the problem but it is where we are putting most
of our people.

and yet afghanistan is where the attack on the WTC was launched from

go figure

Most of the planning was done in Western Europe and the critical
training was done in the US.

HAHAHAHA and i'm sure it had the approval of the respective govts like
bin laden did in afghanistan, right?

is THIS how the right argues?? in every single statement you've made,
you LEAVE OUT CENTRAL POINTS


All OBL did was have the concept and the money. That money was from
Saudi Arabia.
We are nation building, no more, no less. That is also what we are
doing in Iraq and have been since "mission accomplished".

oh. so BUSH's policy failed

Yes it did and Obama is continuing it. You are not reading are you.

really? obama is pursuing a very practical policy of NOT building
afghanistan except for the security services. and he's planning on
bringing 5000 troops back.


and are we 'nation building' or simply training a replacement for our
troops witha corrupt govt then getting out?

oh. you dont know that

Yes I do know that and the latter is true ... in both countries. It is
probably worse in Afghanistan. Karzai is totally corrupt, yet we are
still trying to prop him up.

yep. and that's fine. as long as he kills the taliban i dont care how
much he impoverishes his own people




We will "win" in Afghanistan the same way we did in Vietnam.

HAHAHAHA

really? gee. the taliban controls about 3% of afghan territory now.
it may be a stalemate but that's BETTER than vietnam

We control the cities and we do it with overwhelming force. When we
leave they will be right back in there. You said it yourself.

guess you missed the part where i said our ONLY role there should be
in building a military dictatorship.

you simply cant think for yourself

you believe in 'supply side economic's...which failed

I never said that.

sure you did. you HIDE the role of the right in continuing to turn the
US into a plutocracy.

you complain about the healthcare bill WITHOUT acknowledging it was
the RIGHT that gutted the single payer system

you complain about the 'bailout' while hiding the fact it was the GOP
that authored it

you complain about the depression while HIDING the fact it was the
MYTH of supply side economics that caused it.



you believe that NOTHING has changed in healthcare when we just got it
for 40 MILLION americans...

We still have a monopoly health care system with their hand in the
taxpayers pocket now.

gee. so what. that will NOT change unless the RIGHT starts to admit we
need checks and balances on wall street

the citiznes united decision was a clarion call by the RIGHT that our
election system is for sale

and THAT decision was supported by ALL FIVE CONSERVATIVE justices and
OPPOSED by ALL FOUR moderate judges


you dont know that the most recent election saw wall street money go
to the dems so try to shift the goalposts to PREVIOUS elections

Read what you typed.
I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you meant GOP. I
also told you why. It was the GOP who was fighting the bailout and
Wall Street was trying to buy them back The dems were in the bag.

the GOP NEVER fought the bailout because it was HENRY PAULSON who
AUTHORED IT and GEORGE BUSH who implemented it.

last time i checked, BOTH were republicans.

and the bailout was NECESSARY because the RIGHT has SOCIALIZED risk
and PRIVATIZED rewards. there is NO system of checks and balances on
corporate power because the RIGHT will NOT permit it


you dont know that this happened because the DEMS pushed regulation
while the GOP continues its failed policy of fundamentalist
deregulation

The regulation was toothless.

thanks to the american RIGHT WING. they opposed ANY regulation at all.
you IGNORE this


you dont know we have reduced our footprint in iraq and it's OUR
decision whether to stay

We seem to be stuck at 50,000 according to Gates

you dont know we're already talking about withdrwwing 5000 troops from
afghanistan

Oh wow, a 3% withdrawal. That will teach them.
What do you think it will level off at? 50,000?, 100,000?

gee. it's going in the opposite direction from bush. and this after
only 2 years of obama.

bush was there for 7 years

On Sun, 15 May 2011 14:48:28 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 15 May 2011 13:12:51 -0400, wf3h wrote:

On Sun, 15 May 2011 12:24:12 -0400, wrote:


well because the right hemmed and hawed, shucked and jived...and the
GOP filibustered ANY single payer provision, ANY provision that would
enable terminal patients to get info on palliative care, etc. and
STILL...after ALL these concessions were made, the right STILL
wouldn't support it.

do you DENY obama wanted a SINGLE payer option? where is it?

i got no problem saying the RIGHT...whether DEMS OR GOP is wrecking
the country. the right thinks there's nothing more important than
profit for the 1%


FIRST you denied there were 'mandates' prior to this situation

NOW you're bitching about the SIZE of 'mandates'. the FACT is
'mandates' have ALWAYS been in the tax code. THIS one is no different.

If the government is going to tax you as much as the insurance costs,
that is a mandate.

and each american pays a mandate of about 2300 for kids.

and there will be a subsidy for those who can't pay the mandate.

guess what they do for medical care now?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42993395...h-health_care/

gee. a death panel, courtesy of the pro life american right


MOVING THE GOALPOSTS

what i said was that

What you said was EIGHTY PERCENT.

what YOU said was 30%! so i was off by 10%

you were off by 30%

50%+1 is 18% away from 68%

Maybe we should go look at WHO they bribed. That might be more
telling. The senators they bought in 2008 were not running in 2010,
nor was Obama who got a lot more wall street money than McCain. (63%
or so as I recall but it was in the text of that 2008 link if you want
to check me)

and yet the GOP got 70% of wall street money when the DEMS started to
regulate wall street. and they got a pay off. the GOP is fighting any
regulation at all.

you wanna have sex with someone of the same gender the GOP wants all
KINDS Of govt regulations

you wanna steal a billion?

it's SMALL GOVT!!


even some dems believe right wing mythology. you're not immune. no
reason there arent stupid democrats. we have LOTS here in PA.

Like I said look inside YOUR party.

like i said, look inside YOUR ideology


You don't really seem to understand my idealogy very well and you keep
knee jerking me into some imaginary box you have created.



sure i do. you're the ideology of plutocracy


i'm in favor of capitalism

bush didnt start the iraq war?

Again he did that with a lot of democrat votes, including the current
Sec of State.

HAHAHAHA

let's see...bush LIED about WMD's. and you IGNORE that!!

i love it when you right wingers RUN from your history!

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.


They were the same ones who
criticized GHWB for not chasing the Iraqis all the way to Baghdad in
1991. These are the ones who are backed by AIPAC and have never seen a
war against Muslims that they didn't like.

and how many were president?

oh. zero.

how many were commander in chief?

zero.


bush didnt have 2 tax cuts, in 2001 and 2003?

That Obama just extended,. That is now the Obama tax cut along with an
additional 2% cut in FICA which insured SS would never see a surplus
again.

guess you FORGOT obama TRIED to have tax cuts ONLY for those making
LESS than 250K

but the RIGHT, with their urban myth of 'supply side' economics,
INSISTED it be extended to the rich or they wouldnt vote for it

why do RIGHT WINGERS ALWAYS RUN from their own history?

Maybe we just need a definition at this point. Are you saying that
around half of the democrats are right wing too?


not quite sure. GOP is more conservative than the dems are liberal, so
there's a right wing tilt to the senate:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42993395...h-health_care/

ben nelson and blanche lincoln both have ACU ratings of 48%-46%


and under bush? oh. 150,000

gee. i guess if you're right wing

150,000 is the same as 50,000

Obama just moved them to another quagmire in Afghanistan

tell it to bin laden. he'd disagree

oh. wait...there's a technical detail...

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

You still have not said why we are at war with Afghanistan if all of
the enemies are in Pakistan

you have still not said why you think we should invade pakistan

You miss my point, we should get the hell out of Afghanistan.

Our major successes are actually by UAV operators from an Air Force
base in the US or special ops guys flying in under the Radar, not by a
huge invasion force.

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


I thought this was a war on terrorism. The taliban is only interested
in getting us out of Afghanistan

and you know that how?? they MURDERED 3000 americans and here you are
telling us what patriots they are!

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

If your excuse for invading Afghanistan was just that they sheltered
OBL, what do you have to say about Pakistan?

mullah omar was the HEAD Of the taliban. and there are no nukes in
afghanistan. so there's NO eivdence the HEAD Of govt in pakistan knew
ANYTHING about OBL. the ISI certainly did, but this just means we have
to be at war with pakistan in a different way.


This showed a lot more
complicity from the government than anything that OBL ever had in
Afghanistan. If we can ignore that, why stay in Afghanistan. We should
just say we got the ******* and we are coming home.

absolutely wrong. no one agrees with you and you CANT find a SINGLE
refernce saying the taliban didnt know OBL was in afghanistan. not
one.


Yes I do know that and the latter is true ... in both countries. It is
probably worse in Afghanistan. Karzai is totally corrupt, yet we are
still trying to prop him up.

yep. and that's fine. as long as he kills the taliban i dont care how
much he impoverishes his own people

Killing taliban is like stepping on ants. It may make you feel like
you are doing something but you are at war with their birth rate.
Some day soon the population is going to throw Karzai out and they
will blame us for letting him stay there so long ... just like the
Egyptians

depends. if karzai is content to kill taliban and they are willing to
try and kill him, then we have a stand off. which is a win for us. as
long as we deny afghanistan to the taliban, we win.

On Mon, 16 May 2011 00:14:16 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 15 May 2011 16:07:44 -0400, wf3h wrote:

On Sun, 15 May 2011 14:48:28 -0400, wrote:


and yet the GOP got 70% of wall street money when the DEMS started to
regulate wall street. and they got a pay off. the GOP is fighting any
regulation at all.

I guess 68 is close to 70 but the point is that it was the gop going
off the reservation, fighting the bailout, so they needed the bribes.
The dems were solidly in the bag.

so it's OK when the GOP gets bribed to do wall street's bidding

but when the dems tell wall street to shove it, that proves they'e
doing what wall street wants

uh....OK...
y!

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??


They were the same ones who
criticized GHWB for not chasing the Iraqis all the way to Baghdad in
1991. These are the ones who are backed by AIPAC and have never seen a
war against Muslims that they didn't like.

and how many were president?

oh. zero.

how many were commander in chief?

zero.


See above.

you bet


not quite sure. GOP is more conservative than the dems are liberal, so
there's a right wing tilt to the senate:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42993395...h-health_care/

ben nelson and blanche lincoln both have ACU ratings of 48%-46%

Ah Nelson, the Cornhusker kickback guy? Great example of the flaws in
the health care bill.

yep, nelson's the most conservative dem. figures he's unprincipled

most right wingers are.

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 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


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.


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



If your excuse for invading Afghanistan was just that they sheltered
OBL, what do you have to say about Pakistan?

mullah omar was the HEAD Of the taliban. and there are no nukes in
afghanistan. so there's NO eivdence the HEAD Of govt in pakistan knew
ANYTHING about OBL. the ISI certainly did, but this just means we have
to be at war with pakistan in a different way.

So you think the only reason we attacked Afghanistan is because they
don't have any nukes.

that's a pretty good start.



Killing taliban is like stepping on ants. It may make you feel like
you are doing something but you are at war with their birth rate.
Some day soon the population is going to throw Karzai out and they
will blame us for letting him stay there so long ... just like the
Egyptians

depends. if karzai is content to kill taliban and they are willing to
try and kill him, then we have a stand off. which is a win for us. as
long as we deny afghanistan to the taliban, we win.

Karzai is supporting theTaliban.That dog don't hunt.

ROFLMAO!! they're trying to kill him and he's supporting them?

uh...OK..

so far all you've told us is what great guys the taliban are and how
OBL was innocent

any other delusions you got?

In article ,
says...

On Mon, 16 May 2011 00:14:16 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 15 May 2011 16:07:44 -0400, wf3h wrote:

On Sun, 15 May 2011 14:48:28 -0400, wrote:


and yet the GOP got 70% of wall street money when the DEMS started to
regulate wall street. and they got a pay off. the GOP is fighting any
regulation at all.

I guess 68 is close to 70 but the point is that it was the gop going
off the reservation, fighting the bailout, so they needed the bribes.
The dems were solidly in the bag.

so it's OK when the GOP gets bribed to do wall street's bidding

but when the dems tell wall street to shove it, that proves they'e
doing what wall street wants

uh....OK...
y!

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??

When did Bush lie, was it ever proven in court because that's the line
you demand for democrats? In other words, your arguments are based on
intellectuality dishonest fantasy...



They were the same ones who
criticized GHWB for not chasing the Iraqis all the way to Baghdad in
1991. These are the ones who are backed by AIPAC and have never seen a
war against Muslims that they didn't like.

and how many were president?

oh. zero.

how many were commander in chief?

zero.


See above.

you bet


not quite sure. GOP is more conservative than the dems are liberal, so
there's a right wing tilt to the senate:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42993395...h-health_care/

ben nelson and blanche lincoln both have ACU ratings of 48%-46%

Ah Nelson, the Cornhusker kickback guy? Great example of the flaws in
the health care bill.

yep, nelson's the most conservative dem. figures he's unprincipled

most right wingers are.

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 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


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.


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



If your excuse for invading Afghanistan was just that they sheltered
OBL, what do you have to say about Pakistan?

mullah omar was the HEAD Of the taliban. and there are no nukes in
afghanistan. so there's NO eivdence the HEAD Of govt in pakistan knew
ANYTHING about OBL. the ISI certainly did, but this just means we have
to be at war with pakistan in a different way.

So you think the only reason we attacked Afghanistan is because they
don't have any nukes.

that's a pretty good start.



Killing taliban is like stepping on ants. It may make you feel like
you are doing something but you are at war with their birth rate.
Some day soon the population is going to throw Karzai out and they
will blame us for letting him stay there so long ... just like the
Egyptians

depends. if karzai is content to kill taliban and they are willing to
try and kill him, then we have a stand off. which is a win for us. as
long as we deny afghanistan to the taliban, we win.

Karzai is supporting theTaliban.That dog don't hunt.

ROFLMAO!! they're trying to kill him and he's supporting them?

uh...OK..

so far all you've told us is what great guys the taliban are and how
OBL was innocent

any other delusions you got?



--
Team Rowdy Mouse, Banned from the Mall for life!

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

On Mon, 16 May 2011 18:01:59 -0400, wf3h wrote:

On Mon, 16 May 2011 00:14:16 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 15 May 2011 16:07:44 -0400, wf3h wrote:

On Sun, 15 May 2011 14:48:28 -0400, wrote:


and yet the GOP got 70% of wall street money when the DEMS started to
regulate wall street. and they got a pay off. the GOP is fighting any
regulation at all.

I guess 68 is close to 70 but the point is that it was the gop going
off the reservation, fighting the bailout, so they needed the bribes.
The dems were solidly in the bag.

so it's OK when the GOP gets bribed to do wall street's bidding

but when the dems tell wall street to shove it, that proves they'e
doing what wall street wants

uh....OK...

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.



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.


They were the same ones who
criticized GHWB for not chasing the Iraqis all the way to Baghdad in
1991. These are the ones who are backed by AIPAC and have never seen a
war against Muslims that they didn't like.

and how many were president?

oh. zero.

how many were commander in chief?

zero.


See above.

you bet







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.

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).


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.



If your excuse for invading Afghanistan was just that they sheltered
OBL, what do you have to say about Pakistan?

mullah omar was the HEAD Of the taliban. and there are no nukes in
afghanistan. so there's NO eivdence the HEAD Of govt in pakistan knew
ANYTHING about OBL. the ISI certainly did, but this just means we have
to be at war with pakistan in a different way.

So you think the only reason we attacked Afghanistan is because they
don't have any nukes.

that's a pretty good start.



Killing taliban is like stepping on ants. It may make you feel like
you are doing something but you are at war with their birth rate.
Some day soon the population is going to throw Karzai out and they
will blame us for letting him stay there so long ... just like the
Egyptians

depends. if karzai is content to kill taliban and they are willing to
try and kill him, then we have a stand off. which is a win for us. as
long as we deny afghanistan to the taliban, we win.

Karzai is supporting theTaliban.That dog don't hunt.

ROFLMAO!! they're trying to kill him and he's supporting them?

uh...OK..

so far all you've told us is what great guys the taliban are and how
OBL was innocent

any other delusions you got?

Karzai is for anyone who is paying him. If that is Taliban, he is
Taliban

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.

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.

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



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.


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.

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.


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.

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.

On Tue, 17 May 2011 21:16:54 -0400, wrote:

On Tue, 17 May 2011 16:04:16 -0700, wrote:

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

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


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.
Then the GOP didn't get "the lion's share" did it? They didn't even
get half.

In 2008. How about all the other years?

Secondly, the
Republicans "not in the room" is load of hogwash. They got lots of
input and many of their suggestions were incorporated.

Maybe you should explain that to Howard Dean. He was head of your
party when he said the bill was written in Max Baucus' office by two
WellPoint lobbyists.
You are thinking about the house bill that was thrown away.

It was not "thrown away." Another nonsense statement from someone bent
on supporting extremist points of view?

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.

This has been a "no recovery" recovery for most of the people and the
only thing we have to prove Paulson was right is him saying so.


Untrue as usual. We would have been much worse off. I know that
doesn't play in lots of places because people are still hurting, but
the economy is getting better.


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.

How do you think Libya is going to end?

No idea. You're the Oracle of Florida.


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.

That sounds great but you are ignoring the fact that we were losing
high tech jobs at a record rate to downsizing. IBM laid off 50,000
people from the technical staff between 1992 and 1996. The RBOCs
(telephone companies if you are unfamiliar with the term) laid off
more than that.

So, the economy is doing fine. The debt is zero or nearly so, but
Clinton failed. Got it.

Unemployment was low because so many people took buyouts and went into
early retirement.
Part of those deals made it impossible to collect unemployment.
Instead of "employees" they got "contractors" (no benefits, no job
security and the contractor pays his own FICA). Sweet for the
corporation. It is no wonder there were record profits.
That was reflected in great stock prices, but it turns out some of
those "profits" were fraud.
The stock market looked great but we had a crash in 2000 that took
half of the value away from the NASDAQ. when the investors figured out
the profits were not real.
If we had not created all of those Wall Street tricks, borrowing to
fund the real estate bubble we would have been in recession in most of
the 2000s.
You seem obsessed with the blowjobs (I won't make that joke)
The thing that got screwed was US industrial capacity.

Again, Clinton's fault. You seem obsessed with trashing one of the
best presidents we've had in a long time.

The 90s was when US corporations figured out all the money was to be
made by dismantling factories and shipping them offshore. GHWB and
Clinton assured they had trade agreements to make it largely tariff
free when the products came back.
We are paying for that now as money is flying out of the country and
we have to borrow it back.

Yeah, I guess Reagan had no hand in our problems. Sure.


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.

So now you agree H. Clinton and Schumer lied too. OK

No. They were mislead, as I said. Keep trying to change what I said if
it makes you feel better.


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.

Yet we have 150,000 soldiers chasing them in one country where their
presence is minimal to non-existent. That is a good use of a couple
hundred billion isn't it?

No. They're not chasing AQ. They're fighting the Taliban for the most
part, who would let AQ back in in an instant. Re-read Gate's
commentary, this time for meaning.


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.


I am reacting to today's news, you are still living in 2003. You still
think GW Bush is president.

You still venerate him, apparently.